Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 September 3

< September 2	September 4 >

September 3

Image:MattKenseth.jpg

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

Fair use image replaceable with free use image. Ejfetters 03:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Take from Wikipedia:Non-free content 3.6, No. 12.

"Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." Ejfetters 06:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo should be kept under legitimate fair use for informational purposes until a free image is found for the article. I actually disagree that free images serving the same purpose as copyrighted images can usually be found in the case of race car drivers; very few if any Wikipedia editors are going to be allowed access to drivers either in their cars or by the track to take a suitable photo, and photos taken of the drivers off the track are not nearly as informational or appropriate.--Gloriamarie 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You claim that a proper photo cannot easily be found - but images at the following NASCAR driver pages, looked up at random, seem to contradict your statement: Dale Earnhardt Jr., Jeff Gordon, Kasey Kahne, Robby Gordon, Jeff Burton, Kevin Harvick, Carl Edwards, Michael Waltrip, J. J. Yeley, Casey Mears - all of these have appropriate photographs. Furthermore, the image violates Wikipedia:Non-free content as stated above. You may disagree with the policy, but it is Wikipedia policy, and it should be enforced regardless of users who disagree with the policy. Ejfetters 03:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abstract_factory.svg

Image:Abstract_factory.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bdean42 (notify | contribs).

looks terrible as svg, reuploaded as Abstract_pattern.png Bdean42 04:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi publicity images

Various studio publicity images, no verification they have been released for promotional use, same as discussed in prior listings for other TV publicity shots. Better replaced with screen caps. Ejfetters 06:02, 3 September 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:Uk-grable2.jpg

Image:Uk-grable2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Kitch (notify | contribs).

This is not an image of Upshot-Knothole Grable. This is an image of Plumbbob Priscillia, as seen at nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/PbPrisc3.jpg. Note that the source is the same as that used by the uploader. 74.135.195.126 06:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep As mentioned on the image and in the associated article, it is commonly mistaken as part of Plumbbob Priscillia, and the source I got it from is one of the ones that mistakes it as such. According to the Department of Defense, it is indeed Upshot-Knothole Grable, and can be compared to video of Upshot-Knothole Grable for confirmation. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per above, and even if it's not upshot-knothole it's still an image--Phoenix 15 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept -Nv8200p talk 20:58, 9 September 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:Stupid-ohio.jpg

Image:Stupid-ohio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by StvenGomerz (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic cartoon-style drawing Bencherlite ^Talk 08:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Doug E Muth.jpg

Image:Doug E Muth.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dougbutta (notify | contribs).

Uploaded under several different titles, by a new user; only used in a speedily deleted vanity page Doug e muth; uploader has no other contributions; Wikipedia is not a personal website provider. - Mike Rosoft 09:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ScoobyDooGameDesign.jpg

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

Image is tagged both GFDL and {{non-free book cover}}. If it's really GFDL -- including the image (which seems extremely unlikely) -- it needs better source info to verify that claim. If, on the other hand, it's non-free (which seem extremely likely), it violates WP:NFCC#4 as it's never been published; it would also need a fair-use rationale, and it probably violates WP:NFCC#8 in three of the four articles where it's used (all except Scooby Doo: Mystery of the Fun Park Phantom). —An gr 14:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I uploaded this image, let me explain where it came from. I probably just tagged it incorrectly. It is the cover for the game design document for the game Scooby Doo: Mystery of the Fun Park Phantom. The game design itself was never published, only the game. It was handed out to members of the game development group, including me (the lead programmer). When I wrote the article on game design, I thought a scan of the cover would make a nice addition to the article. So sorry if I tagged it incorrectly, but this is what it is and where it came from. Incidentally, neither the publisher who commissioned the game nor the developer exist anymore. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. So what happens to the image now? Is it still considered in violation of a Wikipedia standard? Does it need another tag? More explanation? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's nonfree, it violates WP:NFCC#4 as it's never been published, so it still needs to be deleted. —An gr 20:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Still, I don't see how it's not free considering neither the developer nor publisher exist anymore. But I assume you know what you're doing. No wonder Wikipedia is so sparse on images! ;-) Peace. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image has been deleted because unpublished images cannot be used under our non-free content policy. -- But|seriously|folks 03:30, 15 September 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:Gwanghwamun.jpg

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

Orphaned; low-quality (out of focus); no indication of what it even is (otherwise it could at least be moved to Commons). —An gr 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the name of the file suggests, it is a photo of Gwanghwamun, and I have added the photo to the article. No longer orphaned. 15:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HongQiGong (talk • contribs)

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:Freiburg.jpg

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

Orphaned; no indication of what it even is (otherwise it could at least be moved to Commons). Doesn't look much like Freiburg, at any rate. —An gr 14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CV. A still from a music video listed as PD-self, used only in article on performer. No indication uploader owns copyright to video. Gimmetrow 21:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made this photo as a signature for my personal use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucandance87 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Informatist.jpg

Image:Informatist.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dink87522 (notify | contribs).

