Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 December 8

< December 7	December 9 >

December 8[edit]

File:Chart 1.JPG[edit]

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 ⚡ 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image that should not be an image Beao 00:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Reh man 05:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused chart, and per nom, shouldn't be an image. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:33, 9 December 2010 (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:Chart 2.JPG[edit]

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 ⚡ 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image that should not be an image Beao 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Reh man 05:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused chart, and per nom, shouldn't be an image. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:34, 9 December 2010 (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:Babujane1.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Notability? RabidDeity (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as unused. Reh man 05:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:34, 9 December 2010 (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:Ghs students.jpg[edit]

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 all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These images were taken from various Web pages. The uploader has tagged them with {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, but there is no indication on any of the source pages that they are indeed licensed under a Creative Commons license. I tagged them with {{npd}}, but the uploader has removed these tags and has retagged most of them with {{ownwork}}. —Bkell (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just ridiculous. These images have been up for well over two or three months and only NOW you tag them? What is the sense (or reason) in that? And don't give me any of the "we didn't notice them back then" bullshit either. Joker264 (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do apologize for not noticing them earlier, but I'm afraid I can't constantly monitor every image on Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I say "don't give me the we didn't notice them earlier bullshit either" and what do you say... whatever, we'll let the community decide. Joker264 (talk)

Delete: The pictures (at least most of them, so one would assume the rest are too) does seem non-free. And just out of curiosity, why is it bullshit to notice that some pictures probably are non-free a couple of months after they are uploaded? --Beao 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell are they "non free" -- the pictures used in the article Geelong High School are found on the schools official website for crying out loud. If these deleted, that means pictures on other school pages should be deleted too because most of them would be found on their respective schools websites also. The one used in the article Dawn of Retribution is found on the bands official Facebook page and deleting this would mean that every band picture that ever existed on Wikipedia would also have to be deleted. The picture used on ESPNU College Town is the game cover-art-- so what you're telling me is that you are gonna go around deleting other game's cover art? I think not. And I think it's bullshit because only NOW you notice them and obviously other editors have since gone by those pages but when you and Bkell you think that they are not acceptable for Wikipedia... For crying out loud, one they help illustrate their respective pages, two, they are found, FREELY ACCESSIBLE on the pages topics' respective websites and three, deleting these pictures would mean you would have to delete every picture that ever existed on Wikipedia. Joker264 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Freely accessible on the Internet" does not mean "freely licensed." You claim, by adding the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} tags on the images' description pages, that the copyright holder has released them for unrestricted worldwide use under a Creative Commons license. There is no evidence that this is the case; in fact, many of the source pages say things like "© Geelong High School" or "© 2010 The National Education Directory of Australia Pty Ltd." that specifically indicate that the content is copyrighted and cannot be used elsewhere without permission by the copyright holder. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia image use policy and file copyright tags. —Bkell (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I do not share the "these images have been up for well over two or three months and only NOW you tag them" argument. Reh man 02:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, File:Espnu ct.jpg has been changed to a non-free logo template and now has a fair use. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been tagged as a non-free log, but it has still not been provided with a non-free use rationale, nor any other copyright information, such as the source of the work, as is required. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually i had added the fair use, as stated above, so the only key thing it is missing is a source, which has now been added. Salavat (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately Joker264 evidently shares the very common belief that anything posted on the internet is automatically released into the public domain, which is, of course, mistaken. Nor does Joker264's WP:OTHERSTUFF argument "other copyvios exist so this one can too" carry any weight, nor does "they have mistakenly been allowed to stay for some time so they can stay indefinitely". The simple fact is that there is no evidence that any of these files is licensed for free use. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Changed licence tags and added a fair-use rationale. If the licencing is incorrect or any information is missing from the rationale's, please edit. Joker264 (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following of the images are potentially replaceable by freely licensed versions, and thus fail WP:NFCC#1 and cannot be used on Wikipedia under a fair-use claim:

File:Ghs students.jpg
File:Ghs students2.jpg
File:MainbuildingGHS.jpg
File:GeelongHSWinstanley.jpg
File:Vcal.jpg
File:DanceGHS.jpg, if all it's being used for is to illustrate dancing at this school
File:Dawnofretribution.jpg

Two of the other images, File:Geelonghigh1927.jpg and File:Geelonghs1934.jpg, need explanations of why they satisfy WP:NFCC#8 if they are to be used as non-free images here. In particular, I doubt the 1934 image satisfies this criterion—it is simply a photo of the building in 1934. I don't see how this photo acts to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic [Geelong High School]" or how "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." —Bkell (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2010 (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:Fkoehn.JPG[edit]

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 ⚡ 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor-quality drawing, purportedly of Frank Koehn, that looks like it was made in Paint. Unused since it was removed from the article in 2007. —Bkell (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally articles require a real life picture of Frank Koehn. This does not fit the bill. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks pretty usable to me. Reh man 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I read that comment I first thought "What?", and then I thought "I surely hope that Rehman is joking". Unless you click on the link labelled "keep" by Rehman, or read Rehman's markup when you are in editing mode, you might not realise that it links to the article Humour. Sorry to weaken the joke by making it explicit, but I don't want some admin assessing this to be misled.

Delete. If you've looked at the file you will know why. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2010 (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:Comp08 Front1a copy.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional comp card uploaded as own work. Uploader provides a link to the photographer, but whether they are one and the same is questionable. The uploader has run into previous copyright issues, and falsely tagging a photo as own work is the usual way of avoiding deletion. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, considering the user's history. Reh man 02:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked at the uploader's editing history I do not think that we can take their unsupported word for it that they are the photographer. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really doubt this will be in any kind of encyclopedic use. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:42, 10 December 2010 (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.