Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 9

< January 8	January 10 >

January 9

File:Nintendo UltraMachine.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nintendo Ultra Machine.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why does it matter there's a deletion discussion on commons? Commons does not allow files that are allowed on wikipedia. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I meant this to go to PUF. Nevertheless, seeing as there's an unorthodox possible solution there, here might work as well as anywhere. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:13, 12 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:Breaking Bad logo.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 ⚡ 03:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo superseded by SVG version —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although some may prefer PNG over SVG. The SVG may also be moved to Commons since its just basic text and shapes. Reh man 03:20, 9 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:Maureen Forrester crop.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 as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan - also, by terms of the Van Vechten photos,[1] there is a wish that they not be cropped. Kelly ^hi! 05:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete G7. Author requests deletion.Moxy (talk) 06:01, 9 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:Palin-crosshairs.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: no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image, no copyright holder or authorship information, no rationale, orphaned at time of nomination. Kelly ^hi! 06:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - as per nominator. moved to neutral - Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - map is relevant to the article and a fair use case can be done; a rationale seems to have been added. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? Kelly ^hi! 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Tucson shooting, from where it seems to have been removed. I'll bring it up on the article talk page. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - non-free use case is clear and compelling as a historically significant iMedia:Example.oggmage, and it's almost inevitable that this image will be used in one or more articles. Any deficiencies in the use rationale or sourcing information can easily be fixed. If it turns out that there are multiple copies of this image or it gets replaced by a better one, or in the unlikely event it remains an orphan, it can then be prodded or speedied as a simple matter of cleanup. No point having a deletion debate here though. The real question is whether to included it in one or more articles, a matter best left to the editors on the article talk pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there has been significant critical commentary (not recent events) this image should not be used in an encyclopedia article. -Atmoz (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Under which policy or guideline do you rule out recent events? In any event, the graphic was published and discussed in the media back in March, when Palin posted it ([2]), and after the recent shooting ([3]). JamesMLane t c 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There has been considerable controversy over the descriptions of the icons in the image variously called "crosshairs", "bullseyes", or "surveyor's marks". That counts as critical commentary. Will Beback talk 22:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the NYT, months ago Giffords herself expressed concern over the icons used on that map. I re-added it to the article. (Hum, I hadn't noticed Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting#Image_of_the_crosshairs_map, looks like people have been arguing about this image for a long time) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've removed the image from the article again based on that discussion (and others on the page). Kelly ^hi! 18:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that are enough sources to show encyclopedic relevance, and to write a critical commentary. Also, there are claims that they are not gun crosshairs but surveyor symbols, so the reader would benefit from seeing the symbols himself. I'll try to write a piece on that part. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to make such an edit it until Wednesday. Hopefully more sources will be available by then, or someone else will have expanded the information. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am really busy in Real Life, I wont' be able to write that text. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The image is much discussed in reliable sources, it is very relevant to the event and the reactions to it. There is significant critical commentary of the image in sources, and this should be included in the article. Fences&Windows 02:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#7. — Fourthords ^{| =/\=} | 08:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no longer orphaned, so that concern has been addressed. Will Beback talk 22:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid fair use for 2011 Tucson shooting. Not replaceable, encyclopedic, and definitely adds to the reader's understanding; the crosshairs is a big issue among many commentators. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - unless there is found to be a specific connection between the shootings and the picture, imo is would be totally undue for this pictures inclusion in the article about the shootings. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - response - it would be undue weight (and a terrible case of WP:SYNTH) if it hadn't been part of the commentary, but it is. Just about every broadcast I've seen has mentioned it, whether to show its connection to the shootings, refer to the "controversy", or mock its supposed connection to the controversy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note - file is still orphaned so I have boldly added it to the location as posted by Will. Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now adopted by Public image of Sarah Palin, where it is discussed in the text. The text includes quotations on the nature of the icons depicted in the map, which qualifies as critical commentary. Will Beback talk 11:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inclusion of such an image is extremely lopsided and partisan without including similar images by Democrats that are also being discussed in the media in conjunction with the Palin map. See here and here. Partisan slamming of Palin is not a "fair use", whether it's done on purpose or not. It violates NPOV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are giving an argument to add more images, not to delete this one. The image is not POV: it is what it is. For sure it wasn't done by Democrats. If you have to comment on coverage, bias etc. do it on the articles you complain of. