Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 11

< July 10	July 12 >

July 11[edit]

File:Kaj designs 2007 stunner.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted PROD'd article, no foreseeable use. Possibly copyrighted. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:34, 11 July 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:Irell-logo.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo of some sort, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:44, 11 July 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:Aggie Bonfire.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the Aggie Bonfire used under a claim of fair use. The article has multiple free content photos of the event that have been uploaded subsequent to this one - we don't need a fair use one. B (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lead image of a Featured Article that was shown on the main page. Image was specifically chosen in the FA process to show the scope and expanse of Aggie Bonfire]. No other image (except one) shows the wedding cake design and the massive size of Bonfire in relation to a readily identifiable comparison (note the people standing by the lowest stack). The only other available image that shows this scale and design does not have a valid source and I highly doubt its copyright claim (though it certainly is possible. This image has a clear source and lineage. I have no issue with discussing the other image though... Buffs (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:2007-SBF.jpg and File:88 bonfire.jpg both convey the massive size and the former shows the structure. I'm assuming the 88 bonfire one is the one you are referring to as the copyright claim being questionable ... I agree that it's rather cringe-worthy unless a specific pre-1989 publication that had no copyright notice (like a yearbook, maybe?) can be found (just because a photo was taken in 1988 doesn't mean it was published). Also, there have been court cases that have (I would think wrongly, but what do I know?) given copyright holders more than the benefit of the doubt in these cases. For example, the first season of the original Star Trek series was aired in syndication without a copyright notice. The court ruled that this didn't count as "publication", though, and that it is still under copyright.[1] To me, this sounds like inventing a rule to protect big business, but again, what do I know? Anyway, that aside, we have at least the one unquestionably free image of the fire, as well as File:Rebuilt-Aggie-Bonfire-1994.jpg, which also shows how big it is (taller than telephone poles!?!?) so I don't see any reason that the reader's understanding is impaired without this image. At the time of the FAC you mentioned, there was only one free image ... and looking at the FAC itself, I don't even see where fair use images were brought up. Certainly, if it was reconsidered today, this would be an issue. You have free images - you don't need the fair use one. --B (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up some valid points, but I believe them to be flawed due to a lack of information on the subject or just points of disagreement. Let's look at each of the files you brought up:
File:2007-SBF.jpg: This is an image of a bonfire by another group that is not legally affiliated with Texas A&M. While their goals are to embody the spirit of Aggie Bonfire and is quite clearly related, it is not an Aggie Bonfire in the strictest sense. Additionally, the image has no perspective as to the size of the stack or the fire itself. It could be 3 feet tall or it could be 100 feet tall, but without a common point of reference (like a human standing next to it), there is no perspective on the full size/scope of the subject.

File:Rebuilt-Aggie-Bonfire-1994.jpg This image shows some pretty good POV on the size of the stack itself, but the perspective doesn't allow for a clear indication of the size (objects in the foreground are miniscule by comparison, but they appear to be half the size of the stack). The size isn't clear until you look VERY closely at the people in the background near the stack...and even then you don't know how close they are to the stack. Are they 10 feet away or 100? It would clearly make a difference. Lastly, the image does not show the burn and there is no perspective on how big the flames are.

