Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 5

File:Goddessofdemocracy-400x600.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. There is no source that supports that this image is iconic. There is no critical commentary in the article about the image. It is being used for identification of the subject of the article. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. -Nv8200p talk 03:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo from a press agency, and the photo itself is not the subject of commentary in the article, failing WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is the subject of commentary in the article. It illustrates the construction process of the statue. --Der yck C. 21:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the subject of commentary is the thing depicted in the photograph, not the photograph as such. The article is not engaging in critical commentary regarding the creative achievement of this particular AP photographer. I also see no evidence for the claim made in the FUR, that the image is "iconic". Again, the statue may be, but not the photograph. Since we already have a second non-free image of the same object, and a presumably free one of a replica, I don't see why we'd need this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it may be arguable that we do not need two Fair Use images for the article, I uploaded the image above as it is a better depiction of the subject itself. The existing image is also a FU image, and shows it in its setting. I feel that both are of equal importance; both are equally iconic. However, only one is proposed for deletion. I don't get it... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one was selected for nomination because it's a commercial news agency picture, where infringement on the copyright holder's rights is a more pressing issue than with some other sources. And no, you have still not explained how the image is iconic. If they are both "equally" iconic, then probably none of them is. You, too, seem to be mixing up the significance of the photograph with that of the object it depicts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments as to which one is "If they are both "equally" iconic, then probably none of them is" is pure abject nonsense simply because they are iconic for different reasons. I mean are you going to remove Widener's image of the Tank Man from the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article too, because there are other non-free images of activities in the square? Anyhoo, I have added commentary to the article concerned. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator also tries to get the pictures of the replica's of the statue deleted as if a replica creator (bluntly said someone who copies someone else's design) has a unique copyright. SpeakFree (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what in the above is supposed to be an argument regarding this deletion case? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an argument, just to show a wider context. Anyone is free to make their minds up using the available information. SpeakFree (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The process of building in itself the statue was highly public and notable, and critically commented in the article (Goddess_of_Democracy#Construction), therefore at least two images are necessary to show this process. ^walk victor falk^talk 19:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the description of the working process is in need of this particular image to be understood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed Mr. Widener and he replied stating that "The images have to say Jeff Widener/Associated Press". I changed the attribution accordingly. SpeakFree (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He followed up when I replied: "Ok Thanks! So Wikipedia has permission to use them?" saying: "It's Ok by me. If you get any flack from AP, tell them that I told you that. Jeff" SpeakFree (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That unfortunately doesn't solve the problem we're after here. Permission simply for use on Wikipedia is not sufficient for Wikipedia, because we still have to permit derivative works and commercial use. Permission simply for use on Wikipedia (and not the full CC-BY-SA license) would still require us to use the non-free license, and thus we're back to square one. Additionally: (A) any permission would need to go through OTRS so that it can be registered in the system, and (B) if the photographer was in the employ of the Associated Press when they took the photo, then it is likely that AP owns the copyright on the photo and not the photographer. In other words, the photographer may not have the right to assign any rights related to the photo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the discussion [page] of the Tank Man image (which was also taken by Jeff Widener) he sold it to AP but still has rights over it. If this image is unacceptable then that one probably also must be. But the situation with the English language Wikipedia is different than that of other language Wikipedia's as it's the only one where non-free files are allowed due to the fair use statutes since it's legally based in the US (hence all the logo's, movie and tv stills and non-free software screenshots which you don't see on non English WP's). As long as it is isn't uploaded on Commons (where it would be rapidly deleted) it should be ok to use it here and only here.

Relevant citation from the discussion:

“

Jeff Widener (the photographer) gave me direct permission, but said since its sold to AP we needed their permission, AP refused to allow GFDL... Chuck agreed to allow us to use it on Wikipedia, but ONLY wikipedia, provided that credit was given to Jeff Widener (the photographer) and to the AP, but does allow Fair Use/Wikipedia Only use. ALKIVAR™ 21:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

”

