Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 29

< October 28	October 30 >

October 29

File:NSOM-tips.jpg, also File:NSOM-tips.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, completely black image; probably a corrupt file. —Bkell (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete two files. The correct and actually used file is File:NSOM-tips.png. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 19:34, 4 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:SnoopDoggIWannaRockVideo.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 ⚡ 02:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - Video still not subject of critical commentary Mosmof (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The image illustrates the video, which isn't the subject of the article. Swarm^Talk 06:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 19:34, 4 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:SuchetaKriplani.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 ⚡ 02:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of photograph not specified. Invalid license. Vssun (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though public domain in India, it may still be under copyright in the US. Swarm^Talk 06:33, 1 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:Nusrat Khan.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 ⚡ 17:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, or which could be adequately covered with text alone. IQinn (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree This is a blanket fit-it-all "or..or..or". Please state your objection clearly and prove it. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This issue is handled with {{di-replaceable fair use}}, and the image will be deleted by default. If you wish to dispute the argument, please place {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} below the template on the file's page. Swarm^Talk 03:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The discussion is now held here in this forum. These images have been mass nominated without providing detailed arguments for the claims and as i think even without carefully evaluation them. Please provide detailed arguments here in this forum. That needs the input of the wider community. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC
Comment -- This photo was one of a series of about three dozen published when reporters from the McClatchy News Service traveled around the world to interview former Guantanamo captives. Most of these images were taken in Afghanistan.
I have requested, dozens of times, for the wikimedia foundation to get the professional opinion of a lawyers or lawyers who actually specialize in intellectual property law, to offer an informed opinion on the copyright status of images taken in Afghanistan. We have have had hundreds of discussions over images taken in Afghanistan, or one of the other half dozen countries that have not signed on to International intellectual property agreements. I have been told that although the wikimedia foundation employs a lawyer, he is not an intellectual property lawyer.
- Some people consider images and other intellectual property originating in Afghanistan is like a gold claim during a gold rush -- all the rights belong to the first individual or organization to publish the image, in a country that has intellectual property laws -- without regard to whether they have any connection to the original creator.
- Some people assert that any image originating in Afghanistan is permanently in the public domain.
- Some people claim Berne has clauses that state that when citizens of countries that do honor intellectual property take images in countries that don't honor intellectual property, they own all the intellectual property rights to those images, when they return to a country that does honor intellectual property.
  - By this reasoning some people acknowledge that images taken in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, by citizens of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, are permanently in the public domain.
  - Alternatively, some claim that images by taken by Afghans or Saudis in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia are only in the public domain if they are first published in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
  - Some individuals have argued here that, even though countries like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia do not protect intellectual property, as a courtesy for the artists, writers, composers and photographers from those countries, we should treat their property as if it were protected.