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I gave an argument to either add an NPOV collection of images, or else don't add any. I would prefer the latter course, because the collection of images is copyrighted and not really necessary to explain the matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no reason for the article about the public image of Sarah Palin to include graphics with targets (not gunsight crosshairs) published by the Democratic Leadership Council and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that have nothing to do with Palin. If you think the graphics you've found are important enough to merit inclusion, take it up at the talk pages for those articles. It's not an argument for deleting this image from Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 22:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After the shooting, the image was published in The New York Times, credited to the Associated Press.[4] Given that Palin had pulled the image from her Facebook page, I doubt that she gave them permission to use it. It must be that the copyright lawyers at AP and the Times thought it was fair use to publish the image in the context of reporting the criticism directed at Palin for her gunsight graphic. I'll defer to the copyright expertise of those two institutions. JamesMLane t c 22:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Palin never pulled the image from Facebook - it's still in use there. A link could be provided for those wanting to see the image. [5] Kelly ^hi! 23:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with us and our fair use of this copyrighted picture? Nothing at all - Oh jonny used it...really.So what? Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When jonny is a well-established media entity with access to high-priced copyright lawyers, it's an indication that using the graphic in a discussion of the criticisms of it is fair use. JamesMLane t c 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use - I saw it in the new york times so it must be ok. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, not what I'm arguing. Your attempt to put words in my mouth is not helpful to the discussion. JamesMLane t c 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be used on 2011 Tucson shooting. Likeminas (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since when are inflammatory political adds considered "encyclopedic"? Fails WP:NFCC#8 whereas it isn't necessary to the understanding of any article. The non-free rational isn't valid either; just because an article mentions something doesn't mean we can use a non-free image of it. In what context would it ever be appropriate on the article of a mass shooting? We're not even using the term murder on the article, yet we're really going to try to link a mass shooting to a public political figure? Swarm ^X 03:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, we have an entire article devoted to an "inflamatory political ad", which aired only a single time: Daisy (advertisement). I don't see where anyone has uploaded a still from that video, but I presume it would qualify for fair use. Will Beback talk 08:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amplifying Will's point, we also have an entire article devoted to an inflammatory political film that never even aired at all. I don't understand why people have so much trouble with this concept. We report on the world as it is. If there's an important communication -- be it Palin's lie about "death panels" or the criticism of Palin based on her gunsight crosshairs imagery -- then we present the facts about it, even if assorted Wikipedia editors think that the view expressed in the underlying communication was ill-founded. We've applied this principle to political silliness coming from the left and from the right, as well as to assorted bits of scientific crackpottery and religious fanaticism. The gunsight graphic is relevant to the Public image of Sarah Palin article, not because, as Swarm charges, we're "going to try to link a mass shooting to a public political figure", but because the link has been widely made in the mass media and has therefore affected Palin's image. Even if Swarm and others think the effect shouldn't have happened, it did. JamesMLane t c 09:21, 13 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:Duke of Kent Standard.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 ⚡ 17:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. File has no license and user is blocked. MGA73 (talk) 13:24, 9 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:Giovanni Di Stefano.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; copyright status comfirmed - nomination withdrawn by Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owner of a picture is required to contact the wikipedia themselves to release and confirm copyright ownership and email to a wiki editor is insufficient declaration.of permission to release - I myself have previously had such emails rejected as insufficient and been directed to request the copyright owner to directly contact the wikipedia via email. There is an otrs ticket associated with the permission for users with access to otrs. https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=3149428 - I am unable to see it but from what I can see there is a claim that the subject sent User:Enric Naval permission via a personal email to the uploader , I have had such requests rejected and directed that the copyright owner should content the wikipedia directly, as in wp:commons if the owners intention is to release it freely under a commons license.Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The OTRS ticket appears to be complete and valid.--Rockfang (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from uploader. Sorry for my confusing wording. I have checked those emails again, and the subject sent an email directly to photosubmission@wikimedia.org, with my email in the CC field. The OTRS volunteer sent replies to both the subject and myself. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note from nom - happy to withdraw this nomination - I should have spoken to Enric first. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 10 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:Archaeological Sites in Aswan Governorate .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 all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and no forseen use. It is also unclear where the photo came from. MGA73 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out that uploader is blocked. I hereby nominate all uploads by this user for an expection:

Before I noticed the block and the general problem I also started this PUF but I think it would be good to keep discussion at one place. I suggest at the PUF.

Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsupported claim of ownership of photo-shopped pictures. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 9 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:Errol train station2.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 ⚡ 22:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

by a living artist Snowman (talk) 22:25, 9 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:Errol snooker painting2.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 ⚡ 22:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

by a living artist Snowman (talk) 22:28, 9 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.