Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 December 5

< December 4	December 6 >

December 5

File:Monster - Energy Drink.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 ⚡ 08:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LQ, CV - A photo that's so heavily and poorly edited that its primary focus is the copyrighted logo on the can, and that purpose is better achieved by an existing non-free logo image, File:Monster energy drink feature.jpg. Mosmof (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 08:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:45, 10 December 2010 (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:Ranjithdirector.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 JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Required OTRS Permission Vssun (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't actually understand the nomination... Reh man 08:12, 8 December 2010 (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.

United States Department of Energy National Laboratories images

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: procedural close. This isn't an FFD nomination, but rather a discussion about whether we should nominate these images for deletion or see about getting permissions done for all of these. It should be noted that in spot-checking a number of these nominations, none of the images checked were actually tagged for FFD. I encourage this user to discuss this matter in the proper venue (I was unsure which one myself, so one may wish to start at Wikipedia:Village pump), and then if it is determined that the best course of action is to actually delete, then feel free to bring it back here with a fully formed mass-nomination (though I'd hate to be the one to have to tag however many individal files would need to be tagged). SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of images from US National Labratories may be nonfree, yet they are being tagged as PD (often with {{PD-USGov-DOE}}. I have listed some of the images at User:Smallman12q/DOE media. Should they be deleted, or should a mass OTRS request be sent? The number of images is around a thousand.Smallman12q (talk) Smallman12q (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2010 (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:Vanessa Coleman.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. These images fall afoul of WP:NFC#UUI in two ways, specifically numbers 1 and 7, as the subjects are still alive (as several mentioned), and these are press photos, and the commentary is not on the press photos specifically. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects still alive, see WP:NFC#UUI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overprominent use of these pictures in the article seems tendentious, unless there is mainstream media coverage of the murders that give these pictures equally prominent placement, in addition to copyright issues. Article itself is problematic in various ways too. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ironically, the pictures are from mainstream media coverage. They are shown prominently beside the article from which they were sourced. Additionally, I'm rather suspicious of an IP posting on a AFD. I believe you may be a sock-puppet of one the other users seeking to censor this article. --Expo776 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise you to strike that sockpuppet-stuff. Seriously. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so concerned? --Expo776 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about your lack of civility. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was perfectly civil. It's just very unusual to see an unregistered IP post on an AFD. I wasn't the one throwing around insults like "hack" or making ridiculous allegations that these photos are of random people, rather than the convicts. --Expo776 (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - POV pushing and fail Wikipedia:NFC#UUI. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While these people are still alive, it's not reasonably possible to obtain a free picture as they are incarcerated. --Expo776 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - im personally not convince that hese pictures are actually of the suspects in this case anyway. i have tried to find a verificable link between the woman in this picture and the other Vanessa Coleman conicted of the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newosm and i cant find any link. i consider it to be a borderline WP:BLP vilation to throw up a random picture of a real person and claim that it is the photograph of a kidnapped murderereress. User:Smith Jones 21:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - link to article is Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. – ukexpat (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I know what artile is from User:Smith Jones 03:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who posted the photos, I don't appreciate being called a hack. If you'd so much as looked at the photos' pages you'd see their source is clearly listed. The source identifies the persons pictured and their relation to the case. See http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/oct/12/state-can-delay-sharing-evidence/ . --Expo776 (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all - as they are copyright violations with no plausible fair use arguments. 01:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

CommentThe preceding unsigned (or, at least, unattributed) comment was left by User:DreamGuy. See history. --Expo776 (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also there is an argument for fair use provided on each files' page. Did you look? --Expo776 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment File:Channon christian Christopher newsom.jpg should be deleted as well. It is also from a non-free source and is used on the same article with the same "fair use" justification. --Expo776 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Since all are alive it is reasonable to find a free replacement. To Expo776 above me, Christian and Newsom are dead, so no one can create a free replacement of their pictures. AniMate 03:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All you'd have to do is exhume the bodies. Which would arguably be easier than photographing these people while they are in prison. These pictures should remain until a free alternative is found, not deleted based on speculation that a free alternative could be produced. --Expo776 (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exhuming? I guess; it wouldn't change the fact that they're dead. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was it's not easy to get a free picture of people who are incarcerated. Until a free replacement is found, these fair use photos should remain. --Expo776 (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2010 (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:Grayslake.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 ⚡ 17:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Not a good candidate for copying to Commons due to uploader's history of not understanding what exactly they were doing when determining licensing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 08:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unused photo. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:44, 10 December 2010 (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:Editor182 Talk.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 ⚡ 17:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Editor182 Talk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by User:Editor182 ( contribs | uploads).