Been replaced by PNG image. Is now obsolete. thisisace 22:01, 3 September 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:Riverwood trackplan.png

Image:Riverwood trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).

Orphaned and unencyclopaedic Endarrt 23:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. For any visitor to the station this image will clarify the tracks, platform layout and line usage. Even for trivial stations like Riverwood. Nisselua 12:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't have time to look at every trackplan, but it's good information for the user (who's actually looking it up -not the "average one"-) to have; I'm voting to keep all trackplans, the wholesale deletion seems arbitrary and and unnecessary (I'm assuming they're all "free" and licensed as per the ones I have checked). They should be placed back in the articles where they have been removed. R. Baley 07:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they all now link to relevant articles, and illustrate the arangements there well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Comment please look at the many more images of this series that have been nominated over the next couple of days and stripped from articles by this user. aliasd·U·T 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Free image with no policy violations. Image put in article. Consensus says to keep. -Nv8200p talk 21:05, 9 September 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.

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:Narwee trackplan.png

Image:Narwee trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).

Orphanned and unencyclopaedic Endarrt 23:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. For any visitor to the station this image will clarify the tracks, platform layout and line usage. Even for trivial stations like Narwee. Nisselua 12:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't have time to look at every trackplan, but it's good information for the user (who's actually looking it up -not the "average one"-) to have; I'm voting to keep all trackplans, the wholesale deletion seems arbitrary and and unnecessary (I'm assuming they're all "free" and licensed as per the ones I have checked). They should be placed back in the articles where they have been removed. R. Baley 07:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they all now link to relevant articles, and illustrate the arangements there well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Free image with no policy violations. Image put in article. Consensus says to keep. Nv8200p talk 21:08, 9 September 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.

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:Beverly Hills trackplan.png

Image:Beverly Hills trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopaedic Endarrt 23:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. For any visitor to the station this image will clarify the tracks, platform layout and line usage. Nisselua 12:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't have time to look at every trackplan, but it's good information for the user (who's actually looking it up -not the "average one"-) to have; I'm voting to keep all trackplans, the wholesale deletion seems arbitrary and and unnecessary (I'm assuming they're all "free" and licensed as per the ones I have checked). They should be placed back in the articles where they have been removed. R. Baley 07:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they all now link to relevant articles, and illustrate the arangements there well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Free image with no policy violations. Image put in article. Consensus says to keep. Nv8200p talk 21:09, 9 September 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.

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:Wolli Creek trackplan.png

Image:Wolli Creek trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopaedic, and no other rail network pages have such detail that would only be of interest to a rail-fan, not the general user. Endarrt 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. For any visitor to the station this image will clarify the tracks, platform layout and line usage. Nisselua 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's of interest to anyone wanting info on the rail. WP:Othercrapexists. It's good information for the user (who's actually looking it up -not the "average one"-) to have; I'm voting to keep all trackplans, the wholesale deletion seems arbitrary and and unnecessary (I'm assuming they're all "free" and licensed as per the ones I have checked). They should be placed back in the articles where they have been removed. R. Baley 07:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they all now link to relevant articles, and illustrate the arangements there well. This one in particular is worthwhile, as it is a comparatively complicated arrangement, and consequently hard to explain in text without running into clarity problems. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Free image with no policy violations. Image put in article. Consensus says to keep. Nv8200p talk 21:09, 9 September 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:Neil kinnock.jpg

Image:Neil kinnock.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lumos3 (notify | contribs).

Non-free portrait of living person (fails WP:NFCC #1). Uploader claims the image is historical because the portrait was taken when Neil Kinnock was a European Commissioner, but image seems to be nothing more than a portrait. I marked the image as "replaceable fair use" on May 31, 2007, but uploader replaced the tag with "NFCC-violation disputed". – Ilse @ 23:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If you claim that it's replaceable, would you like to find a free image to replace it then? G-Man ^? 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]