So, this is all extremely complicated, none of us are lawyers, and the wikimedia foundation has not arranged for intellectual property experts to weigh in. Arguably, this image, and similar images, are in the public domain, which would render discussions of fair use moot. The {{PD-Afghanistan}} template here on the wikipedia and the corresponding template on the commons diverge. The template here says the image was first published in Afghanistan. The template on the commons merely says the image is a "work of Afghanistan". This is also a problem. Geo Swan (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Individual has been released so the image can possibly be replaced. In response to the above, we don't have to be experts on intellectual property law, we just have to know wikipedia's non-free content policies, which say non-free photos of living individuals aren't allowed because they're replaceable. This is a prime example of a replaceable image. Also fails to fulfill Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm^Talk 05:57, 1 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:Ravil Mingazov.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 ⚡ 17:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, or which could be adequately covered with text alone. IQinn (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree This is a blanket fit-it-all "or..or..or". Please state your objection clearly and prove it. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This issue is handled with {{di-replaceable fair use}}, and the image will be deleted by default. If you wish to dispute the argument, please place {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} below the template on the file's page. Swarm^Talk 03:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The discussion is now held here in this forum. These images have been mass nominated without providing detailed arguments for the claims and as i think even without carefully evaluation them. Please provide detailed arguments here in this forum. That needs the input of the wider community. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given the subject is being held at Guantanamo Bay, I consider that enough to justify holding a discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Image is certainly replaceable. The government has already been ordered by a US district judge to release Mingazov. Considering that he is pending release from prison, there is certainly the possibility for a photo to be taken of him. Also fails to fulfill Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm^Talk 05:50, 1 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:Hadj Boudella before his detention.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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, or which could be adequately covered with text alone. IQinn (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree This is a blanket fit-it-all "or..or..or". Please state your objection clearly and prove it. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This issue is handled with {{di-replaceable fair use}}, and the image will be deleted by default. If you wish to dispute the argument, please place {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} below the template on the file's page. Swarm^Talk 03:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The discussion is now held here in this forum. These images have been mass nominated without providing detailed arguments for the claims and as i think even without carefully evaluation them. Please provide detailed arguments here in this forum. That needs the input of the wider community. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Boudella has been released. Free images are a (remote) possibility. Geo Swan (talk) 22:56, 30 October 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:Belkacem bensayah.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 ⚡ 17:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, or which could be adequately covered with text alone. IQinn (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree This is a blanket fit-it-all "or..or..or". Please state your objection clearly and prove it. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This issue is handled with {{di-replaceable fair use}}, and the image will be deleted by default. If you wish to dispute the argument, please place {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} below the template on the file's page. Swarm^Talk 03:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The discussion is now held here in this forum. These images have been mass nominated without providing detailed arguments for the claims and as i think even without carefully evaluation them. Please provide detailed arguments here in this forum. That needs the input of the wider community. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I favor keep, because there have been other discussions where regular patrollers of unfree images have said when captives face a life sentence it is generally agreed that no free image is possible. Individuals like Belkacem Bensayah don't face a life sentence, per se -- because they have never been tried, and so are not being held under a judicial sentence at all. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have gone on record -- they want to hold a significant fraction of the remaining captives, indefinitely, without trial. This is essentially a life sentence. BB stood accused, still stands accused, of being the leader of al Qaeda's Bosnian cell. The US military intelligence establishment has claimed he made dozens of phone calls to Abu Zubaydah, described as a "senior al qaeda lieutenant", in the month after al Qaeda's attacks on 9-11. They asserted that these calls were a sign that he was leading a plot to bomb the US Embassy in Sarajevo. Personally I consider these allegations to be as flimsy as cobwebs, but they continue to be taken very seriously, so, presumably, he is one of the fifty who face detention for the rest of their lives. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:NFC#UUI #1 (subject is still alive). The theory that he will never be released is nothing but speculation. Fails to fulfill Wikipedia:NFCC#8 as well. Swarm^Talk 05:42, 1 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:Azhakath Padmanabha Kurup.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 ⚡ 02:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old painting. No source has been specified Vssun (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably in the public domain but it's impossible to confirm this without any source information whatsoever. Swarm^Talk 06:05, 1 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:Nlutsparrowmspaint.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 ⚡ 02:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation: likeness of a popular film character Staszek Lem (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic, unused orphan image. Swarm^Talk 06:10, 1 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:Nlut galaxy.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 ⚡ 02:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused painting of a galaxy by defunct user Staszek Lem (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
move to commons license is compatible. The artwork could be useful to someone. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any way this image would be useful to anyone, and it isn't being used for anything. It's not a realistic depiction of a galaxy in any sense; rather a personal work of art. Swarm^Talk 06:28, 1 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:NLUTCREATION.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 ⚡ 02:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused picture of unknown purpose by defunct user Staszek Lem (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic, not used for anything. Swarm^Talk 06:12, 1 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:Klop.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 ⚡ 02:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused picture of unknown purpose by defunct user. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here was the use for the image, a page that advertised the imaginary character. Now useless. Swarm^Talk 06:15, 1 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:Not my flag.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 - per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/LGBTinterest not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on LGBT people, in the same way an X'd out Jewish or an X'd out African American flag would be an attack on them CTJF83 chat 23:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; serves a legitimate purpose ("This is for the "not interested in LGBT issues" userbox"). The userbox, along with the image, is used harmlessly by several users. It can be used to attack LGBT people (the same way File:Flag burning.jpg can), but the image itself does not. Swarm^Talk 06:21, 1 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:Scott w roberts.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 ⚡ 02:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file that previously was used on a deleted article. Astronomystars(talk) 18:04, 29 October 2010

Absentee uploader for over two years. File not hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Image was only used on one deleted article.Astronomystars (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unused in any article, uploader (of whom the photo is taken) is no longer active on Wikipedia; useless file. Swarm^Talk 06:24, 1 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.