Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 September 20

< September 19	September 21 >

September 20

File:Dawndumont.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 ⚡ 07:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another contributor tagged this image for speedydeletion. I believe what clearly happened is that Ms Dumont discovered her wikipedia article, and requested someone she knew to upload this image. I think she can be reached by email, and will be glad to agree to send the appropriate explicit liscensing permission through our OTRS. Geo Swan (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what happened. I didn't know what the right approach was to resolve. Thanks! --MasterMaq (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is required then is for Ms Dumont to (1) explicitly confirm that the image is being used with her permission; (2) choose one of the "free" liscenses we use here. I've put all the images I made myself and uploaded here in to the public ___domain. Other people choose lisenses that give away some of their intellectual property rights, but retain others.
Images that are available from the wikimedia commons have to be released under a liscense that allows other people to freely reuse them, and even modify them, but the original IP rights holders retain the right to be credited when the image is re-used. So images on the commons can't have restrictions where the IP rights holder wants to restrict the image from reuse in a commercial setting, and they can't insist it can't be modified.
You uploaded the image just to the english language wikipedia, which does allow fair use. So Ms Dumont may find that the trusted volunteer on the OTRS committee can advise her on retaining a few more rights. But it would also mean that the image couldn't be used on an article on the French language wikipedia.
The image that was previously on her article here could be used on an article on the French language wikipedia, because it is hosted on the wikimedia commons. Are you the uploader who originally placed that image on flickr? Because that flickr contributor used what we consider a "free" liscense it can be hosted on the commons. It can remain on the commons even if the flickr uploader makes its liscense more restrictive, because it is the liscense when it was downloaded, then uploaded, that remains in effect, for us, and any of our viewers.
I believe the correct email address that Ms Dumont should contact is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. It would be good if you could leave a note here, when Ms Dumont sends the email. There can be a backlog in processing these requests. So this discussion here should remain open, while her email is processed. That email will be read by a member of small team of trusted insiders. Those insiders are under an obligation to be discrete, so she can trust them to keep her contact information private. Provided she can pick a liscense we consider "free" there should be no problem keeping the image, and, at that point, this discussion can be closed as "keep". Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:53, 23 September 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:Ahibaran.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 ⚡ 07:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

first claimed PD-100, when asked for source, uploader added another multitude of tags including PD-Self and claiming "100s of years of use". I haven't been able to verify this claim. —SpacemanSpiff 07:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file has been uploaded by me scanned from a photo. It is in public ___domain and please provide evidence to contradict me if you have. It is not suitable for deletion as it does not violate any of the wikipedia rules as far as I know. Please verify the status of the photos from external sources; maybe visiting the house of any Baranwal and asking about its status. By default; one assumes a good faith when in doubt..Varanwal (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no way is this > a 100 years old image, although it may be a modern derivation of such. Scanning from a photograph does not remove the copyright issue & I rather feel that the interpretation of "public ___domain" is not being used in the WP legal sense but rather in the "loads of people have this image where I live" sense. We need some sort of real proof here, otherwise the risk is too great - the suggestion that we visit the houses of Barnwals does not fit the criteria of substantive proof. The addition of numerous, sometimes contradictory tags tends to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of these often tricky policies and a good faith but nonetheless misguided position. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Sitush said, this appears to be an image that was scanned from something where we have to assume that someone still owns a copyright. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 21 September 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:Wikipedia Umar farooq miana.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 F9 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A doctored version of the Wikipedia logo. Uploader has added an indiscriminate set of several licences. But in fact none applies because the logo is subject to very tight licencing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:08, 20 September 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:Dragon Ball Cast.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: Speedy close/keep via WP:IAR. This was just discussed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 September 6#File:Dragon Ball Cast.PNG with unanimous support for keeping the image. Unless there is an actual problem with the image's copyright status, or if it fails our non-free content criteria, please do not nominate it again just a week after the last discussion closed. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this image!!!I'm very hatest Gokou and Goten are near than Gokou and Gohan!!! that's very wrong image!!!202.40.137.196 (talk) 08:57, 20 September 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:Photo210-59x70.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:John Glass.jpg, a much higher quality version of the image (albeit the crop is slightly different). Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:34, 20 September 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:Pamoic acid symmetrical.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 ⚡ 07:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange angles, low quality; replaced in Pamoic acid. Leyo 15:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I created File:Pamoic acid skeletal C2v.png, the replacement image, to resolve the problems noted in the nom'd one. Wanted to keep the old one visible while working on/discussing improvements, otherwise I would have just uploaded to the same filename. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 21 September 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:Mordechai Vanunu head.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 ⚡ 07:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image, tagged as free, is said to be a cropped version of Image:Mordechai Vanunu.jpg that was deleted (by the uploader) in 2005 "in favor of GFDL picture on commons w/ same name". The picture with the same name in Commons was deleted back in July since its free status could not be verified. damiens.rf 15:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Nominator, did you determine whether the image this was cropped from was under a free liscense? If it was then the deletion of the base image was a serious mistake. If the base image was under a free liscense then it should be restored and this discussion should be closed as keep. If the base image was under a free liscense, both it and this image should be ported to the commons. We need someone with the right permissions to check the original base image. Geo Swan (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the base image's free status could not be verified. You could have also followed the link to the deletion discussion. --damiens.rf 14:15, 27 September 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:Stripper Performing at Nudes a Poppin 2008.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 ⚡ 07:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted from Commons as copyright violation. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Stripper_Performing_at_Nudes_a_Poppin_2008.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 Sreejith K (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In what I am sure was an unintentional oversight this nomination has left out some significant information, and is thus misleading.