File:88 bonfire.jpg I would concur that this image would easily replace the subject of this image, but I am not very convinced that this photo is free of copyright. In such a case, we are left with two non-free images. So this leaves us with a choice between either image. I'm not interested too much in which image is kept, but the dubious source of the file leads me to believe that this image does not meet our fair use criteria. As such, it should be removed.
Look forward to your response. Buffs (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and I just now realized that yours truly was the uploader of File:88 bonfire.jpg. Give me a day or two and I'll come up with a better solution (keeping only one of the images). Buffs (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that the 2007 one wasn't the "real" bonfire. I would still think that a free image could be obtained here. Surely, somewhere has taken a photo of the thing at some point over the years. Was the 2006 fire a real one? There's a photo of it on flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikelduke/2121302399/ . There's also a photo of the 2005 one and there's a person standing in front of it so you can guage size http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikelduke/353202732/ . --B (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just read the article and I see that 2002 is the cutoff year. http://www.flickr.com/photos/23261008@N02/sets/72157626855883015/with/5841181825/ is a flickr account that has some pictures of the bonfire from pre-1999. You could contact this person and ask him if he is the copyright holder and if so, if he would be willing to change his license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA for one of the photos. (If he does, please upload it to Commons and tag it with {{flickrreview}}.) But the whole idea of replaceability is that we don't use photos under a claim of fair use when we have a reasonable expectation of obtaining a free one. An annual event attended by thousands of people up until 2002 is one where we have that reasonable expectation. --B (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1998 was the last official Bonfire, not 2002. "We don't use photos under a claim of fair use when we have a reasonable expectation of obtaining a free one" isn't the official policy. If someone can find a free photo that illustrates the above points, I'll be happy to nominate the above image for deletion myself. Buffs (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, you appear to be stating that you can't find a free one, so I should ask someone to give up their copyright on an image and, because I can ask someone to do that, we should delete this one? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. In such a case, you've kind of just proven that no uncopyrighted images exist. Just because someone might release it under an acceptable CC license, it doesn't mean we should get rid of this one. Once a replacement is available, then we delete the image. Buffs (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Data venia, "we don't use photos under a claim of fair use when we have a reasonable expectation of obtaining a free one" is the official policy. --damiens.rf 16:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that is your personal take on what you (and others) want the policy to be. In fact, the policy does not use those terms. What has been stated is a distortion of actual policy, which states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.". Note that there is no "reasonable expectation of a free version existing" clause. We don't delete images just because "there's probably a free image out there". If one exists, I will happily replace this image. Buffs (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose ... ." That is where the "reasonable expectation" idea comes from. --B (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of irrelevant. No one has done uploaded a free image (you yourself stated that you couldn't find one), so I highly doubt you can find that there is any reasonable expectation that someone would suddenly release their copyrights on an image. If someone does, then hell yeah the image should go...but the fact remains that their isn't a free equivalent. Buffs (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a reasonable expectation that a free photo could be found for an annual event attended by thousands of people. http://www.flickr.com/photos/23261008@N02/sets/72157626855883015/with/5841181825/ has photos - they are copyrighted all rights reserved, but you could ask that person if he is the copyright holder and if he would be willing to release one under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Heck, if you go to texags.com and identify yourself as a Wikipedia editor and ask user's to donate photos that they took under an acceptable license, I bet you would get some takers. But regardless of that, we ALREADY have pre-1999 photos of the fire, which (1) necessarily means that we have a reasonable expectation that someone might upload another one - when something has happened six times, it's not unreasonable to expect it to happen a seventh time and (2) creates a very large hurdle to jump over to demonstrate that this photo is absolutely critical to the user's understanding. Simply being a better photo than any of the others doesn't make it critical to the user's understanding. File:198990bonfire.jpg and File:Rebuilt-Aggie-Bonfire-1994.jpg both show you how gigantic the thing is and show the wedding cake design. I don't question that this is a nicer photo than any of the other pre-1999 ones, but being a nicer photo doesn't mean we keep it. --B (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Heck, if you go to texags.com and identify yourself as a Wikipedia editor and ask user's to donate photos that they took under an acceptable license, I bet you would get some takers." Swing and a miss. I tried that already (right before it was on the front page) and got zero takers (well, I admittedly got a bunch of photos that were copyrighted).

I disagree that the two photos you mention show the size of the stack (one shows nothing by which to note the size and the other is so far in the distance, the size is distorted) in comparison and I guess we will have to disagree on that point. Buffs (talk) 00:21, 18 July 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:Philipchetwode.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by Rcbutcher (talk · contribs) with the following rationale: "laterally inverted, hence unusable as a historical record. Also there is no evidence of provenance hence suspect authenticity." I have no basis for any opinion about this file, so this nomination should not be considered a delete vote. Danger (talk) 05:55, 11 July 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:VWD2008 Screenshot.png[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is in violation of Wikipedia Non-Free Content Criterion 3a: Minimal usage which says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" because File:Visual Basic.NET screenshot.png, which is a screenshot of Visual Basic 2010 Express and fill the role of this picture. Fleet Command (talk) 08:25, 11 July 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:Yellow.png[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no apparent use B (talk) 19:13, 11 July 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:Nazi eagle swastika.gif[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, duplicate of File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945).png, which is a PNG. B (talk) 19:18, 11 July 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:GlitchdUserImage.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, no longer in use or needed Glitchd (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is on commons. You'll have to propose it for deletion there.--v/r - T P 19:59, 11 July 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:Abjectgrey.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, small, dark, unknown subject. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:20, 11 July 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:Abuja 2007.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file. Why the black bars? - looks speciously like a TV image. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:28, 11 July 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:Ronnie-Branning 2007 (EastEnders).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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free television screenshot which purports to be "the primary means of visual identification of the subject" but is redundant to the infobox image File:Ronnie Mitchell.jpg. No critical commentary on the subject's appearance which would necessitate an additional image, fails NFCC#8. Frickative 22:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Misuse of non free images - She looks the same in both images just a different hair length, no dramatic change in appearance nor is any change described in the text of the article. See below for my further reasoning..RaintheOne ^BAM 01:54, 16 July 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:Roni archi.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free television screenshots with purpose given as illustration. Not necessary to understand the storylines - nothing that can't be conveyed textually, and the visual specifics of the scenes are not subject to critical commentary. Both fail NFCC#8. Frickative 22:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both of these images here need not be in this fictional characters article. Like Frickative says the images add nothing more than what the text already conveys... Non free images should not be used in this quantity, too many for one article.. the rationale doesn't check out either, does it. I think the info box image works fine on it's own.RaintheOne ^BAM 01:54, 16 July 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.