Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 15

< March 14	March 16 >

March 15

File:Paleo-Hebrew.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. The file naming issue can be rectified with a page move. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across the source of this file, http://www.omniglot.com/writing/aramaic.htm, which is neither archaeologically authenticatable nor, as far as I can tell, in the public domain or otherwise free for usage. Previous discussion took place here. Dan ☺ 23:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source may be this 1990 book [1]. The symbols exactly match those given in the book, and so can be considered verifiable from a reliable source. As far as copyright goes, if they are an alphabet, they are covered by pd-font. If they are something else, but genuinely ancient, they are pd-old. Even if they are a creative design invented by Randy from Boise two weeks ago, they are almost certainly pd-ineligible. Thparkth (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source Thparkth provided confirms the archaeological authenticity of the sample, unfortunately at the same time it reveals that the file is falsely titled as “Paleo-Hebrew”, being in fact an “Early Aramaic” sample. This is crucial, since this file, or rather its derivatives on commons, are used mostly for comparison with very closely related scripts, and are thus thoroughly misinformative. Dan ☺ 23:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is likely misleading. Thparkth (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I am willing to rename the file to correct the mistake but I think the discussion needs to close before I do that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Image content does not include threshold of originality required for copyright. Similar to taking a random series of letters and putting them in an image, which is not subject to copyright either. Text-only company logos are also not eligible for copyright, such as File:Microsoft wordmark.svg. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's areement now that there's no copyright issue here, but rather one of misinformation. To which the beginning of a solution might be renaming, which I suppose would need to be followed by renaming the derivatives on commons, which are the files used extensively on various wikipedias. Dan ☺ 23:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hrboard.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The bottom line is that this fails WP:NFCC#1, because this kind of illustration can be replaced with a free image in SVG, i.e. someone can go in with Inkscape or another SVG editor and draw up the general concept to illustrate it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive fairuse. The show doesn't need any more than one or two screenshots. Adds nothing to comprehension. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. The number of screenshots is not inappropriate given the length and depth of the article, and this specific image illustrates a specific concept. Thparkth (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Length and detail of article is irrelevant as to whether a non-free image is appropriate. This image does not necessarily illustrate a concept, as its caption simply reads "Two contestants in an episode from 1980". Rational does not explain why the image is used in the article, aside from "for informational purposes only". Any "informational purposes" need to be elaborated upon. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Trebekhr.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive fairuse. The show doesn't need any more than one or two screenshots. Adds nothing to comprehension. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as with the above file. Thparkth (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image does not illustrate the article in any way other than to identify its host, Alex Trebek. Non-free image of Trebek is unnecessary because we already have plenty of them. Additionally, non-free images of living people are almost never allowed on Wikipedia. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hrbonus.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive fairuse. The show doesn't need any more than one or two screenshots. Adds nothing to comprehension. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one. Not really justified in terms of illustrating a specific point. Thparkth (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, rationale does not explain what this "specific point" is. More detail than "for informational purposes" must be provided as a reason for inclusion. Image could potentially be replaced by a non-free image, such as an SVG drawing of the board, instead of a non-free screenshot. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Asutosh1.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indian postage stamps are copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and the use of this stamp in an article about the subject of the stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3. More importantly it fails WP:NFCC#8 because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article and the fact that the Indian postal service produced a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp. ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Covey Book Leader In Me.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete book cover are usually used in articles about the book itself and not in those of the author but the text fair-use rationale claims it is used in an article discussing the book in question. While it is used in a section that comments on the book it is decoration and fails WP:NFCC#8 because it is no necessary for the reader to understand the book was published. ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. General practice is that book cover images are considered fair use in articles discussing the book. This is long-established. In this case there is no article specific to the book, but it is discussed in the author's article and the fair use claim is equally valid there. (Very often, marginally-notable books by notable authors do not have articles of their own - this does not invalidate the fair use claim.) Thparkth (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is one of those narrow ones. As the nom correctly points out if it was an article about the book itself the cover art would be fine. However as this is an article about the author there is really no need to see the book cover. If this were an accepted use every article about an author would have non-free images of all of their books. (And by the same logic all articles about directors would have non-free cover art for each of their projects, actors for each role, musicians for each release, business for every product) In other words - Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. The other thing that slight bothers me is the summary of the image says "With permission" (by Covey's publicist Deb Lund, with permission) - which either indicates "Wikipedia use only" or simply that Wikipedia has permission to use it in the authors article. If a permissions OTRS can be obtained for this than obviously the image could stay with no issues. However a publicist most likely would not own the copyright on the cover art itself, so other than saying Wikipedia could use it it is doubtful they could legally license the work via a free "for any and all uses" license. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fundamentally disagree that an article must be exclusively about a particular book to justify a fair use claim. The title of the article is irrelevant for fair use. The content is what matters. The fair use claim is either justified by the content of the article in which it is being used, or it is not. The "with permission" issue is a red herring for a fair use image. Thparkth (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: A recent discussion about non-free content, specifically cover art, resulted in a consensus that the "critical commentary" was not the text of the article but the subject of the article. In other words an article about a book is considered "critical commentary" so use of cover art is allowed. However use of such over art outside of an article about the product the cover art is from still requires critical commentary on the cover art itself and not the product the cover art is from. In this article use of the cover art in an article about the books author that contains a list of the books authored is simply a decoration and fails the policy. As for the "red herring" comment - Wikipedia has a non-free content policy which is to be used when there is no permission for use. If this image did, indeed, have permission for use than we would not be having any discussion because the image in question would have an OTRS on file. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply an article may have more than one subject. Whenever we merge less-notable works into notable-author articles, which happens very frequently, this is what we do. Thparkth (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:That fact stub article are merged into larger artifices does not change the NFCC requirements. the nom is correct in that in its current form there is no need to show the book itself under a list of books the author has written. There is zero commentary on the cover art itself, and that is a requirement for such material to be used outside of an article about a product. Feel free to start another RFC on the issue and see if you can get a different outcome than the last one. Unless the consensus on such use changes the policy and guideline specific to cover art is clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Rajini in Athisayapiravi.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image overuse. Article about movie actor with four similar screenshots from different films, all claimed to be necessary to "illustrate the normal looks of the subject in his films". No analytical commentary about the movies and individual scenes beyond that. One such screenshot might be okay, four is most certainly overuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that last image is used in two other articles - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Not anymore. I removed it from Shriya Saran; but it's still in Sivaji (film). BollyJeff || talk 15:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, images needed to better illustrate subjects. EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first three; they are not even used anymore. BollyJeff || talk 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the unused first three images. Thparkth (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Delete all. The first ones are no longer used and the last one is used, but is not being used per policy. It is stuck in the "plot" section of the article along with File:Faceoff sivaji.png (To illustrate the adversaries from the film) and File:Revival sivaji.png (To illustrate the climax of the film). Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: close, without prejudice against speedy renomination if someone still wants to delete it. We now have a discussion about this image at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg which can be used as precedent if this image needs to be discussed again, but considering the different discussions going on, and the thoroughness of the other discussion, it seems most prudent to deliberately set this discussion aside, let the air clear a bit, and ponder the points raised in that discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC) See also: IFD, DRV,Non-free content review, AN/i, article subpage discussion[reply]

