Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 September 24
September 24
edit
- - uploaded by C2FelJORGE (notify | contribs).
- This image is uploaded as the logo for the iTunes Store, however the image is simply an icon of a gift bag that appears in the iTunes program. The iTunes program has a logo (Image:ITunes-700-icon.png), but the store does not, therefore there is no reason to have this non-free image in the iTunes Store article. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Although I agree that this image isn't widely publicized as the iTunes Store logo, it can clearly be found on Apple's support pages for the iTunes Store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obeattie (talk • contribs) 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, advertising. Leuko 02:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. It was the only thing the user ever did (half a year ago), so it's just spam. --AVRS 15:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic - The image of an unremarkable dog is only used on an article, NOT a userpage, about a university professor. It says that in his spare time he likes to walk his dog, then there is this picture. It is in no way useful in this encyclopedia NatureBoyMD 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Low quality JPEG, unused, contains the non-free Wikipedia logo. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Orphanded, not ensyclopedic, no source and most likely incorrect license tag. Sherool (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Richard1959 (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic, orphaned image. Keb25 07:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Richard1959 (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic, orphaned image. Keb25 07:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Richard1959 (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic, orphaned image. Keb25 07:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Master_of_Puppets (notify | contribs).
- Not used and not ensyclopedic. Also "found floating on the internet" is unfortunately not a sufficient license statement. Sherool (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by StephenGordon (notify | contribs).
- "Replaced all instances with non-opaque version"
- - uploaded by Lawrence_Cohen (notify | contribs).
- AFP image, probably replaceable, certainly a NFCC#2 violation – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Disputed. It is asserted fair use for educational purposes to use this image for 2007 Peruvian meteorite event to illustrate a unique scientific and medical event, of which no other free image exists. Given the extreme geographical remoteness of the location and apparent medical danger of approaching the site in the photograph, a free image is unlikely to be available for illustrating this encyclopediac topic. Given the lower quality of the digitized image, use on Wikipedia is unlikely to interfere with the creators ability to earn any revenue from it.
- The image is highly unlikely to be ever replaceable with a free image. The crater as illustrated from the meteor strike will not be in that original condition :ever again. There are no known free photographs of the crater due to the following reasons:
- The extreme geographic isolation of the location.
- The fact that the local police and military restricted access to the location immediately after this, due to the fact everyone that came near the crater fell ill.
- Therefore, a non-free photograph of the crater as it occurred is needed to illustrate the scene. Can be replaced by a free image if/when such ever arises, which is probably highly unlikely. • Lawrence Cohen 13:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#2, we don't use news agency photos, especially not for a current event. This competes with the copyright holder, who makes a living selling these photos. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Does the fact we're unlikely to ever see a free photo of this play in any part? Or is this because it is a current event? • Lawrence Cohen 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether we ever get a free photo; that is a secondary concern. The whole point of fair use is that the users use it, well, fairly. This use could conceivably impact Agence France-Presse financially, and therefore cannot be used as fair use. Picaroon (t) 02:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The whole in the ground is still there, there is a realistic expectation that someone may be able to take a picture of it, or that someone already has, and thus its replaceable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- While it is irreplaceable for the time being, it nevertheless violates the second criterion (see my comment above), and should therefore be deleted. Picaroon (t) 02:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Lawrence Cohen, as the location and restrictions upon the site would make another image difficult to obtain. --dan1024 11:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:NFCC#2 - Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Difficulty in obtaining a similar image is no excuse in fair use arguments (as evidenced by numerous celebrity fair use image deletions). Lets not kid ourselves - its just a picture of a hole in the ground!. Nothing uniquely encylopedic or informative to warrant a fair use argument for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, to bend the rules for such a picture (as discussed on the image page) sets a bad precedent. --Eqdoktor 08:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by David_R._Ingham (notify | contribs).