timeline
date	event
21:47, 2010 May 1	image uploaded from flickr to the commons
15:32, 2011 April 4	image moved to the commons, eleven months after it was uploaded to en.wp.
08:54, 27 August 2011	check for original flickr image 16 months after original upload, followed by deletion due to the retirement of the flickr contributor...
18:01, 20 September 2011	this nomination

If the liscense was valid when it was uploaded, shouldn't this image be kept? I have seen participants in deletion discussion treat all contributors retirement from flickr as certain proof they were flickrwashers. I have uploaded thousands of images from flickr. The only flickr contributor I encountered who had retired did so out of a rage at us -- not due to being caught flickrwashing. I don't think flickr's management gives a darn as to whether their users are uploading images they don't own the rights to. Geo Swan (talk) 00:02, 24 September 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:Moves-like-jagger-video.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 F7 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted to Getty Images. Not self-taken as source says. Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 22:11, 20 September 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:Amy, the girl who waited.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 ⚡ 07:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the article discusses the use of prosthetic to age Karen G. into old Amy for this episode, the transformation is not significant enough to require a non-free image for this, given what little commentary there exists on this. MASEM (t) 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The image is significant in that her having aged is the basis for the whole story. The image illustrates that the aging was quite subtle and not the obvious 'old lady' make-up you'd imagine. There is much reference in the article about what is depicted in the picture.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image illustrates that the aging was quite subtle and not the obvious 'old lady' make-up you'd imagine. Please quote to me the commentary from the article which makes this point and is supported by the image, and then please explain how it is difficult for a reader to simply imagine this rather than needing to see a graphical representation. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 07:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The issue here is WP:NFCC#8. I read the associated article, and most of the discussion of the actress's work in creating the illusion of aging discusses her efforts vocally and with body movement, which cannot be conveyed by the photograph. There is a brief mention of prosthetic makeup, but I do not think that the image adds much to that. (Perhaps the case would be different if we had a double image, with both ages of the character shown.) The one part of the page where the image becomes most relevant is in the discussion of critical reception, where one critic is described as: "He also commented on Gillan's make-up job for the older Amy, which "is brilliant in its subtlety" but wished her hair could have been "chopped or grey"." Ultimately, then, the question becomes one of whether we need this image to appreciate either its "brilliant... subtlety" or the length and color of the hair. In my opinion, there simply isn't a good enough case to be made for that, and the file therefore fails #8. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete—if the image weren't there, readers could understand the article just as well (it is really not necessary to picture Old Amy's prosthetics with 100% accuracy, a generic approximation would do) therefore NFCC 8 is failed. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 07:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

` This video is supposed to be the actress is "discussing the challenges of playing an aged Amy..." The BBC says I am out of the region that can view the video. Maybe some UK contributor can review the video and see to what extent it discusses the make-up used to age her? Geo Swan (talk) 01:09, 24 September 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:Jeremiah McLain Rusk.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 ⚡ 07:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, doesn't match given source. We have better photos of Jeremiah McLain Rusk. Kelly ^hi! 23:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sufficiently high quality to keep. First, the guy lived well over a hundred years ago, so any photo of him is going to be PD. Second, the library of congress is entitled to rearrange its website, and change which images of the man they put priority on. If we deleted images from the commons when web pages go 404 then eventually we would have no images. Geo Swan (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons. It's in the public ___domain. WP:COBWEB. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - before copying to Commons, we need to have a source, as well as publication and copyright information. There's no indication this photo was or is on the LOC site - I haven't seen them ever re-arrange any URLs, they are very stable. Kelly ^hi! 22:56, 24 September 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.