Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 9

< June 8	June 10 >

June 9

File:Bismethoxycurcumin.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 -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality (file-format), unused (replaced by commons:File:Bisdemethoxycurcumin.png. Filename incorrect (is bisdemethoxy...compare to the commons:Category:Curcumin parent structure) DMacks (talk) 00:25, 9 June 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:Demethoxycurcumin.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 -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality (format and styling), unnused: replaced by commons:File:Demethoxycurcumin.png DMacks (talk) 00:26, 9 June 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:Boxing Moscow 1980.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality image, has a free equivalent at File:Boxing pictogram.svg §§§§ Alquerytalk 03:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is most definitely not equivalent. They are completely different images with little in common aside from being representations of boxing. 184.144.166.87 (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course they are different images (that's how it's possible that one is free while the other is not), but they are equivalent in the sense that they are both representations of boxing, so they both serve the same encyclopedic purpose. —Bkell (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The free version is more then adequate for the purpose. Veriss (talk) 03:28, 14 June 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:Dominique Strauss-Kahn perp walk.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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why we need to see an image to understand how publishing images of perp walks is illegal in France. Mosmof (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As the article notes in four paragraphs of the accompanying text, the image drew lots of commentary and reaction in France, not least because of the illegality of such an image. That more than satisfies FUC 8. Unclear why you didn't read more than the cutline before you made an FfD nom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't fully agree with the direction the article appears to be taking at the moment but I support the inclusion of this image since it has become iconic in the debate of media rights as opposed to the privacy of powerful political figures in France and other countries. (@Daniel Case, please note that the legality of the image may only be questionable under French laws, it is perfectly legal to post in the US.) @Mosmof, "unclear" is by nature not a clear reason for deletion. Please list your specific objections and cite relevant Wiki policies this image may violate. Veriss (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My understanding is in this particular case, 'the privacy of powerful politicial figures' had little to do with. The French law makes it illegal regardless of whether the defendent is a 'powerful politican figure' or a plumber that no one knows. Nil Einne (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, the French privacy issue is broader then my poor writing implied. Thank you for clarifying. Veriss (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But Jacques Plombier wouldn't have been the subject of an opinion poll about his guilt showing a majority of the French people believed him the subject of a plot and if someone tried they would have been stopped under the 2000 law on the presumption of innocence. It's all about laws of privacy protecting the interests of the rich and powerful. This is what the French are agonising about right now. FightingMac (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not feel this was the proper arena for that debate though so I attempted a diplomatic exit. Veriss (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, you're right of course. I was out of turn. Apologies. FightingMac (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like an image with important historical relevance. NickCT (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Daniel Case, Veriss, and NickCT, and I would add that this is fair use by illustrating a historical event and could not be replaced by a free alternative. OCNative (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with OCNative et al. It's certainly legitimate under #7 WP:NFC#UUI (that's exacly the exemption provided for) while WP:NFCC#8 is covered by the unique historical nature of the image. I would add, concurring with Daniel Case, that the content added in Perp walk is exemplary in its encyclopaedic nature and I'm frankly surprised to see the image has found its way here. Regarding comment I have seen elsewhere that the image manifests an in "in your face" disregard for French sentiment, I would point out that the French article on the DSK allegations names the complainant in scant regard of the Anglo-Saxon tradition not to name rape complainants whereas the Wikipedia servers are based in the US and in the circumstances we need not worry ourselves overly about bruising French sentiment over a law that was indeed only relatively recently introduced (2000) and cannot really be said to be deeply ingrained in their culture; and moreover the notorious poll conducted immediately after the arrest, which found that nearly three-fifths of the French populace thought that Strauss-Kahn was, or probably was, the victim of a plot, was a flagrant violation of that very same law as Le Monde pointed out. I can finally add that the perp walk, as its article makes clear, is in itself a contentious issue in the US and the inclusion of the image in the encyclopaedia is notable on that ground alone given the huge worldwide media exposure these images received i.e. it's not just about the l’exception culturelle. FightingMac (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above keeps — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:58, 13 June 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:Belfast Festival.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replaced .jpg logo with new logo in .png format at File:Belfast Festival Logo.png Rathgarrr (talk) 05:07, 9 June 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:Flag of the Twelve Colonies of Kobol.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute the Fair Use of this "logo" of a fictional civilization, it's use is not critical for the article Mtking (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No logo is "critical" for any article. The flag of the United Federation of Planets is not "critical" to the understanding of an article, and not is the logo of Microsoft or any other organization. However, the flag and logo are used extensively within the Battlestar Galactica universe and are not necessarily accompanied by other indicators, usually as a stand-alone indicator of something related to the Twelve Colonies. The flag plays an important role in the BSG universe as a reference point for the Twelve Colonies and appears in every single episode at least once. Therefore I believe it is important to include it in the main article of the Twelve Colonies, and that article alone, so as to get a better understanding of the topic at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly boy92 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 June 2011
Delete. The article has no reliably sourced prose discussing or describing this image, making it plainly inessential to readers' understanding of the article (WP:NFCC#8). — Fourthords | =/\= | 08:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article does contain prose describing the flag, and describing the flag without visual representation makes it extremely hard to understand what the flag actually looks like. --Philly boy92 (talk) 21:26, 16 June 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:Bruce Doolin Henderson.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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid source (just blogspot direct url to jpg file) we need to know more about the copyright holder before claiming fair use. damiens.rf 15:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please recommend further actions that might justify non-deletion. Thanks. -- Ashot ^(talk) 16:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discover where's the photo is originally from. The blog in question most likely is using it without permission. Post here anything you discover about who created the image, who owns it copyrights, when was it created, when was it first published. It may be the case that we don't need all such information, but give us the much you can find out and we can have a say on either or not we can safely use this photo. Information about which other websites also use the image is not much relevant. --damiens.rf 17:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my preliminary research the photo belongs to BCG. At least some parts of it are used in their websites: [1], [2]. Do we need a permission from them to use it under fair use rationale? -- Ashot ^(talk) 05:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, fair user is exactly for those case we're you use an image without the need of the copyright holder's permission. If this image really belongs to BCG (what's highly likely to be the case), we can use it according to Wikipedia folk-tradition. The image is considered promotional, since it's the image a company used in its website to illustrate one of its personnel. Since Mr. Henderson is no longer among us, we can not produce a freely licensed image of him, and we're allowed to use a non-free image to illustrate his bio.

