Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 October 16

< October 15	October 17 >

October 16

File:Cropped, low-resolution image of Malala Yousafzai facing camera.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 F7 by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FUR does not look solid enough to support image use, especially as this is from a press agency — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on what is not solid under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? Why does being from a press agency weaken the claim? Fortibus (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFC#UUI #8 and #1. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco, at the top of that section is the following paragraph: "Non-free content that meets all of the policy criteria above but does not fall under one of the designated categories below may or may not be allowable, depending on what the material is and how it is used. These examples are not meant to be exhaustive, and depending on the situation there are exceptions. When in doubt as to whether non-free content may be included, please make a judgement based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording."

Therefore, my main focus was on satisfying the policy criteria. I feel that I clearly satisfied these criteria (not replaceable, respect for commercial opportunity, contextual significance, etc.), and you don't seem to be criticizing them either. Fortibus (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can disagree, n'est pas? A free image of her could still be gotten, although not necessarily of her before the shooting. There is also very little evidence that using the image does not violate the commercial rights of the press agencies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For things like this, just use {{db-f7}}. Photos from Reuters can only be used if there is sourced commentary about the photo itself (cf. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima: an article about an Associated Press photo). This is not an article about the photo of the woman. Clearly fails WP:NFCC#2. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot about that one. Deleted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? Under NFCC#2 it says "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." I followed this to the letter. The image I uploaded cannot replace the original at all -- it is a close-up, low-res, cropped image. Can someone explain this to me? Fortibus (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The commercial opportunities include web use, for which a smaller image would still have commercial viability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree because it says "original role", but i'll drop it. Thanks. Fortibus (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2012 (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:Swkdd.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 ⚡ 06:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2012 (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:Microsoft Excel 97 Running on Windows NT 3.51.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 ⚡ 06:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is used on Windows NT 3.51 article but does not show Windows NT 3.51 at all. Therefore, it fails to comply with WP:NFCC#8. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This file is certainly from Windows NT 3.51 perhaps you should load Windows NT 3.51 onto a computer and then load Office 97 and see for yourself or if you can't do that go to http://toastytech.com/guis/nt3513.html and you will see in this review of Windows NT 3.51, Office 97. Bhowden (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, uploader

I know this image is from Windows NT 3.51 but that is not enough. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, image must have contextual significance as well; meaning that it must at least help reader learn something about Windows NT 3.51. This one does not. No part of Windows NT 3.51 is in the shot.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this was to be changed to the same screenshot showing the About screen from Windows NT 3.51 then I would have to take the screenshot at a higher

resolution to get both Office and Program Manager in. Some people are just too picky. Bhowden (talk) 01:10, 19October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. No. WP:NFCC#3a says multiple copyright protected items must not appear if one is enough. Microsoft Office should not be included in the screenshot at all. As for calling us picky, yes, when it comes to copyright, Wikipedia is very strict; unpleasantly so. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then how are you supposed to demonstrate that Windows NT 3.51 has the ability to run applications designed for Windows 95 and up. The only way is with a screenshot of that app running under Windows NT 3.51. I am sure I could find many other apps that aren't Office and demonstrate those like this guy has done. http://toastytech.com/guis/misc4.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhowden (talk • contribs)

The feature to run applications for Windows 95 and up on Windows NT 3.51 is nowhere unique to Windows NT 3.51: the same applications also work using Windows 95 and up. I'm not convinced that it is necessary to have a screenshot of this feature at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously the same applications work on Windows 95 and up because that is what they are meant to do. If you tried running Office 97 under Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5 or Windows 3.x it wouldn't work, Windows NT 3.51 is the only version of Windows that has the Windows 3.x shell and can run applications designed for Windoows 95 and up which use a different interface such as the Start Menu. And the only way to demonstrate this is with a screenshot. Bhowden (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bhowden. I am afraid I think text alone is sufficient here. In addition, such information should appear in a Microsoft Office article (especially since it does not apply to all software). Finally, image or not, you are going to require a reliable source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8. Does not show any features specifically identifying Windows NT 3.51. Office 97 also works under other operating systems such as Windows 95. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this was to be replaced with an image of lets say the Program Manager of Windows NT 3.51 then we would have an image similar to the one for Windows NT 3.5. What I am trying to demonstrate with this image is that Windows NT 3.51 had the same user interface as Windows 3.1 but could run applications designed to work under Windows 95 and later, something Windows 3.1 couldn't do. This image could be moved to another part of the article if this is not suitable as a desktop screenshot. Bhowden (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2012 (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:Earthfood 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 as F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded (cf. File:Earthfoods Collective University Of Massachusetts.png). The files don't seem to be 100% identical (this one is 5 KB, the other one is 4 KB), so I guess F1 doesn't apply. Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2012 (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:Dasha Libin Anderson.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 G12 by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image borrowed from website with no evidence of permission. The permission for the image says to see this web page, for a "license statement" (the image also appears on the page), but the page reads "© Copyright Draco Fitness. All rights reserved." and no other licenses or permissions are present. Same image speedy deleted on Aug 1. Hairhorn (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2012 (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.