Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2

File:17Shadow.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 ⚡ 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low res version obsoleted by File:MC-130P Combat Shadow on humanitarian mission.JPG. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:57, 2 February 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:Ray LaHood Secretary of Transportation.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 in favor of the one already on Commons. I looked at the source at whitehouse.gov, and nothing indicates that this is not an original work of the US Federal Government. As the version on Commons is higher resolution, there's really no reason to keep the lower-res photo around. That the White House makes the image available on its own Web site at lower resolution than it has potentially made it available to others really doesn't change the fact that the file is still an original work of the US Federal Government. Thus it's still public domain. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary duplicate to File:Ray LaHood Habitat for Humanity 2009 131156.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: by uploader - It seems rather odd to designate the file that was uploaded 13 months earlier and used in an article for all that time, the "duplicate", and to delete it preference to a file that was uploaded a few days ago. Here is the diff where the uploader substituted their duplicate pic on January 31, 2011 [1]. Perhaps you can explain the logic of this new upload when merely adding to the file information of the original pic would have served the same purpose? I propose that we add to the file information of the earlier upload and delete the upload that was the actual duplicate. If you disagree, please provide a rationale. -Regards -KeptSouth (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#F8, which actually says "The Commons version is in the same file format and is of the same or higher quality/resolution." I'm the one that uploaded the more original copy as File:Ray LaHood Habitat for Humanity 2009 131156.jpg (which is 800 pixels high and has the camera's EXIF info still in it) on Commons then tagged the en.wiki version for speedy as this is clearly a lower-quality derivative grabbed from item 19 of the slideshow at http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/united-we-serve-cabinet-edition (resized to 436 pixels high, with black margins taking up most of the image). Sometimes I see F8 described as "bit for bit identical" or other such things, but that's not what WP:CSD#F8 actually says. Is there a chance that it was changed? The reason I tracked down and found the original was because I was looking at the Ray LaHood article and that derivative photo stood out immediately as being artificially padded, and I was deciding whether to do a lossless crop on it, but then I found a bigger original. For what it's worth, this en.wiki version would have gotten cropped by me down to a smaller version if I hadn't found the original. It would be quite contorted if CSD F8 only applies when one crops and re-uploads an inferior picture that's not going to be the version in use anymore, just to prove that the Commons image replacing it is a higher quality/resolution of the same image. --Closeapple (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by uploader - the source of the "Commons" version that was recently uploaded by Closeapple is a typepad.com blog which is not an official U.S. government site; the source of the image I uploaded more than a year ago is the whitehouse.gov site, which is clearly a U.S. government source. Removing this file will subject the remaining file to a greater risk of deletion as its authenticity as a work of the federal government will be more questionable. The recently uploaded Commons versions offers readers no appreciable gain in image quality, size or content; as Closeapple himself indicates "For what it's worth, this en.wiki version would have gotten cropped by me down to a smaller version." There is no basis, that I can see, for Closeapple's statement that the picture I uploaded last year is "not going to be the version in use anymore", in fact, as I said, the recently uploaded version comes from an unofficial blog site. KeptSouth (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On two of the points:
- http://fastlane.dot.gov/ and http://usdotblog.typepad.com/ are the same thing. It says "Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation" right across the top — that seems pretty official. Ray LaHood is the Secretary of Transportation, and the blog entries are in his own name. If using http://fastlane.dot.gov/.a/6a00e551eea4f588340115714097a8970b as the filename origin for File:Ray LaHood Habitat for Humanity 2009 131156.jpg helps, then so be it. I thought the source line was obvious enough; I'm not sure how someone looking at that description could manage to see the hostname "usdotblog.typepad.com" without their eyes passing over "fastlane.dot.gov" first.
- Commons:File:Ray LaHood Habitat for Humanity 2009 131156.jpg is 600×800 and appears to be the original or close to it: it still has the EXIF info indicating the Apple iPhone camera and has (probably not exact) geographic coordinates, a couple blocks away, embedded in the EXIF by the iPhone. The file up for deletion, File:Ray LaHood Secretary of Transportation.jpg, is arbitrarily reduced to 341×435 (31% of original/69% reduction by area, 54% of original/46% reduction by edge length) then padded to 776 wide — more black margin than actual photo — and all EXIF stripped. I'm pretty sure a 50% larger original is "the same or higher quality/resolution" than a reduced derivative.
