Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18

File:Muffy.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 ⚡ 13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Oroso (talk) 07:08, 18 January 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:Mohamed Bouazizi.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. If this image is non-free and isn't even the correct person on fire, then there is absolutely no reason to keep it around. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a recent event, showing a man who has just set himself aflame. Certainly a highly important and symbolic event in its historical context, but we don't need the presence of the image to understand that event. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - We can understand the self-immolation event without the need to use specif copyrighted images from news agencies. --Damiens.rf 13:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with above. Delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the photo is from a witness's cell phone camera and may not have be have any claims to copyright. To get visual evidence made, me at least, experience his sacrifice on a deeper level. Glennconti (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tunisia is a Berne Convention signatory.Any photograph taken by anyone is immediately copyrighted at time of creation; no registration of copyright is required. This notion that I've seen expressed recently in debates surround this fellow who killed himself, that images have to be found copyrighted first is utterly false. They're AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted. It doesn't matter if it was taken with a professional camera or a 15 year old .001 megapixel camera used by a kid in their Barbie play set. It's STILL copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well so be it. That's why I only commented because I was unsure of the legality of it. The photo does make a powerful statement though. Glennconti (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The photo could be anybody, anywhere. All we can discern from the photo is a person is on fire. Can't tell who, where, setting, etc. Contrast Thích Quảng Đức. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        This one is also Bouazizi http://i.imgur.com/sxIHh.jpg Glennconti (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        All comments agree deleting the photo are results of being meddlesome and couldn't find something to criticize (complain about) at the moment, the photograph is vitally historical and symbolic, only missing thing is citation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.91.126 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This link purports to show that the immolation photo is NOT of Bouazizi! I can't read it but please pay attention to the date. http://www.envazhi.com/?p=5470 It is published prior to Bouazizi's known immolation date. Glennconti (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good find! So, this image was already around and published in 2009. The Tamil page you found appears to be related to this case of an attempted suicide in February 2009. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Editor has now uploaded a different picture over the old one. Authenticity issue needs to be re-addressed for this, but the original deletion concern applies to the new version just like to the old. BTW, I very much doubt the new picture is him either. The man on that picture looks quite different from the (presumably authentic) portrait File:Bouazizi.jpg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: It's of an Iranian asylum seeker in Kuala Lumpur in 2004 [1]. Or somebody in 2009 [2]. It's certainly not Bouazizi in 2011. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 23 January 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 Zine El Abidine Ben Ali visiting Mohamed Bouazizi in the hospital.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 ⚡ 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a recent event, possibly from a commercial news agency. Not needed to understand the events narrated in the article. In fact, the specific event shown here (Ben Ali's visit) is not even mentioned, but even if it were, we wouldn't need to see this image in order to understand it. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not tied to the text in any way. Fails NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not useful to the current version of the text and very unlikely to be useful to a future version of it, since this image itself is of no notability. Also, copying from news sources is the worst case of copyright violation. Being a current event makes it worse. --Damiens.rf 18:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep if not copyvio. its CETRTAINLY strongly related to the context. 1. of his burning that started the process, 2. of Ben Ali's political manouvring to try and show his realtion t to the people (which ultimately failed). its of MEGA importance, and worth defending more than the controversial Virgin killer.(Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]

Your "if" is rather vacuous: this is 99% certain to be copyrighted, and we must assume that it is, there's no if about it. And assuming it's non-free, your argument would carry force if and only if there was substantial commentary in the article, based on reliable sources, critically discussing both (a) the fact that Ben Ali visited the hospital, and (b) that the publication of this particular image had a notable effect on the further events. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The picture credit is to AFP, so it's not public domain. It's picture #5 in the gallery here: http://english.aljazeera.net/photo_galleries/africa/201113163952111181.html (retrieved 2011.01.20); Al Jazeera credits the photo to AFP in the picture's caption. (I couldn't find the original article; Google's in-house hosted AFP content isn't the easiest of collections to search, esp. for non-current stories.) Valravn (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding this source. I've deleted it per WP:CSD F7, paragraph 3 (commercial news agency pictures must be deleted immediately). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 20 January 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:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 January 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. There is no way in hell that this was going to end as a delete based on the discussion, and while I was initially kind of tottering between closing this as a no consensus vs. a keep, a couple of rereads led me to close this as a keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This specific imagery of the Chilean miners holding the "mision cumplida" message is beatiful, but not really helpful or necessary for the understanding an article about the rescue. It's a wonderful decoration, but our position in regard to the use of non-free content says we're better without it. We judge such material by their informative usefulness, not by the emotions they convey. Damiens.rf 13:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: We haven't heard from you, is the "emotions" angle still your primary concern or do you now recognize that it is certainly valid for an article to use images to convey some types of emotional and relational information, when it is appropriate for the subject, or that any type of transference of emotional information via images is not encyclopedic in nature is still your opinion? Veriss (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup1 I beg your pardon, but I must ask this. Why are emotions not a valid bit of information? Exactly which Wikipedia policy discounts emotional type information as invalid for protections and inferior to other types of information transference? Veriss (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion on the usefulness of the photograph and whether or not it conveys "emotional" meaning to what was clearly an extremely emotional event for not just Chileans proud of their accomplishment but for the entire world who followed the entire story through 70+ days of news cycles. The global emotional investment into the plight and rescue of the minors is clearly illustrated in this quote from the article's daughter article entitled "Reaction to the 2010 Copiapó mining accident