- Not used (probably because it's been overwritten several times by unrelated images due to the bad choice of name), not particularly ensyclopedic and the other revisions are likely copyvios and have no source or license info anyway. Sherool (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- No longer used, used to appear in an article that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vanous Sherool (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, Requested by Photographer Phennessy 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, Requested by photogrpaher Phennessy 14:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, Requested by photographer Phennessy 14:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, Requested by photographer Phennessy 14:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, Requested by photographer Phennessy 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, Requested by photographer Phennessy 14:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned image from CSD A7 deleted article. No other possible encyclopedic use. ~Matticus TC 15:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The source does not work, and logs indicate that this file has been deleted before at commons for license problems: [1] The Evil Spartan 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Felipe_Calderon_foto_oficial.jpg){kind=link}
- - uploaded by Charles Harris (notify | contribs).
- orphaned, very low res - ∅ (∅), 16:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Removed from this article by Spacepotato (talk · contribs) as inaccurate; now orphaned. WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. - ∅ (∅), 17:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- CV I don't believe this was created by the uploader, as I saw this image in the Korean media (and elsewhere) soon after the project was announced - if you look at the quality of the image you will see its not likely an ordinary wikipedian could have made this. Additionally the uploader seems to be absent so cannot confirm its status. John Smith's 17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- CV I believe it is highly unlikely this picture was taken by the uploader. There is no information on when, where or how he took the image. When coupled with the fact the picture was taken from an elevated position at sea that would require he was in a helicopter. Would a civilian helo been able to fly so close? I doubt it. John Smith's 18:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- CV I believe it is highly unlikely this picture was taken by the uploader. There is no information on when, where or how he took the image. When coupled with the fact the picture was taken from an elevated position at sea that would require he was in a helicopter. Would a civilian helo been able to fly so close? I doubt it. John Smith's 18:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Theorically, it could!--Stefanomencarelli 18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- CV I believe it is highly unlikely this picture was taken by the uploader. There is no information on when, where or how he took the image. John Smith's 18:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Really nice shot, in every case, i still had no seen such type of ships. Shame that it had no autorization (=().--Stefanomencarelli 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Charles Harris (notify | contribs).
- orphaned, superseded by Image:Zimbabwe Bird.gif, very low quality. ∅ (∅), 18:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- CV. Uploader a possible sockpuppet of banned CV violator TCrEoLe89. Image is clearly some sort of publicity photo, one of many uploaded by user. Macboots 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- CV. Uploader a possible sockpuppet of banned CV violator TCrEoLe89. One of several images uploaded by user. Macboots 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- CV. Uploader a possible sockpuppet of banned CV violator TCrEoLe89. Image is clearly some sort of publicity photo, one of many uploaded by user. Macboots 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- CV. Uploader a possible sockpuppet of banned CV violator TCrEoLe89. One of several images uploaded by user. Macboots 22:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also note this image is orphaned. Macboots 08:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- CV. Uploader a possible sockpuppet of banned CV violator TCrEoLe89. Image is clearly some sort of publicity photo, one of many uploaded by user. Macboots 22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- CV. Uploader a possible sockpuppet of banned CV violator TCrEoLe89. Image is clearly some sort of publicity photo, one of many uploaded by user. Macboots 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The image runs counter to the information here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Images which cannot be "fair use" and the underlying principle of not using material copied from existing encyclopedias and encyclopedia-like works. The image was created and used in such a context where originally published in Who's Who: The Definitive Directory of the DC Universe issue #6 published in Aug 1985.- J Greb 23:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I also have Who's Who, and agree that the image is obviously from the character's entry. - jc37 11:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't the policy only apply if that is the purpose to the creation of the art? If this art was originally created for a COIE comic book then it wouldn't apply.--Marhawkman 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Problem is that the pose was likely recreated, not that the image from COIE was ported to the DC Who's Who. Since the original uploader cites the DCWW as where the image was pulled from, it was taken from the wrong source. And at this point, even if the sourcing is changed, the image needs to go. With the background stripped out, and confirmation that it is the image for the DCWW, it would be hard to sell "same image, different, now valid, source." - J Greb 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
