Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 June 4

< June 3	June 5 >

June 4

File:RenashesUS.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3 as multiple non-free files are being used when one would suffice. This alternate album cover is not significantly different from the main album cover, File:RenashesUK.jpg, to justify its use. — ξ ^xplicit 03:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 17:23, 10 June 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:Allentown - Flowered lamp posts.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, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not PD; Uploader claims image is PD because it was issued pre-1923, but image contains picture of building not built until 1926-1928. Alphageekpa (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I doubt your assessment, but what is that building called, so that others can verify the assessment ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Building is PPL Building, which was built after 1923. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 17:28, 10 June 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:Torcuato di Tella Institute logo.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: keep. A new legible version of the logo has been uploaded. — ξ ^xplicit 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This logo is totally illegible. Have not been able to find an alternative. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it was. I found a sharper version on the institute's website, and have uploaded it as a replacement. Sherlock4000 (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since logo is now legible. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 17:31, 10 June 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:Womenofboliviacontextad.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot, used in Contextual advertising to illustrate that "Automatically generated contextual ads sometimes fail to deliver the products they describe." This fact can easily be explained in text; the use of this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The contextual significance of the ad is that many people are familiar with the Yahoo! contextual ads from previous browsing. It is possible that I could explain more about Yahoo! contextual ads in particular in the image caption, if this is relevant.

I am also not certain that a claim of fair use is strictly necessary here, as what is reproduced here is essentially a matter of typefaces, and fonts are apparently legally both copyrighted and not copyrightable. If the Yahoo! tag were blacked out, would it be non-copyrightable? I called it fair use in part because I didn't see an obvious menu licensing option for "non-copyrightable". Wnt (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, and I don't want to make a judgment about whether or not the content of this screenshot is copyrightable, but there is much more here than just typefaces: there is text, the design and layout of the Web page, and the Yahoo logo. (I obviously can't scan sentences from copyrighted books, post them on Wikipedia, and claim that they are only typefaces.)

Assuming that this screenshot does contain copyrightable content, one of the questions that must be asked is whether it is required for users' comprehension of the point being made. What would be lost if we replaced this image with text saying, for example, "Automatically generated contextual ads sometimes fail to deliver the products they describe. For instance, a search for 'Bolivia' may yield an advertisement for a service to 'find and compare prices on women of Bolivia'"?

But perhaps the most fundamental question that needs to be addressed is whether this whole thing is original research. We are not citing any reliable sources that describe the extent of this phenomenon; we are simply relating an anecdote about a single ad that was once produced by a Web search. So, in fact, I think I would argue for the deletion of this image even if it is established that there is no copyright issue. If it is indeed important and relevant that contextual ads sometimes produce absurd or irrelevant results, then we should be able to cite a reliable source to back that up, in which case this image, with its questionable copyright status, would be unnecessary. —Bkell (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people can think of many different things when you only use words. There are context-dependent ads that appear as little underlines when you mouseover a phrase in the text. To have such a phrase appear as an underline wouldn't seem so amusing (or enlightening) as actually seeing it come up in big font in a framed list of products for sale. The purpose of the image after all was to illustrate the article. The "original research" involved was the same sort that is involved when taking a photograph to illustrate an article: it caught the subject at what seemed to me to be its most striking pose. Wnt (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all the image is supposed to illustrate is the idea of a contextual advertisement, then it certainly seems to me that a freely licensed mock-up could easily be made. —Bkell (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the fair use rationale on the file seems sufficient to me, I've changed the legend at the Contextual advertising page to describe this example in more detail. I don't feel as if the use of this image should be any more controversial than the quotation of a paragraph of text — and we do not need to cite a source quoting a paragraph of text in order to prove that it is worth quoting; we have the discretion to quote it on our own, as a part of our own writing here. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 8 June 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:CVG airial.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, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial photography taken from Google Maps. It is claimed to be from the United States Geological Survey, but Google credits various sources for its aerial photos of this area (DigitalGlobe, USDA Farm Service Agency, GeoEye, U.S. Geological Survey), and it is not clear that the USGS is solely responsible for this content. Watermarks reading "©2008 Google" are visible. —Bkell (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google watermarks are clearly visible. Copyright violation. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 17:32, 10 June 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.