Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

January 4

File:Chamara Wijesinghe.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic use. Selfie and Facebook-style autobio by NN user only here to write about himself JohnCD (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The excessive image description is just one of many attempts to paste his autobiography in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2015 (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:Height of Land Portage.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1: A free version could conceivably be made, as the geological structure is still extant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is already a free image available and in use at the article (File:Height of Land Portage Lorenzen.jpg) thus the image is replaceable. Although an aerial image is nice to have, it's not such that it is absolutely critical for the understanding of the topic. -- Whpq (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As to the first objection, no such aerial photograph is possible, as low-level flights are prohibited over this protected wilderness area. As to the second objection, a holiday snapshot of one's family in no way substitutes for the oblique aerial photo, which shows not only the boundary vista but also also the remote nature of the terrain and the low level of the continental divide. There is a complete fair-use rationale on the file, and the fact that this image was provided to me by the IBC for use on Wikipedia. Kablammo (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the foregoing posts I have revised the fair use rationale, especially section 10c. No other available image conveys the information shown by this photograph. Kablammo (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the revision, I've uploaded File:Height of Land Portage.png, a free topographical map which seems to illustrate the new FU rationale verbiage of "Quite naturally, they took the easiest route, which was the one from Grand Portage up the Pigeon and Arrow Rivers to the Height of Land Portage. The ease of that route was partly due to this 'easy, 700-yard portage' across the continental divide. Id., p. 73. Consequently, this route, as the easier and therefore customary highway of the traders and explores, became the international border." Frankly, I even think the topographical map does a better job at illustrating the "easy, 700-yard portage" than the aerial. It would be a simple matter to add a line for the international border, if that is germane. Why would the unfree aerial be needed with this map and File:Height of Land Portage Lorenzen.jpg (which indeed isn't optimal, but a better one could certain be created - NFCC#1)? Эlcobbola _talk 17:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Lorenzen image shows the boundary vista, but not the portage. I plan on removing the image regardless of the outcome here, as it contributes nothing of value to the article.

The aerial image at issue in this discussion does not show the portage either, but unlike either the Lorenzen family snapshot and the topographical drawing, it shows the general area in this wilderness, the vegetation, and the terrain, and is immediately understood in three dimentions.

The position that a schematic drawing can be substituted for a photograph appears to negate any free use of photographs, as a drawing could always be made.

What we have here is a low-resolution photograph which is well-suited to illustrate the article, and for which there is no free equivalent.

Kablammo (talk)

Would not a north-facing photograph taken from the southern shore of South Lake capture wilderness, vegetation and terrain in three dimensions? As someone who finds typewriters to be high technology, even I can conjure competent panoramas from a smartphone. Undoubtedly, the aerial is aesthetically superior, but it is not irreplaceable or indispensable as it pertains to a reader’s understanding of the article. The topographical map (or any illustration) is not meant to replace or dissuade an actual photograph; in this case, it merely demonstrates that the purported purpose of the unfree image (linked above) can be met with a free alternative. Эlcobbola _talk 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make taking a free replacement impossible. Read the NFCC, particularly the "or could be created" phrase. US Army could take something, or the Air Force, and that would be, by virtue of being by the US Federal government, free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The language refers to "Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images" (emphasis added). Kablammo (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why didn't you just tag the file with {{subst:rfu}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because people have a tendency to remove those, even when they shouldn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should just restore the tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. A combination of an image like this (while this specific one is not freely licensed, any Wikipedian could produce one the same or better) and the topographical map provide everything necessary to understand the article - maybe even more. If there is a unique understanding provided by the aerial, it has not yet been articulated here or in the FU rationale. Эlcobbola _talk 20:28, 8 January 2015 (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:Istanbul map.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, low quality, no documentation of permission, source image at other wikipedia was deleted as duplicate so this likely exists elsewhere Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2015 (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:Istanbul Memories Rug Store.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, self-promotion Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2015 (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.