Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 24

< November 23	November 25 >

November 24

File:ExamplePatrol.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PNG version now exists Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Rehman 14:15, 25 November 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:IMG 1944.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: close for housekeeping and change of venue. This is a case where a few things need to happen, and they need to take place outside of FFD. This was the case where an ambiguously-named file was essentially hijacked by a user uploading another ambiguously-named file over it. First thing one must do, however, is separate the two files. The earlier file, which has a correct license in the history, will be migrated to Commons using a descriptive filename. The second file will be relisted at PUF because a license for it was never explicitly defined (is it the same license as the earlier file - yes, no, maybe?), and so we don't necessarily know what its license situation is, and therefore a discussion over its own situation will need to occur separately from the original. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file was originally uploaded by Norum (talk · contribs) in 2007 as a high-resolution photo of Książ Castle. In 2010, Haddara (talk · contribs) uploaded (twice) a different image—a view from the Nile River of Cairo at night—under the same filename. I think that we ought to delete the low-quality photo of Cairo and preserve the original photo of the castle (ideally, it should be moved to Commons). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rearrange per nomination. This is why one should always use descriptive filenames, because it is far less likely that one can hijack your file. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:51, 28 November 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:The Space Adventure Coverart.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Came from a blatant source copyvio and a derivative work hosted at Wikipedia with an invalid fair use claim. Speedy declined by an admin. (see dif) The images source page appears to be a repository of user created covers. This image is a crop/derivative of [this Custom Cover] which is made from copyrighted material making the source of this version a copyvio. As this image is a copyvio to start with any claim of "fair use" a Wikipedia is clearly already invalid. This should have been speedied and it still can be. Take your pick - F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement. or F7. Invalid fair-use claim. See also Image use Policy - Fair use - Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, for those interested this is what the real cover looks like: [1]. Minor differences are that the bottom of the artwork has been trimmed off. Id be happy just to re-upload the real image over the top of this image. Can say i didnt notice the differences when i originally uploaded the image. Salavat (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I would take a two step process if that is the case - first is to have the version in question deleted. Second would be to upload the official version. I say this because uploading a new version over the existing one will not delete the copyvio. You can try tagging it with G7 as you are the "author". If you do that I would suggest also placing a note that links to this discussion above the tag. Once deleted this will be closed and you can upload the correct version. Or you can let this discussion run it's course. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figure just let this deletion run it's course and then ill upload the new image once this one is deleted. So i guess my vote is delete. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 25 November 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:Screwedupessay.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:H Town.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Texas Made.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

Unused images. Not really sure what their use was meant for. Based on the users other uploads (since deleted) it may have had to do with an intended article on "Screwed Up Records" which seems to have to do with Screwed Up Click. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 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:George Adamski Newspaper 1.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image of a newspaper cover. We don't need to see what the real cover was to understand that there was media coverage about the topic. Damiens.rf 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I looked over the article and the image was somewhat out of place, but upon reading the full article I moved the image to a better location where there is an actual discussion about the topic. I say "weak keep" because I don't feel the fact that the Rockford Register ran a story is as notable as it is that UPI sent the story out over the wires (Where the Rockford Register picked the story up from) and in 1959 it was "worldwide" news. For lack of anything better it is interesting to "see it" so to speak and while I would personally find it a stronger argument to keep if the scan were from, say, The New York Times, this is it for the moment. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 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:Chillicothe-litton.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image of a newspaper cover. We don't need to see what the real cover was to understand that there was media coverage about the topic. Damiens.rf 15:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Litton had visited the newspaper moments before his death.Americasroof (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having thought about this, and having read over the article, it does fail Wikipedia policy. The short version is to read the {{Non-free newspaper image}} tag, which gives a brief fair use rationale for the use of the image, which says the image is being used to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question. The longer version is that this image shows the entire front page of a newspaper and there is not any commentary *about* this newspaper, or this *specific cover*, in the article. Currently it is being used as the lead image in an article about Jerry Litton and by doing that, if one were to ignore the articles name, it gives the impression the entire article is either about the newspaper or the event depicted on the front page of the newspaper. However the article is about the person, not about the event depicted in the image. Currently there is no section of the article solely about "Tragedy Strikes" (The headline on the newspaper), "Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune" (The name of the newspaper) or even the death of the subject. The only section that discusses the death is entitled 1976 U.S. Senate Election and even that does not specifically mention the newspaper, only that "their plane crashed on take-off from the Chillicothe airport shortly after 9 p.m. on election night" and that it was due to the planes crankshaft breaking "under the strain of take off." A descriptive image summary that is also used as a caption does not satisfy Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria policy. In "plain English": remove the image, and it's caption, from the article and nothing would be lost from the understanding of the articles subject, or that the subject and their family perished when "their plane crashed on take-off from the Chillicothe airport shortly after 9 p.m. on election night." Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also used in the article on the newspaper itself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That article did not exist before November 27. I have uploaded a free image file from 1890 when the paper was called "Chillicothe Constitution" for use in the infobox, it became "Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune" in 1930. I also upped the cover of the December 26, 1930 edition that discusses the fire that happened above the offices. I removed the file in discussion here because, as of right now - November 28 - there has been no commentary about that specific cover in the article, it had been placed in the infobox. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The visit to the newspaper is now referenced and mentioned in both the Jerry Litton article and the Chillicothe Constitution article. I am VERY IMPRESSED RAN that you bent over backwards to try and save the image by writing the article. Soundvisions, while I'm aggravated that you nominated the deletion, I appreciate your good faith efforts to at least put a replacement up. The Litton front page is probably the most famous front page in the newspaper's history as Jerry Litton is so entertwined with the city. As a side note the bot that placed a deletion warning on the photo on the article is malfunctioning the discussion to a nonexistant 1970 article.Americasroof (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply: I did not nominate this image for deletion. And the nom was made because the image is being used as a lead image in an article about a person, not the events on the front page of the paper. They are two different things. Think of this in the same way that you can not use a scan of a book jackets "author" photo to illustrate the author in an article about the author. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 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:AtariLandfill.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 ⚡ 08:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper scan used not "to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question", but actually to illustrate our own article about the issue in question. Not a fair use of this copyrighted image. Damiens.rf 15:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Showing the landfill is not necessary for the understanding of the concept, and besides, it's not like one can tell what anything is in the photo anyway. Everything is too blown-out to discern the identity of anything in that photo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:When all is said and done I concur with SchuminWeb in that the image is too blown out to really show anything. If it weren't for the caption nobody would know what this image was showing, some sort of garbage or trash perhaps but certainly not the "Atari Landfill." If anything a still from the band Wintergreen's When I Wake Up music video would work far better. And if that is all that is needed someone could stage a free version showing the same thing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:27, 29 November 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:Dor sets.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free photograph of a filmmaker on a film's set. Damiens.rf 15:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Concur with the nom. It is being used to illustrate the director, not really the subject of the article - which is the film. Visually speaking it is only an image of of a man sitting alone with a walkie-talkie. While this man may be Nagesh Kukunoor and he may well be "directing" on the set of "Dor" the image is not needed to aid the readers understanding of the film (or even directing of the film). The viewer can not see any true sign it is a film set either. No camera, no crew, no actors - just a man with a walkie-talkie. A walkie-talkie is not only for a director on a film set - the image could be replaced with this image, this image, or even this one as they show the same thing visually, and none of them are on a film set directing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 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:Jandisha2.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image. Damiens.rf 15:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unique image, necessary to explain the position of the article subject. The yuxtaposition of Lin Biao is a unique feature. Image caption expanded now. --Soman (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as decorative fair use. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:18, 27 November 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.