Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 17

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
< January 16 January 18 >

January 17

edit

File:Helping HaitiRevised.png

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helping HaitiRevised.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by XLR8TION (notify | contribs).
  • There is a file on commons that is constantly updated (Helping Haiti.PNG) and there is no need for this map, especially considering the fact it's full of errors, some of them even look like intentional. Anyhow we don't need it, because there is a version on commons and because it's full of mistakes. Not to mention there is a Spanish version of the map, it's already a mess to update two files on commons, the last thing we need is another one on Wikipedia. Avala (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This map has been revised and contains every single nation and territory that has pledged or contributed aid to Haiti. I have revised the map and assured all nations mentioned in the article are represented on the map.--XLR8TION (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you did, that is why you added Montenegro for an example. You probably confused it with Monaco but regardless it just shows what you did, instead of updating you did just that revision. No need for that, just keep updating the existing file on commons please, and accurately if possible.--Avala (talk) 00:05, 19 January 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:Sleepy Alice Poster.jpg

edit
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: Speedily deleted by F5. Shubinator (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sleepy Alice Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moviedude346 (notify | contribs).
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:Petersen police funeral.jpg

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petersen police funeral.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grsz11 (notify | contribs).
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:Heinrichs1947pd.png

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heinrichs1947pd.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K3vin (notify | contribs).
  • Though tagged as {{PD-self}}, this is apparently a scan from Who's Who in Michigan: A Biographical Dictionary of Leading Men and Women of the Commonwealth, which is cited as a reference in Sunshine (magazine). But it's already cited as a reference—we don't have to show a scanned portion of it too. —Bkell (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, besides what's already stated, this is copyrighted text, so there's no permission for its use and no way that it can pass the nonfree content criteria. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 22 January 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:LateCampaignWesStreeting.jpg

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LateCampaignWesStreeting.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andymmu (notify | contribs).
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:Leo sam harry.jpg

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leo sam harry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quentin X (notify | contribs).
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:Louie and Fontaine Nudimension Publicity 2009.jpg

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louie and Fontaine Nudimension Publicity 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Estragons (notify | contribs).
  • Usually non-free images of defunct musical groups are used to show the group as they appeared when performing. In this case the non-free image shows the former members of Nudimension being interviewed on TV 20 years after the band broke up and has no relationship to their image as a band. Not obvious that this image meets either WP:NFCC #1 or #8 here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:41, 17 January 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:MOT Spec.jpg

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MOT Spec.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ToonIsALoon (notify | contribs).

Hi,

This image is supplied by the DVLA themselves so i doubt it is an issue. I believe it was referenced to them. Needless to say visit the website for clarification.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the feedback. Where would i find this license? I've supplied the webpage link, however the image itself i require a "where to start." As it's government based and from a gov website hopefully this isn;t too hard to find?

ToonIsALoon (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the image has been released under a free license. The source page given [1] says "© Crown copyright" at the bottom, which leads to a copyright page [2] explaining, among other things, that reusers of the material, including images, must not "re-use the information for promotion or advertising purposes." Wikipedia requires all free content to be free for any use, even commercial use, so this is not free enough. Unless you can find something that shows that this particular image is not subject to the copyright protection described on that page, we cannot consider it to be a free image. —Bkell (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback. The image has been deleted from the MOT test page.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 09:17, 20 January 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:MSP430 part number large.png

edit
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: The result of the debate was: Keep; file is tagged with {{pd-ineligible}}. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MSP430 part number large.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Amf548 (notify | contribs).
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:MSP430 chipshot.jpg

edit
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⚡ 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MSP430 chipshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Amf548 (notify | contribs).
Seems replaceable to me. The presence of a trademarked logo may not affect the copyright status of a user-created image, as long as the logo itself isn't the primary subject of the image. See Wikipedia:Image policy#User-created images: "Some images may contain trademarked logos incidentally (or purposely if the image is either freely licensed, covered under freedom of panorama, or being too simple to be copyrightable). If this is the case, please tag it with {{trademark}}." —Bkell (talk) 20:32, 18 January 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:Macquarie University Station Platform Proposed.jpg

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macquarie University Station Platform Proposed.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Damaster98 (notify | contribs).
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:Malice Mizer - Au Revoir 01.jpg

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malice Mizer - Au Revoir 01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gothic Mana-Sama (notify | contribs).
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:Manta Mirage.png

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manta Mirage.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Idiotcountry (notify | contribs).
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:Manta mirage side.png

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manta mirage side.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Idiotcountry (notify | contribs).
  • [If you have a feeling of déjà vu, that will be because this is a cut and paste nomination.] Rationale for this non-free image states that "[n]o other original factory images are freely available", but it isn't obvious to me why it is necessary to have a factory image. These vehicles were produced in relatively low volumes, but they are not that rare: editors in New Zealand can buy one here. Should be replaceable so doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1 I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:23, 17 January 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:BugsySiegel.jpg

edit
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⚡ 06:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BugsySiegel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joyson Noel (notify | contribs).
  • Already another fairuse image of him in the article on him, this is overused in another article as well and has less established sourcing compared to the other image. Further, this appears to be a promotional image and the other file is a police file, so the issues of infringement are probably greater with this image. MBisanz talk 19:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is another FU image in the article, but it is a mugshot. I have never been convinced that mugshots ever satisfy NFCC.8, but that's not what we're discussing. I don't think a free image of him can be created, so a FU image used for identification is justified in my mind. However, MBisanz is correct that the source information is insufficient. So until/unless the source information clears, this should be deleted. ÷seresin 00:36, 25 January 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:GalliGalliSimBush.jpg

edit
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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GalliGalliSimBush.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bwithh (notify | contribs).
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:JD Salinger.jpg

edit
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: de-bigulate (props: Blargh29). And since that's been done we can close this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JD Salinger.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Daniel Case (notify | contribs).
  • The image is quite a high resolution (337 x 414px) and at this high resolution is not fair use in my opinions. The image shown in the article is smaller (200 × 246px) than this, so I think that the uploaded image can be smaller in resolution, without too much loss of value. This image was considered for deletion previously, but the size of the image was not considered at that time. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be too hard to take it down to 300px, which seems to be all it needs. You could have just used {{fair use reduce}}. Daniel Case (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I could just reduce my copy to 300px and upload over it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Not only is that how we've brought tons of other pictures into FUC compliance, I think the image in the article infobox displays at whatever the user's default size is in preferences since there's no line to specify a size. Mine shows at 300; yours may be at 200. There's no need to delete the image, as I've said.
Delete: The original image should be deleted, because its is to big to be available on the wiki as fair use even in the archives. The reduced size image should not be uploaded over the original image, which would make the original image available to anyone in the archives. I also think that the image at a width of 300px is too large and that the original should be no larger than 200px. 99% of people do not set the image size so most people would see it at 200px. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If, when the reduced image is uploaded, the {{non-free reduced}} is added, this will ensure that the unused, oversized files are deleted and will then be visible only to administrators. This is all quite routine and really doesn't need a discussion here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information about the use of the {{tl|non-free reduced}} which I have not heard of before. I have uploaded a smaller version. I am hoping that the underlying larger image will be deleted as soon as possible. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Salinger is a well-known recluse. Obtaining a free replacement is almost impossible. Concerns about the size can be easily solved with a de-bigulator. --Blargh29 (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this image has been used as an example of a significant exception to the no-nonfree-images-of-living-people standard; since the size is the only issue here, there's no reason to delete the new, properly-sized image. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 22 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_17&oldid=1091455478"