"The rescue was among the most-watched video streams of all time, according to internet monitors. Chile's state broadcaster TVN reported that more than a billion people watched the rescue on television around the world. Internet monitor Akamai said overall web traffic was 20 per cent higher than normal around the time the first Chilean miner was rescued late Tuesday, while the company's Net Usage Index for News indicated that the Chilean mine rescue was the fifth most-read-about online news event since the service began in 2005. According to a study from University of Navarra, Spain, this story had a far greater impact in the world's media than Chile's other big news story of 2010 - the massive earthquake in the south of the country in February." (see the original article for full citations)

The image not only conveys valid and important emotional information but it also demonstrates the the technical lengths that the Chilean government went to in all facets of the rescue by even providing live video feed free to all media at the bottom of one of the deepest rescue shafts ever drilled in history.

Another item to consider is that while the actual graphic under debate was a screen capture from CNN, it was filmed with a Chilean government camera and television network and released free to a worldwide audience simultaneously without charge to any media service who wished to rebroadcast it. It is debatable that the actual original image is actually "non-free". This image also vividly demonstrates in a manner that no amount of words can ever do the intense and well deserved pride that the Chilean people felt in accomplishing this near miraculous and difficult rescue operation. I am not Chilean but I do believe that this image is just as important as the other images in the article and should be retained to fully tell the entire story of the miner's rescue and that illustrating Chilean national pride in the accomplishment is a valid objective. Veriss (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Essentially, per Veriss1. The image is very important in the article, well... Veriss has already said everything I planned to say :) Hurray for Veriss! Diego Grez (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep if and only if Veriss' argument can be substantiated that the original release by the Chileneans was intended as free. Otherwise delete: I'm with Damiens.rf on the point that non-free images need to convey information, not symbolically represent emotions. And the argument that it "demonstrates the the technical lengths" etc. is irrelevant: we can understand the fact that there was a camera in the shaft without seeing an image from that camera. Finally, Veriss' lengthy argument about how important the event was is quite beside the point – non-free image justifications are not measured by how important or how "deserving" of coverage an event is, but by how much information the image contributes to that coverage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update A: I am working on your "IFF" concern (see Middle School Math for what IFF means). Why are emotions not a valid bit of information? Exactly which Wikipedia policy discounts emotional type information as invalid for protections and inferior to other types of information transference? Which Wikipedia policy states that emotional information counts for less then "factual" information? When does Date, Time, Place information trump national feelings? You completely disregarded why national and international emotional concerns were and are a valid point in the discussion of this image. Was this lapse merely an oversight? Please explain how emotional information is not worthy of conveyance and which Wikipedia policies proscribe and minimalize this information conveyance to be something less then worthy of attention. Veriss (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are about conveying factual informtion. Emotions can of course be treated as an object of such coverage, but it is not our job to transport them. Reporting about emotions is fine (provided they are notable); evoking emotions is not. But the reporting can be done quite appropriately in text: "The successful rescue resulted in a wave of gratitude and national pride in Chile. [insert detailed description and reliable source here] Rescue workers posed for cameras with a sign saying 'mission completed' at the end of the operation.". We don't need an image that conveys this feeling of pride, in order to understand that it was there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update B: What about this image is non-factual? The mission was indeed completed and and it is an undisputed fact that all 33 miners had been transported safely to the surface without incident. There were in fact six rescuers from both government and private industry as the image faithfully illustrates. The rescuers actually did hold up the "mission complete - Chile" sign up for 1 billion estimated worldwide viewers. The ITV (Chile) cameras contracted by the government of Chile were verifiably located at the bottom of a 2,000+ foot rescue shaft. This image is in fact iconic and no editor has disputed any of these "facts". How exactly does this image misrepresent any facts at all? (see original and daughter articles for full citations)