Also, it should be pointed out, that if File:Ray LaHood Habitat for Humanity 2009 131156.jpg is not the work of the United States government employee, the "White House" derived work at File:Ray LaHood Secretary of Transportation.jpg faces the same license issue; copyrighted works passed through a U.S. government work do not lose their copyright. And I've never heard of a derivative work being saved because a higher-resolution version might in the future have a higher risk of being "questioned" then erroneously deleted (as opposed to actually not meeting guidelines). --Closeapple (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I should say that I'm not sure if normal things that are eligible for deletion under the criteria are required to be deleted. It's not a personal thing with me. If User:KeptSouth thinks the smaller version has a function, I suppose it's still eligible to keep and move to Commons, but I suspect it would attract deletion discussion from Commons users also, for similar reasons. --Closeapple (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The recently uploaded file will indeed be subjected to a greater risk of deletion because its source url is from typepad.com. The file which is the subject of this deletion discussion has been on wikipedia en for over one year and is from an official U.S. government site, whitehouse.gov. The source is extremely important in these copyright issues. In contrast to the arguments that Closeapple makes about eligibility for deletion, policy clearly requires deletion of images that cannot be confirmed as by the federal govt, and that will certainly become an issue if not now, then when the blog is folded or cleaned of old material. The finer resolution in the newly uploaded picture is more or less irrelevant. It is not a main portrait, and should not overwhelm the text because it is only being used to illustrate one episode in LaHood's tenure as Secretary of Transportation. The image should appear in the article in a small size and the greater resolution is not really seen or appreciated in that size. Most readers will not click on the picture to view the full size enlargement. Though it is nice to have a picture with the higher res, that should be balanced against the fact that the source of that picture, the typepad.com blog, is questionable, and is highly likely to be questioned in the future.KeptSouth (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, we can just change the source to filename http://fastlane.dot.gov/.a/6a00e551eea4f588340115714097a8970b instead if it makes everyone feel better. And is there any evidence that the whitehouse.gov slideshow URLs are going to last to the end of this administration (when NARA archives the site)? I seem to remember being able to, for example, get real photos off whitehouse.gov (instead of just these slideshow resizes) until recently; if they pull any more rearrangements like this, there's a chance the slideshow could disappear before the simpler fastlane.dot.gov blog entries do. If "policy clearly requires deletion of images that cannot be confirmed as by the federal govt", the photo sourced from the White House slideshow will have the same problem as the one from fastlane.dot.gov, unless editors in deletion discussions erroneously give whitehouse.gov photos with no photographer credit a pass that they don't give the same dot.gov photos. --Closeapple (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the Commons sourcing if needed, and delete. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Stifle. As a comment to Closeapple it is possible to add a review on the file on Commons if you have a file where source web site may be deleted. That way we have a proof that an admin or a trusted user has verified that the file was licensed freely. --MGA73 (talk) 10:22, 8 February 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:ARAVIND.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 ⚡ 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 08:17, 2 February 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:2006reissueremoteviewer.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; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently the cover for the remastered edition of the album The Remote Viewer; it is included in the article as an "additional cover." But it is not significantly different from the original album cover, File:Originalremoteviewer.jpg. In accordance with WP:NFCC#3a, we do not need to show both images. —Bkell (talk) 17:12, 2 February 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:Rachelandpatrick.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 ⚡ 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo; unlikely to have any encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 17:18, 2 February 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:President Perez 1992.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 ⚡ 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image in 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempts that does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the subject. howcheng {chat} 18:42, 2 February 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:Pdl2.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 ⚡ 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Bad description. MGA73 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 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:Usa.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 ⚡ 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Bad description. MGA73 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 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:Tennedef.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 ⚡ 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userpage image. MGA73 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 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:Tennedef2.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 ⚡ 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userpage image. MGA73 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 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:TallapoosaRiverHorseshoeBend.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 ⚡ 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo. Low res. I doubt it will be used. MGA73 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not that I care about the low res or unused nature so much, but the photoshopped text over it makes it far less suitable for inclusion anywhere. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:44, 8 February 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:Ssbadmina.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 ⚡ 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userpage image. MGA73 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 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.