Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 October 17

< October 16	October 18 >

October 17

Image:NotreDameAcademyGreenBay.jpg

Image:NotreDameAcademyGreenBay.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Bobbarker1291 (notify | contribs).

Sneaky image vandalism/duplicate of Commons image with decreased value. The image is a derivative of an image that I took and uploaded to the page. It is a crop of another image listed on October 16. To quote a recent edit summary from Bobbarker1291: "I Changed The Photo to a more recent one, Please don't change it back! The words on the sign are about me!" Can this be speedy deleted as vandalism? Royalbroil 02:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to your version for comparison? Tempshill 03:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. There are actually three versions. Original (taken & uploaded by User:Royalbroil): Image:NotreDameAcademyGreenBayWisconsinSign.jpg, Derivative #1 Image:NotreDameDeLaBaieAcademyHighSchoolGreenBayWisconsinSign.jpg also listed for deletion [1] (uncropped with the sign photoshopped with a message, metadata proves it to be the same image), Derivative #2 (the image being discussed) is a crop of Derivative #1. Derivative #2 is less encylopedic since it only includes the sign of the school and no part of the building. Royalbroil 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it blatant vandalism, but yes, they're both improperly licensed derivatives -- delete them both. -- RG ² 01:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helibanneradidas.jpg

Image:Helibanneradidas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robfisher21 (notify | contribs).

Possible copyvio from same source as [2]. No documentation on that website that it's public domain as claimed by uploader. Tempshill 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide a link to the page on the HOBS site that contains these images? I'm unable to locate either of them.

Deconstructhis 04:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helidimensions.jpg

Image:Helidimensions.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robfisher21 (notify | contribs).

Possible copyvio from same source as [3]. No documentation on that website that it's public domain as claimed by uploader. Tempshill 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the uploader can demonstrate that they are able to legally approve the use of the HOBS corporate logo on Wikipedia, I would strongly support removing both of the 'explanatory' line drawing images as a violation of a copyright held by the HOBS corporation.Deconstructhis 04:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helitakeoff.jpg

Image:Helitakeoff.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robfisher21 (notify | contribs).

HOBS logo in the corner shows that this is either an advert for HOBS, or is a copyvio from HOBS. No evidence given that it's in the public domain as claimed by uploader. Tempshill 03:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vietnam_Campaign_Medal_obverse.png

Image:Vietnam_Campaign_Medal_obverse.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PalawanOz (notify | contribs).

It's not a free image because the permission prohibits modification (must be "reproduced accurately"). It fails the non-free content policy because it is replaceable with a free image of such a medal. But|seriously|folks 03:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only change that was made to the image was a reduction in white space (from memory) - with no change to the image of the medal itself - if it will make you happy, then I will replace this image with the original from the NZDF with the white space left in. I believe your argument about this being 'non-free content' is false, as the NZ Crown Copyright states that it "may be reproduced free of charge" - hence by definition it is free content. PalawanOz 08:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't that I want you to post it unmodified. The point is that the permission is limited to unmodified versions, which is too restrictive for free use here. And since it's replaceable with a truly free image of the medal, it can't be used per our non-free content policy either.

Can you please point me to the policy that defines that permission as being too restrictive for free use? PalawanOz 06:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the NZ Crown Copyright notice that comes up on Wikipedia states "For the purposes of Wikipedia, this is a non-free licence, since modification is not permitted, however most images uploaded under this licence may be allowed when a fair use rationale is given." I think your proposal to delete is in error. PalawanOz 06:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also direct you to the discussion at the Category talk:New Zealand Crown Copyright images page which seems to have addressed a number of concerns, including those you quote above. PalawanOz 07:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this image is the sufficiency of the fair use rationale. This is a replaceable nonfree image, so it can't be kept. This would be the same if it were a copyrighted photo of the medal. Calliopejen1 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - I don't understand - what do you mean by the "sufficiency" of the FUR?PalawanOz 07:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we already have one nonfree official portrait of the subject Calliopejen1 12:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Judyc.jpg

Image:Judyc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pepso (notify | contribs).

omission would not be detrimental to readers' understanding (see WP:NONFREE Calliopejen1 13:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arash.JPG

Image:Arash.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arash m (notify | contribs).

orphan, unencyclopedic, possibly personal attack (see uploader's comment) The very model of a minor general 14:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ukr_Navalaviation_gen.jpg

Image:Ukr_Navalaviation_gen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Counterstrike69 (notify | contribs).

No evidence image was made by Ukrainian government. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Party.jpg

Image:Party.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tweety21 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, LQ image, uploaded by banned user so it's unlikely that anyone would ever use this blurry snapshot of someone's back. Precious Roy 16:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg

Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dbenbenn (notify | contribs).

Image is not the flag of NI ,it needs to be moved to Former flag of Northern Ireland Gnevin 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, more specifically, the title should be "image:Ulster_banner.svg". Fennessy 19:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this flag was never the flag of Northern ireland it was solely a governmental banner used to represent the former devolved government from 1953 to 1972 which was dissolved in 1973.--Padraig 21:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as per Padraig; move to Ulster Banner (Sarah777 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Agree to Move but not delete clariosophic 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Commons image ... -- RG ² 01:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree As per rational of Gnevin, Padraig. --Domer48 10:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As a Commons image, doesn't this dicussion need to occur there? (Does "moving" here actually affect the image in Commons? Will it not still be available here under the "contentious" name.) Guliolopez 11:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion closed. This is a Commons image. -- RG ² 13:31, 18 October 2007 (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.

Image:Jusco2.jpg

Image:Jusco2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soehoi (notify | contribs).

replaceable image of a standing building, used "to make the article more interesting" Calliopejen1 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GFDL landscape. Harmless. --Knulclunk 03:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it GFDL? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 10:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry. I was spacing. Change to Delete. --Knulclunk 03:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no claim that the image has been released under the GFDL. -- RG ² 23:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sdfghjysdgjygyg.JPG

Image:Sdfghjysdgjygyg.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bobit13 (notify | contribs).

orphan, unclear encyclopedic value, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 17:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:3DG.JPG

Image:3DG.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bobit13 (notify | contribs).

orphan, unclear encyclopedic value, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 17:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Me87r3984.jpg

Image:Me87r3984.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Busdriver101 (notify | contribs).

Image is only used in creating vanity articles at Stephen Ector and Stephen ector. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 18:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bartok Baba Yaga.JPG

Image:Bartok Baba Yaga.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nubula (notify | contribs).

Invalid fair use: the image is not used in a article about film: it is used for illsutration of Russian mythological creature. `'Míkka 18:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is used for critical commentary of a pop culture illustration of a mythological creature. May be fair use.--Knulclunk 03:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a pop culture representation of said mythological creature, as the image caption clearly states, and is the only pop culture version of this creature on its page despite the page having a large pop culture section (which would be completly devoid of images if it where deteted and thus detrimental to readers). And it is fair use. Nubula 10:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's appropriate to keep it in both articles, or at all, but there does seem to be a consensus to keep without any rebuttal. Image kept. -- RG ² 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]