SpeakFree (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-mailed AP as well. SpeakFree (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reply from AP, they changed their stance since 2005, publication is not allowed without a fee. I have no choice but to nominate the Tank Man image for deletion as well. SpeakFree (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that takes care of that, I suppose, and as I suspected, I was correct. That means that the image definitely fails WP:NFCC#2, and so let the deletion commence. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Tianasquare.jpg image then. SpeakFree (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. It would be better to have authorisation, but strictly we don't need it per US fair use laws. We have a policy of using less images than allowed by law, and more so of agency images, but there is no blanket ban and we can use it for encyclopedic purposes, (in this case students building the statue, which is an historical event), and it doesn't breach NFCC#2 as it doesn't reduce its commercial value. ^walk victor falk^talk 17:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's fair use policies are deliberately stricter than US fair use laws. Thus we don't have to worry about the legal definition, since our own policy is far more restrictive, by design. And yes, there is a blanket ban on photos from press agencies. See #7 on WP:NFC#UUI. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the image itself is not notable. it shows something notable. we don't have a fair use case. nfcc#2 failure. --Damiens.rf 19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep fair use under NFCC#8.--苹果派.Talk 18:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC is not multiple choice. --Damiens.rf 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the time limit for a deletion request? The deletion request of Widener images started on April 12 were decided today so why is this still open? S_peakF_ree (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There haven't been any new posts in the past 5 days so what's the decision, keep or delete? 17:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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:MemeMolly.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non free picture of a living person - usage in the BLP goes against the foundations mission statement in regards to pictures and wiki en's non free usage guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per blp. ^walk victor falk^talk 20:56, 5 April 2011 (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:Cagsawafullchurchl.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) 07:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor-quality blurry picture, unclear whether it's a photograph or a drawing, of unknown authorship. Purported to be a photograph showing something before it was destroyed in 1814, according to this source – an obvious impossibility. Said to be a "borrowed postcard pic" in this source. Article for which this was uploaded had to be deleted as a copyvio. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously a drawing. The site of origin uses the word "photo" as a synonym for "image". It refers in turn to this site [1] that says the picture is a postcard from Cagsawa Park. In the Daraga,_Albay, you can see a picture of the Cagsawa church ruins today; you can see that only the left tower remains, which is identical with the one on the photo. Keep. ^walk victor falk^talk 20:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's "obviously a drawing" (I'm not sure, but let's assume it is), then we can't be certain about its provenance. Authorship? Age? Publication history? Nothing that would allow us to assume either that it's PD, or that it's factually authentic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nope. It's a photograph. The description of the image is hilariously wrong of course, because:

It hints that there were cameras in 1814.
It assumes that the current structure is the top of a [very] tall belfry while the rest of the church is buried. It's not. The 1814 eruption destroyed the church, partially buried it, but the facade was relatively intact. It was the subsequent eruptions that eventually led to the gradual collapse and the burying of the rest of the ruins. I'd say 80% to 90% of the belfry is actually aboveground today. Most old Spanish churches in the Philippines are built in the baroque style. And their belfries are generally only a little bit taller than the building. See below for an idea of what it probably looked like before being destroyed and compare with the remaining belfry today:

From the poor quality + the structure of the ruins, picture was probably early twentieth century. Most probably public domain, since there are far better quality pictures of the Cagsawa ruins with rest of the building extant, like here (which could be any time from the 1930's above I guess, I don't actually know when the rest of the church collapsed.. I suggest looking more into the actual source.

If nothing else, the following might be interesting, and it contains better quality 1928 pictures of the same ruins, with datestamps and commentary and showing the ruins with more structure than just the belfry (still obviously just ruins of course). Might be public domain. I forgot RP laws on that one (is it the same as US PD?).

Anyway, captioned and dated photos of the Cagsawa church shortly after the 1928 eruption of Mayon. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 23:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's obviously old enough to be in the public domain. PS. In the Philippines, only 50 years is needed before the image goes to public domain. Judging by the quality of the photo, we can assume that this was not taken after 1961. Moray An Par (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we can safely assume it's PD, shouldn't we replace it with this far superior version? It is evidently from the same time period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. It's very hard finding details on this in gov sites. Rest assured, for as far back as anyone can remember, the church's only remnants were the belfry. So any picture with other parts of it still standing has to be very old.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:23, 6 April 2011 (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:Cantharidin1.svg

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 ⚡ 21:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad structure - font sizes are all over the place Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It looks like crap because of weaknesses in WP's svg engine, but they're known and chem-diagram MOS says how to do it in a way that doesn't trigger the problem. No need for a bad one--commons:Category:Cantharidin has alternatives that aren't broken. DMacks (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (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:Carboxyl.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Acetic Acid. If one wanted to describe the carboxyl group, then the methyl group at top left should be "R" Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:46, 5 April 2011 (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.