Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 16

< October 15	October 17 >

October 16

File:Skyless Group Shot.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no source for original or other 2 additions Skier Dude (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)* Note: The file was moved from File:GroupShot.jpg to File:Skyless Group Shot.jpg by Vibhijain (talk · contribs) at 13:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:08, 19 October 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:Matthew, Tomi and Nathalie.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 F1 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to have any encyclopedic use. Eeekster (talk) 08:53, 16 October 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:JessicaLangescreenshot.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 F9 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use rationale. Free images are required to identify living people. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, please Uzerakount (talk) 12:57, 16 October 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:Gombitova Nocne lampy.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use rationale. Free images are required to identify living people. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the description details for Gombitova files as per request. Hope it is alright now. The screenshot is the subject of critical commentary in the article, see section Car Accident of Marika Gombitová#Nočné lampy interview, please Uzerakount (talk) 12:39, 16 October 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:Bozidaraturzonovova.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use rationale. Free images are required to identify living people. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, please Uzerakount (talk) 12:56, 16 October 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:MonikaHilmerova.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use rationale. Free images are required to identify living people. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, please Uzerakount (talk) 12:56, 16 October 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:Bozidaraturzonovovastv.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot used solely for decoration, and is not the subject of critical commentary. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, please Uzerakount (talk) 12:56, 16 October 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:Gombitovamagazine.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use rationale. Free images are required to identify living people. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the description details for Gombitova files as per request. Hope it is alright now. The artist is the subject of the main article Marika Gombitová, which I still work on, please. Uzerakount (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, also bear in mind that for this artist is seriously impossible to find uncopyrighted pictures on internet, that is why I chose the option of screenshot, which seems to be the only available possibility. She does not go public, does not communicate with press, it is a physically disabled singer who does not even leave her home for years. I'm not exaggerating now... Uzerakount (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I modified description of the file, adding "a free equivalent is unavailable". Uzerakount (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a prominent singer who was touring until the late 1990s, the likelihood of a free image being available is high. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check the link http://www.marikagombitova.com/ and let me know if I can use photos available on her official website (click on "Marika" and then see section "Fotoalbum"). I can't see any copyright mark. Thanks for a confirmation Uzerakount (talk) 17:45, 20 October 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:UFL-Uniform-VA.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 F1 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User created file uploaded as non-free, which violates WP:IUP#User-created images. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:Nopicture.png which is free; I've substituted the latter for all uses of this image. Mangoe (talk) 16:54, 17 October 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:Gombitovascreenshot.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use rationale. Free images are required to identify living people. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the description details for Gombitova files as per request. The screenshot is the subject of critical commentary in the article, see section List of awards and nominations received by Marika Gombitová#Slávik please (respectively also following section List of awards and nominations received by Marika Gombitová#Slovenský slávik). Hope it is alright now. Uzerakount (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No image-related discussion in article, nor any indication a free equivalent is unavailable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have indicated that "a free equivalent is unavailable", which is true Uzerakount (talk) 20:27, 18 October 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:Tempus German Frazetta cover 1989 2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file is a picture of a book cover, incorporating a copyrighted illustration by Frank Frazetta. It has repeatedly been added to an article which is NOT about the book, but rather about some of the characters in the book; a violation of the fair use rules. Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about the characters in the book; it's about the series the book is a title in, as you can see from how the page is listed (Category: fantasy series.) There's a big publisher logo right over the art, and the image was re-sized down considerably some time ago. If the image is noncompliant somehow, I'm not seeing it - can you explain specifically what would need to be done to get it compliant? Thanks - Luke Jaywalker (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article is intended to cover the book series (sorry if the scope wasn't clear) and the illustration meets fair use for this purpose. Marcus Qwertyus 22:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the proper WP policy is not "fair use rules," but WP:Non-free content. It is helpful to the discussion if arguments are made in reference to WP policy. Note that WP:Non-free policy is designed to err on the side of caution in Fair Use under US Copyrifght laws. See <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria</ref>Dokzap (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Dokzap[reply]

Delete. Multiple nonfree book covers in an article related to a book series, without any relevant image-related discussion, violate NFCC (and I argued against this, but the consensus was clear); this image is singularly badly chosen, since it's a recycled cover of a Burroughs novel, and therefore neither actually illustrates the novel it was stuck on nor usefully serves as an identifier [1]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple nonfree book covers per se is not necessarily against WP policy. Note that Template: Non-free book cover recognizes that in some cases articles may have multiple book covers. If an article, for example, discusses a foreign language edition of the work as a subtopic, it would be appropriate to illustrate that subtopic with a cover of that foreign edition. In discussing an artist's alternate depictions of the same book in multiple editions, it also would be relevant to use those illustrations together. Other arguments could be made in similar lines. See <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_book_cover</ref>, particularly the discussion on allowing mutliple covers.Dokzap (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Dokzap[reply]

The man on the cover of The Giver was an old photo taken by the author when she was a photographer. Cover art is seldom original. Marcus Qwertyus 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: what is the page that the image had been used on? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Band of Stepsons. Marcus Qwertyus 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is The Sacred Band of Stepsons about the series regarding the Sacred Band of Stepsons created by Janet Morris, consisting of several novels and short stories published in various places over the last 20 or so years. The image in question is a book cover of the German version of "Tempus," one of the books in the series. Since the image has the book title and publisher logo over the image by Frank Frazetta, it is obviously not a copyright violation of the illustration and does not violate the fair use rules.Hulcys930 (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a book cover with illustration would be allowed under WP:Non-free content, 2, "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." Since the market role of the original copyrighted media (the book cover as a whole with logos and text) is to sell the book, and reproduction of the book cover is widely used in a publisher's catalog, book reviews, etc., it would be difficult for a publisher to argue that a low-resolution reproduction of a book cover degrades commerial opportunities. In fact, it enhances commercial opportunities.Dokzap (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Dokzap[reply]

Keep The article is about the book series, which anyone who actually bothered to read the article would know. As to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz comment that it is a recycled Burroughs cover, if Frazetta decided to recycle his own work, who are we to judge one of the greatest of Science Fiction and Fantasy illustrators of all time for his work habits? I think that is a really insulting remark to make about such a great man, and that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should withdraw it immediately. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple of different NFCC criteria have been discussed above, but a non-free file must pass all of the criteria: see WP:JUSTONE. The original nomination is based upon WP:NFCC#8 (although it really isn't about fair use), and now that I have been able to see the article at which the image has been used, I have to say that it fails. The text of Sacred Band of Stepsons never really discusses the cover art of the German edition, so I really don't think that readers need to see the image in order to be able to understand the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 19 October 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:WolfMan.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, looks promotional (so skeptical about self created), male nude. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:37, 16 October 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:Manly colours.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PNG Version, now superceeded by Vector version with more accurate title. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:14, 16 October 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.