Unnecessary image; unrelated to building an encyclopedia. The editor is under and editing restriction not to blank their talk page. No other editor is using this image. Jehochman ^Talk 12:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yeah I guess this could go. Reh man 08:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only link is to an archive, and can be implemented better through plain text. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused image, and so unrelated to Wikipedia, as nom said. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:37, 9 December 2010 (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:Jimbowales.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 G3 by Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UE, possible CV. Intent of uploader is to vandalize. Picture appears on other websites, don't know author. Image is antisemitic. Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy deleted this as pure vandalism. Jehochman ^Talk 18:03, 5 December 2010 (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:ImperialGuardCadians.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 ⚡ 20:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of explanation as to why this image is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 08:16, 8 December 2010 (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:Poster Turf Lodge.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. Generally speaking, when one has to get increasingly creative on ways to allow a non-free image's use, it probably means that the image has no place on Wikipedia. That said, this delete decision was based on NFCC 8 and 10, as articulated by J Milburn for the former, and Future Perfect at Sunrise for the latter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of explanation as to why this image is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Poster was produced by the Ban Plastic Bullets Campaign an issues on which Emma Groves (1920 - 2 April 2007) was a leading campaigner. Brian Stewart, 13 years old, was killed in Belfast by a plastic bullet. It was at this point that Groves decided to do something and to have those "deadly bullets banned". The image clearly illustrates the views of the people who produced it, and clearly outlines their position. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a political poster of a notable issue within a notable period of Northern Ireland history. WP:BEFORE applies. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, the issue is notable; that doesn't mean we need a non-free poster to "prove" it is. What's this adding? What would the article be lacking without it? J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would your rational apply also to the use of these images or the use of this in the article, or this one. What do they add?--Domer48_'fenian' 20:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domer48, just to explain my involvement, the image was tagged by J Milburn, and I declined the speedy, and opened the discussion here. From what I can see the images you've just linked are free, and this image is tagged as non-free. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, my comment was in reply to J Milburn. Are the images necessary, what would the articles be lacking without them? --Domer48_'fenian' 00:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. All those images are available under a free licence, so they don't need to meet the necessity criteria. Rockpocket 11:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is perhaps a valid fair-use claim for its use in United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets, but I'm not convinced it is necessary for the bio of Emma Groves. Rockpocket 11:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was directed towards the banal rational being offered. The image dose in my opinion meet the necessity criteria for a valid fair-use claim, that it was produced by the group founded by Emma Groves makes it a no-brainer that it should appear on the article, that it could also be use on the UCAPB likewise. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it's relevant to either of those articles, although I could see its use in relevance to the Troops Out campaign or Turf Lodge. To be relevant to the UCAPB article, I'd have to know that the names listed here were victims of plastic bullets in particular (were they?). I'm also concerned about neutrality here - Using this on the UCAPB article when it looks so much like a stock Republican Brit Troops Out poster that is anti-British, anti-Army and not especially relevant to plastic bullets is just the sort of smear campaign a Loyalist POV might try to push against UCAPB to discredit them as Republican and sectarian, rather than humanitarian. Equally if this is a genuine poster with referenceable connection to UCAPB, it's a poor move on their part and also a significant piece of evidence to show that they weren't as neutral as they tried to portray themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the image currently has an NFC "rationale" that isn't one. It is incoherent and ungrammatical gibberish: ""Fair use in Irish Republican related articles, in particular the Plastic Bullet article". Republican Prisoners through out the conflict considered themselves as prisoners of war (POW). Alternative titles such as Emma Groves and preparing an article on Brian Stewart was fatally hit by a plastic bullet." I hardly know where to begin counting in how many different ways this fails to constitute a meaningful rationale. If this isn't fixed, the image will be (speedy-)deleted on grounds of lacking a fair-use rationale if for no other reason, because this gibberish is essentially worse than no rationale at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unhelpful to speedy delete a file that's already under discussion here. No-one is intending to leave it un-FURed, or with an inapproporiate FUR, but the effective way to proceed is to discuss what this ought to be here, before worrying about the typing exercise afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Andy, the amount of time spent typing the above flaming indignation could have been better spent helping sort it out.--Domer48_'fenian' 11:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it couldn't, because I don't know a good rationale. If you want this kept, the task of formulating the reasons for it is yours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 9 December 2010 (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:Htc-glacier-mytouch-4g.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 ⚡ 05:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to List of HTC phones, the phone that this image is listed with (the HTC Glacier) has been released to the public. Therefore this non-free image is now considered replaceable by a free image, and it fails WP:NFCC#1. This image was originally listed under the deletable image process, but was challenged there, and therefore this is going to FFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I'm not quite sure I understand the objection to the speedy delete. The phone is already out and there's no rationale or real source info, and it's used in a list article. I don't see the reason to keep this image. --Mosmof (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand it, either, but if they're going to challenge it, I'll just notch it up a step, and thus here we are. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:00, 6 December 2010 (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:Mariani-shawn-co-otchster-com-03.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: Author requested it be Speedily Deleted per G7. Reh man 08:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author no longer wants file published. Otchster (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2010 (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:Optimusprime-universesp.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 ⚡ 03:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of a copyrighted toy. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, FUR could be added if necessary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I don't really understand SarekOfVulcan's comment.. Reh man 08:23, 8 December 2010 (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.