Copyright violation. The image belongs to the family and no permission is granted. The file has already been deleted before. Fair use is disputed Wikipedia:Non-free content review.

Almasry Alyoum: Al-Masry Al-Youm has obtained a copy of records of the investigation into the killing of Alexandrian Khaled Saeed... When Saeed’s mother returned to give a testimony for the second time.... When asked about the photos taken of the body, she said that Saeed’s brother took them on his mobile phone while he was at the morgue at 3:00 AM. http://www.almasryalyoum.com/node/55686 USchick (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there appears to be a valid fair use claim for this image. Thparkth (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the DRV and NFR, where all concerns have been discussed at length, so no point re-hashing them here. FUR looks fine (unless policy needs to change, but that is for another place). Consensus has already been established via lengthy discussions. Chzz ► 02:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The previous discussions took place before the owner of the photo was known. Previous discussions were about the graphic nature of the photo, not ownership. USchick (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:This is really starting to be major forum shopping now. In any case - Image was deleted in the past because text conveys that same points. DRV was based on "not censored", ignoring the NFCC elements. Other discussions are a combination of "not censored", copyright, and NFCC. There has been a standing NFCC issue with the image and it still stands - text can convey the same thing. (NFCC 8) On the wider NFCC issue is the issue of how this was first obtained. NFCC requires that all 10 of the criteria are met and in this case NFCC 6 is a serious issue. The Media-specific policy for this material is Wikipedia:Image use policy and it needs to be looked at. By all accounts this image was obtained by a family member paying off someone in a private place, in which case the image "unfairly obtained." There have also, in the past, been issues of the image possibly being added simply to draw attention to the article, also a violation of the same policy if true, and those opinions should be considered, hopefully those who voiced those opinions in other discussions will also state them here as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you're trying to make an argument based on the Moral Issues section of IUP. What I don't get is specifically why you feel this image was "unfairly obtained". It is certainly not clear to me that "a family member paying off someone in a private place" makes the image "unfairly obtained". The "moral issues" criteria are naturally going to involve judgement calls which reasonable editors may disagree on, but I'm just not following your argument here at all. Thparkth (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your edit summary you want me to "expand" the argument. That is a fair request however as this image is already under a non free content review, it was deleted one month ago, it was DRV'd, it went to An/i, it has been discussed on the article talk page - the "expansion" would only include all of that information in more detail. While I did not know all of that when I posted at the NFC review, after I was informed and I read all of the discussions I saw there had been no real solid discussion that was fully based on NFCC of the Image use policy. Most of them that did raise NFCC issues are followed by lots of "not censored" comments. So - rather than expand here I would suggest you (and anyone/everyone else) read (all) of the Non-free content review. However if you want to skip around and go to my first post (Prior to being told about all the other discussions) skip to Policy and guidelines. If want more of my replies skip to arbitrary break. If you still have questions than by all means ask and I will reply here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have explained why you feel the image was "unfairly obtained" in that earlier discussion either. I don't want to put words into your mouth and argue against what I *think* you're saying. Can you please clarify? I think answering this one question would shed quite a lot of light: if the image was "unfairly obtained," who is it unfair to? Thparkth (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I know that discussion is all over the place but the response was in direct reply to the discussion of how the image was obtained. You need to read the policy in regards to the examples of what is considered a "private place" - two of the examples are "At any medical facility" and "In the parts of a building where the general public is not allowed". Where was this image taken? By all accounts is was not taken in a public setting, it was possibly at a "medical facility", but more important is it was, for sure, in a part "of a building where the general public is not allowed". So the next quesiton would be how the image was obtained if this was a private location? According the the conversations, and various sources now coming to light (That were not part of the discussion at first as the sources were still not known), a family member paid off someone at this private place and either took a photo themselves or had the person they paid off take the image. In that case the image itself was "unfairly obtained" - "unfair to who?" would be the facility itself. The fact that is the image was either taken form the brothers phone, or emailed to people by the brother, still does not change the root of how the image was first obtained - which seems to have been illegally. Certainly what follows is also important because, again, now based on citations provided, the brother visited the location, perhaps to I.D the body, and obtained the image. That is an entirely separate issue but it relates because how did the image get from the brother to everyone? Did he sell it? Did he send it to a cousin? Was it sent to someone else? It depends on what article is correct - one source uses the wording "His family released a photograph to an activist...", another says says "Said's cousins created a page on Facebook to expose what they called police brutality" and another says "A photograph of his pummeled face is on a Facebook page devoted to him." Another says "circulated on websites and blogs...", another says "a leaked morgue photo of his mangled corpse". And even the first source could be questioned - one says "relatives bribed a guard at the morgue to take a photo of the corpse", another says "a photograph taken by his older brother Ahmed", another says "Said’s family obtained photos of his battered corpse from a morgue guard". Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So to be very clear, your main argument is that this image was "unfairly obtained" because it was photographed without permission of the morgue. In my opinion the political and historical significance of this image vastly outweighs such a minor issue. From the other discussion going on it does seem that consensus is against you on this point. Thparkth (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. USchick (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without explaining why you believe that, your comment carries no weight. Thparkth (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:RE: consensus is against you on this point - If you want to discuss the other discussion in terms of "consensus" about if the image was illegally obtained - there is no wide discussion on that issue outside of myself and three other editors, two of which who also seem to agree the image appears to have been illegally obtained. So I think you must have misread whatever it was the you had read. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My "consensus" comment is not about whether or not the image was illegally obtained - it probably was - but regarding whether or not this makes it fall foul of "moral issues". For what it's worth, I intend to stop commenting here now because this discussion is clearly redundant. Thparkth (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - The only arguments made for deletion are that the image is a copyright violation (which is irrelevant for a claimed fair use image) or that it has an invalid fair use claim. It is therefore not possible for this discussion to come to a conclusion independently of the ongoing non-free content review for the same image. I believe this discussion should be procedurally closed now without prejudice. Thparkth (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment non-free media use is disputed for both articles. There is a 7 day resolution process. USchick (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have closed the discussion at WP:NFCR. I am leaving this discussion for another uninvolved administrator. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:McGuinness- 1917 election.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CV Rchrdcllnn (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claim by nominator for removal - uploader apparently not holder of copyright and/or that image is not in public domain - 70 year rule . RashersTierney (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.