I hear and understand your restating of your original complaint about encyclopedias not conveying "emotional" information but I have not been able to find this policy on Wikepedia. I did however specifically ask you which policy(ies) exactly this image is violating. You reiterated your original, seemingly personal, opinion that encyclopedias only report factual "who, what, when, why" type of information but you again failed to post any links to the Wikipedia policies this image allegedly violates by apparently posting "emotional" information even though I again explicitly requested it. If you want to delete a legally uploaded image that accurately presents factual information then then please state the exact policies that the image violates, not merely your personal opinions. Cheers! Veriss (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the image was "non-factual" in the sense of misrepresenting facts. I don't doubt the facts you just reiterated. It's just that the image isn't needed to understand those facts. You just described them in text, right here, and I can understand everything the image supposedly conveys, just from reading your text alone. Therefore, the image itself is not needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please post the exact link to the policy you feel justifies deleting this file which several people have commented is important to the article because I cannot find the policies or guidelines that you refer to. Veriss (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENC in conjuction with WP:NFCC. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is also relevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

110% strongest keep its certainly doesnt hinder the article and WP:Wikifairyies it. Article are not worsened but improved by images. Furthermore, there is a section about the rescue where it would certainly be fitting. It doesnt appear to be in violation of copyright as a screen capture. To say info is judged on usefullness the vast, vast majority of images on wikipedia would need to go. While agree it is not the most pertinent, i also think it does offer insight into the sentiment going into the operations. Which is after all the reason the article was so popular and warranted and a likely candidate (at some point) for a GA if not a FA.(Lihaas (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]

You evidently have not grasped the difference between our use of free images and non-free ones. Please read up on policy before you comment further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive already said on the [presume] premise thereof. please re-read before accusingLihaas (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I am currently working on finding the English language article that discussed the arrangements of the video-pooling for the rescue operation which I know I read because I thought the setup was very interesting. The arrangement is indirectly addressed in the first paragraph of the Reaction to the 2010 Copiapó mining accident - Media coverage but the Google translated English version of the cited Spanish language article does not appear to directly support the assertion made in the first paragraph. The English language article that I am fairly certain covers it, and that I am sure that I read for my own background while the article was current news, is on a premium site at this location (http://www.santiagotimes.cl/news/other/19933-tvn-and-canal-13-vie-to-transmit-rescue-of-miners) but my free registration does not permit me to access articles older then two weeks. It may also be discussed in a press release on www.chile.gov but my Spanish language skills are not strong so I will seek assistance researching that. I am still working on it though and will post additional updates as I make progress. The basic arrangement that I remember reading was this: ITV (Chile), due to it's primacy reporting news within Chile and it's full-time satellite access was awarded a contract and paid by the Chilean government to serve as the government agent and provide all pool TV and Video resources for free to any and all media organizations around the world who desired to retransmit it. These transmissions were used by dozens of major news broadcasters including CNN, BBC, MSNBC (US), CBC (Canada) and other international stations as reported for example here (http://www.canada.com/news/Emotional+Chile+rescue+media+phenomenon/3672013/story.html). I am 100% positive that the arrangement I described was in fact the case but I need help finding an accessible English language or translatable Spanish language article to unequivocally assert that my statement is true. Veriss (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can read Castellano. Could you concisely point me to the text in question? --Damiens.rf 12:45, 25 January 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:Hitmans barcode 2.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 ⚡ 13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a poor quality alternative of File:Hitmans barcode.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:37, 18 January 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:American Legion Freedom Bell Bottom.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 ⚡ 13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image fails NFCC #8. I don't think we need an image to demonstrate that people vandalised the bell. I think it is replaceable by text. (NFCC #1)--Rockfang (talk) 17:13, 18 January 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:Sodium-Hexethal.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 ⚡ 13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chemically incorrect and unused (superceded by File:Sodium Hexethal.svg) DMacks (talk) 17:26, 18 January 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:Kreisbutler.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 ⚡ 13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File is likely a copyvio. All other uploads by this account were deleted as having no permission and the account name suggests a troll. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:28, 18 January 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.