Simply put, yes, we can use this image with this new source. Congratulations for the good work. --damiens.rf 14:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. -- Ashot ^(talk) 16:18, 10 June 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:William Berkeley.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to a higher resolution on commons, File:Flagmen of Lowestoft Vice-Admiral Sir William Berkeley 1639-66 by Sir Peter Lely.jpg. Also no source given. The latter is already better titled, to avoid confusion of the naval officer with his contemporary, colonial governor William Berkeley. Benea (talk) 15:41, 9 June 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:Hindi word in devnagri script.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by File:Word Hindi in Devanagari.svg Iketsi (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in public domain, so I don't see any problem in retaining it. I made this file because on the main article (Standard Hindi) there wasn't any picture in infobox. — Bill william compton^Talk 17:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is in the public domain or not is irrelevant. The file has been nominated for deletion because it is obsolete since it has been superseded by File:Word Hindi in Devanagari.svg. The infobox uses the SVG version now. -Iketsi (talk) 19:53, 9 June 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:Latvia location in Europe.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by File:EU-Latvia.svg, which is of much higher quality Iketsi (talk) 19:46, 9 June 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:Selfservegasmap.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superseeded by commons:File:Selfservegasmap.png. A .png format like wanted so obsolete. Could not speedy delete under F8 because of the .jpg change. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:25, 9 June 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.