Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 26

< February 25	February 27 >

February 26

File:Korean loins.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. No reason to suspect foul play. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No permission tag declined by reviewing admin - however this image is sourced to a third party site. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It clams own work and name of uploader is Peter and the user on the block is also named Peter. User has also uploaded:

From same blog and as own work. User does not seem to be active anymore so we have to trust uploader or delete all the files. --MGA73 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absent a more clear showing that the uploader doesn't own the right to them. This should probably be under PUF, but w/e. These images appear to be higher resolution than those used on the blog making it very likely that these were uploaded by the blog owner. If anything this looks like it could be a cleaver attempt to get back links to the blog violating WP:SPAM, but that's hardly a reason the project should be denied use of the images. -Selket ^Talk 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Normally, it doesn't work that way - the burden of proof is the other way around. However, in this case the uploader is Peterjhpark (talk · contribs) and the blogger is named Peter and gives his email as peterjhpark (@something, not posting the full email here as to not inundate him with spam), so I think we can reasonably accept that they are one in the same. --B (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the uploader is almost certainly the blog owner and the photographer. I wonder if the uploader realizes all external links on Wikipedia have "nofollow" set ;) Thparkth (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the email adress spotted by B then I think we have enough reason to trust the uploader. --MGA73 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 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:2006-homeagain.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 ⚡ 19:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non free image, no evident need to be used instead of multiple free images availible for Tupelo, Mississippi, including several of Elvis Presley's birth house. Infrogmation (talk) 02:22, 26 February 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:Ratzenberger cutco.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used. Also a concern that picture is being used by editors with a COI with Vector Marketing, which is plagued by COI problems. Phearson (talk) 04:31, 26 February 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:Parineeti chopra.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded only for promotional article, with no other encyclopedic use B (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete copyvio http://www.santabanta.com/photos/parineeti-chopra/10049000.htm (tagged) --Muhandes (talk) 17:43, 26 February 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:Salesman cutco.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded for promotional version of an article. No encyclopedic use. Phearson (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Don't see how it would be of use. Reh man 07:20, 4 March 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:ChuckEx.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot for TV episode infobox. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, no vital function for understanding the article. Article consists mainly of overlong plot re-narration and doesn't engage in any critical commentary that might conceivably necessitate an image. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the deletion policies became so strict, I've tried to upload images that best illustrate the plot (which you've made very clear doesn't matter) and critical commentary. I chose this image because it illustrated Chuck and Jill rekindling their relationship, the aftermath of the quarantine, and Jordana Brewster in her first appearance in the role, all of which are major plot points and supported in critical commentary as of this revision. --Boycool (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the image should be justified now. If not, it's not the end of the world. A screenshot of Chuck and Casey's kiss could be suitable. Perhaps a fair-use image of Jordana Brewster. --Boycool (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still see nothing in the text that I couldn't understand just as well without the image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Boycool (talk) 21:39, 27 February 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:Oman Protest 18 Feb.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 ⚡ 19:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free news image of current political event, of unknown original copyright status (source website cited doesn't itself provide image credit, could be commercial news agency material). While interesting, our use of the image is ultimately merely decorative; the photograph is not necessary to understand the coverage of the event in our text, and strictly speaking not even very informative (we can't see from the photograph who the protesters were, how many they were, how peaceful or violent the situation was – nothing.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--no news agency has till date cited such photos of oman protests. also as far as the image being informative goes - the protests were small but one of the first in oman's hisotry - 300 protesters thats all. Probably if you know Arabic the placards would make more sense! --PranavJ 17:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

--please reply - if you can find even one news article which has photos of these protests - the news articles at most have photos of the sultan of oman, or probably a landmark in oman. The protests in Oman have jsut intensified with police using tear gas. Also the reforms issued now have become all the more larger. The situation is changing rapidly. Signifance of keeping the image is hence present. Image is not copyright protected. Please reply --PranavJ 12:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC) PranavJ

Several things. First, the claim that these are not copyright protected is simply not true. Everything must be assumed copyrighted until proven otherwise. Second, please see WP:NOTNEWS. There is no need for us to be covering news stories before reliable news sources have made up their minds about what is actually going on. If and when these events turn out to have been of enduring significance, and reliable sources have written about them, then we should cover them. There's no rush to keep ahead of events. Third, if reliable sources have not cited these images, we should not be using them at all, because interpreting them would be WP:OR. Fourth, the point still stands that we don't actually need the image to understand the event, because it doesn't show us anything that text cannot also explain. Like many other editors in such debates, you are mixing up the significance of the event with the significance of the photograph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is obviously not an acceptable fair use image. --B (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im no an expert on the copyright issues but it does seem dubious., the claim above that the there is significance that the protests continued is baseless tio its copyright status. it shows the editor is unsure of this copyright status.Lihaas (talk) 07:52, 4 March 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:Nozomi Sasaki - PS - 10.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 ⚡ 00:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_March_31#File:Nozomi_Sasaki_-_PS_-_10.jpg. Please see also the discussion at File talk:Nozomi Sasaki - PS - 10.jpg and on the uploader's talk page at User_talk:NagiLG. Basically, this image is a scan of a school yearbook photo. Somehow, by some amount of mental gymnastics, a message in the yearbook telling students not to submit copyrighted song lyrics and such is being interpreted as meaning that all of the photos are copyright-free. Further, even if this were a public ___domain picture (which it isn't), (1) the claimed licensing - CC-BY-SA and GFDL - is invalid and (2) it's unencyclopedic as it shows the model as a 10-year-old, four years before she began modeling. B (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate use of a non-free (copyright) image of a living person. --DAJF (talk) 06:57, 27 February 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:Sally Kern 2009.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. The facial expression, taken out of context like that, makes this image unencyclopedic, as the nominator indicated. Good luck in your efforts to get a free image from Kern's office. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Sally Kern uploaded apparently just to give her a funny look on her face. The Flickr user who uploaded the photo - http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhglover/3682897402/ - has several other photos of her (unfortunately, he doesn't license them freely enough for us) but he chose to upload a tightly cropped photo with a funny look on her face. I don't think we need to be using photos like this. If the flickr user would let us use http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhglover/3682897402/in/photostream/ or http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhglover/3682895516/in/photostream/ or even just not such a tight crop of http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhglover/3682073853/in/photostream/, that would be fine, but honestly, Wikipedia shouldn't be the place to upload a funny photo of politicians you don't like. (The image is currently orphaned, but the one in the article is an obvious copyvio.) B (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had not said it I would not have thought that she looked funny. Perhaps you have given the reason for uploading this photo: It is the only one with a free license? --MGA73 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader (who uses the same name as the flickr user) has several photos that he took of her and, presumably, owns the copyright to. It's not a question of his ability to license the images to us. He could have supplied a different one but chose to supply us with this ridiculous super-close-up. If we can get rid of this one and the copyvio image that is currently in her article, I would be willing to contact her campaign/office/whatever and ask for a freely licensed quality image. But when we put junk in articles, it makes it very hard to contact someone with a straight face and ask. When we contact article subjects, a lot of times the answer is yes and we can get a professional-quality photo. For example, right after Jerry Falwell died, I contacted his ministry and they provided me with the photo of him that we have and a GFDL release. We could have settled for a garbage photo, but we got a really good one that way. --B (talk) 18:37, 1 March 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.