Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 20

< July 19	July 21 >

July 20

File:RonAllen.jpg

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. Jafeluv (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, target article was deleted via prod. — ξ ^xplicit 01:42, 20 July 2010 (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:Sergey Kalmykov Moon Jazz.jpeg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: image has fair use rationale that claims the purpose as "Identification and critical commentary in the Sergey Kalmykov article" however there in no mention of the image in the prose by way of commentary other than its use as decoration. ww2censor (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2010 (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:Outer Beltway V.2 Full.png

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google image used with a fair-use rationale but claimed to be public domain. Google images are copyright and under fair use this is a replaceable image. ww2censor (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2010 (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:1977 O-Pee-Chee Dennis Eckersley.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just used for illustrative purposes only. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2010 (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:FyodorTutchev1.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned scaled down/cropped version of File:Fyodor Tyutchev.jpg Hekerui (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2010 (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:Gravel Stevens.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inscription gives "ADN", so the author is the Anchorage Daily News, the biggest newspaper in Alaska. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you're right. Something's wrong with the image file history, though ... I didn't upload this, it's been in the Mike Gravel much longer, see this version from mid-2007 for instance. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. The log shows no deletion of earlier versions so it's probably a server issue. Hekerui (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2010 (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:AlanLeoNatal.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

acording to a biographal book, alan leo used tropical constellations + equal houses or placidus. he never used whole ones. File was tried to replace with a screenshot of the chart offered in that book. yet file got scrambled. 1c33y37 (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2010 (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:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG

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: No consensus, BUT listing as a deletable image because the fair use rationale lacks a title for the article that it applies to. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks a solid fair-use rationale that explain why this image would be needed on Wikipedia and I cannot think of a reason that its lack makes any difference. (In case you don't know what I am talking about, I am talking about the violation of WP:NFCC#8.) Fleet Command (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fair-use rationale is clearly stated on the image page. The image was uploaded to illustrate the typical behavior of an anti-spyware program in response to an attempt by spyware to install. There is no way to illustrate this idea without using a screenshot of a proprietary program. Seeing what anti-spyware software actually does is useful to the reader's understanding of the spyware issue, for the same reason that we have screenshots of proprietary software on Antivirus, Microsoft Word, or plenty of other articles. --FOo (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Three objections:
  1. What you say would in turn be in violation of WP:NFCC#3a: There are already images of anti-malware tools uploaded on Wikipedia. There is absolutely no need to upload a new screenshot of a non-free product dedicated to showing how an anti-spyware product behave.
  2. You obviously have not read my nomination text properly: I'm saying that this image is in violation of WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), meaning that all this image shows can be shown with text.
  3. The fair-use rationale does not say what you say. It says: "informing the reader about the operation of the software depicted and the larger issue (spyware and anti-spyware protection) that it represents." This image is not in such use. The article is not about Microsoft Antispyware (the codename for Windows Defender.)
  Fleet Command (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2010 (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:Brympton lake.gif

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. NFCC makes it very clear that uses of non-free images such as this—especially when free alternatives exist or could be created—are not acceptable. — ξ ^xplicit 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free photograph of a property of which multiple free images exist (eg. File:Brympton DEvercy.PNG, File:Brympton dEvercy 03.jpg) and its usage thus fails NFCC 1 ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The image serves two purposes in the article: first to unambiguously identify the book "Brympton d'Evercy" by Charles Clive-Ponsonby-Fane, which as stated in the article is an unique history of the house (a fact worthy of inclusion), and is extensively used as a reference; second to illustrate the appearance of the South Front, which no other available image does (as even the briefest of inspections shows). Since the house is now a private residence and no longer open to the public, there is no way of legitimately obtaining an image of that aspect of the house (certainly not showing the South Front as it was prior to 1976). If anyone were able to gain permission to take such a photo, then the OP would have a point, although that eventuality would be equivalent to seeking permission from the publishers of the book to use their image. If we are to allow any non-free content as "fair use", then the dual purpose of this image would eminently qualify it for that. I should add that the present {{Non-free book cover}} is inadequate for this image as it clearly serves more than a single purpose in the article. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:NFC#UULP clearly states that "pictures of buildings still standing" are ineligible for the purposes of the NFCC, and since the photograph is just that, and does not identify the book any more than any other photograph of the building taken from the same position would (it's not the whole cover, no words etc. are shown, just the photo itself), I do not see that the above argument is of much worth... ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 21:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"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". A new photo obviously would not serve the same two purposes, and "almost always considered possible" is not the same as "always possible". If you wish to personalise it, I do not see that the OP's argument is of much worth either. You let me know how to get a picture that illustrates the South Front as it was shown and identifies the book, and you'll have a valid argument. Until then, my oppose is firm. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If TreasuryTag feels the image should be deleted, then deleted it must be, I realy cannot be bothered to argue with the likes of such as he. Giacomo 22:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could mark it {{db-user}} if you, as the uploader, consent to deletion? Thanks, ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 22:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, {{Db-u1}} applies only to "Personal user pages and subpages", but I'm sure His Excellency's support will be sufficient for you without any further process wonkery. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right. I'm so sorry, I mean {{db-self}} (as per Wikipedia:CSD#G7, which appears to carry no restrictions as to namespace). ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 22:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is not simply used to discuss the building, but the only monograph about it. Fair use would seem to come into play here. Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But would its removal harm readers' understanding of the monograph? I don't see how that could possibly be. It is simply a photograph of the house which could easily be replaced by a free equivalent. If it were the full cover of the book, including the title etc., I would agree with you. But as it is... ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 22:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we shall have to agree to disagree on this point. There is no need for you to reply to every comment. Nev1 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of my (indeed voluntary!) response do you disagree with? You disagree that the image does not show the entire book cover? You disagree that an identical photograph taken from an identical position would not be identical? What? ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 23:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-free image being used to (partially) illustrate a book cover in a non-book article, and to illustrate an extant building? It's a no-brainer in terms of current NFCC consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2010 (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:Wenis.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 21:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTWEBHOST. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 21:15, 20 July 2010 (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.