Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 July 17

< Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.93.15.213 (talk) at 07:01, 19 July 2011 (→File:GrimesCrimeScene.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:01, 19 July 2011 by 65.93.15.213 (talk) (→File:GrimesCrimeScene.jpg)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< July 16	July 18 >

July 17

File:DSCF0000 (74).JPG

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:DSCF0000 (75).JPG

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Car 001.jpg

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. B (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No information as to subject, purpose, or intended use. JGHowes 17:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Car 004.jpg

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. B (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No information as to subject, purpose, or intended use. JGHowes 17:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:DSCF00051.JPG

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. B (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:DSCF00061.JPG

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. B (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:DSCF00081.JPG

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. B (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Car 007.jpg

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. B (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - This and many of the other images posted by Nikrape are all of the "Stony Gate Pumping Station Sunderland," wherever that is. They look like some nice pics of an Industrial Revolution-era water pumping station that's being preserved. The preferable alternative would be to find out where the site is, rename all the images apporpriatley, and even if there's no article on the place, add it to the commons. ----DanTD (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:DSCF0022dd.3.jpg

Orphaned, too small to be useful B (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:DSCF0044.JPG

Orphaned, subject is unidentified B (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:DSCF0084.JPG

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:DSCF4314.JPG

Orphaned, quality is too poor to be useful B (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Jaanapada Jaatre.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominating for file deletion, since it is already uploaded at following location: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Jaanapada.jpg . Thank you. Niri / ನಿರಿ 00:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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:PollyKlaas.png

Citing precedent set at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 July 8#File:Caylee anthony.jpg, it is not necessary to show a non-free photo of the victim to understand the content of the article, per WP:NFCC#8. If this were a free photo, it would be perfectly fine to include a photo of the victim. However, since it is non-free, it must meet all ten non-free content criteria, and it would appear to fail one of them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Michaela565.jpg

File:Johndavidgosch.jpg

File:Amyphoto.jpg

File:Samantha Runnion.jpg

File:Charlie Keever.jpg

File:Adam-Walsh.jpg

Keep. This particular file is the rare instance when an image becomes a cause celebre in its own right, thereby rising to the level of "iconic". The appeal of the Adam Welsh imagery has distinguished this case of an abducted/murdered child in the public eye from the many others and has led to the ongoing TV series, etc., and galvanized support for Adam Walsh-related legislation. As such, its fair use in this article is essential to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" per NFCC, to adequately grasp how this image evoked such unprecedented public response. JGHowes 14:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Jacob wetterling.jpg

File:Christina marie williams.jpg

File:Derrion Albert.jpg

File:Nixzmary Brown.jpg

File:Mollybish.jpg

No reason to believe that this image is actually released into the public domain as stated. Additionally, if treated as a non-free image, it would fail WP:NFCC#8, as it is not necessary to see a photo of the victim to understand the subject of the article where the image is currently used. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Marcus Fiesel.jpg

File:Preciousdoe.jpg

File:JesseDirkhising.jpg

File:Elyse.JPG

File:Newmaker.jpg

File:MarthaMoxley.jpg

File:SylviaLikens.jpg

File:StephanieKuhen.png

Keep: After reviewing the case that got the precedent, Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_8#File:Caylee_anthony.jpg, I noticed from the closing user:

"Many assertions were made that removing the image would be detrimental to reader's understanding, for example: "part of the reason about the murder trial" was the photo; that her health as evidenced in the photo was an important part of the trial; or that she was a white girl and this was the reason for the coverage; but no secondary and reliable sources have been brought forth to support these assertions. The onus is on the defenders of non-free content to prove why it should remain, and no one in the discussion below did so."

Problem is, this case has RSes of people who say "This girl was White, so therefore the case got media attention" and counterclaims from people who disagree. The people need this image as it illustrates the "missing white girl" aspect of the case.

As a note, I already found RSes of people who argue that the Caylee Anthony case was a "missing white girl" syndrome, so if it is determined that the "missing White girl" argument is enough to need a photo illustrating the person, then the Caylee Anthony photo may be coming back.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since when is a photo needed to indicate somebody's skin color? (unless you're Stephen Colbert, because he doesn't see race). –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete - if the only thing you need a photo for is to "prove" that the victim was white, you can say that in text. Non-free photos are NOT used to prove assertions in the article - to prove an assertion in the article, you provide a reference to a reliable source. Non-free photos are used because they substantially enhance a user's understanding of a topic and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding. --B (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I should point out that precedent would only really work if the cases are the same. I'm not sure they are or not. As to whether the coverage Whisper found meets NFCC, I'm not sure that's the case but that's not an issue for this FFD. As B points out race and to a lesser degree attractiveness is easy to state in text. Whisper I suggest you A) beef up the FUR for this image and then B) post the sources here for appraisal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Added more to the Kuhen FAR.
- The source is:
  - Noble, Kenneth B. "Child Is Slain, and a Neighborhood Voices Its Frustrations." The New York Times. September 22, 1995.
- I'll see if I can find additional info about the photo itself and/or the "missing white girl" phenomenon relating to Kuhen
- WhisperToMe (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete unless the article can contain sourced commentary on this photo itself. The fact that she is white can be stated in pure text. —teb728 t c 05:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Anna-Svidersky-2.jpg

File:KelseySmith.jpg

File:Emmett Till.jpg

Comment: According to:
- Pickett, Debra. "50 YEARS AGO TODAY." Chicago Sun-Times. August 30, 2005. Retrieved on July 16, 2011.
This photo was given to distribute to newspapers after reports that Till was missing popped up. This isn't a random photo, but a photo that became iconic of Till due to the usage in media reports.
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Iconic" is not part of the non-free content criteria. Realize that if this were a free image, it wouldn't make a difference. But since this is non-free, no can do. I still don't see this image's being the subject of critical commentary, nor is it necessary to see an image of Till to understand the concept of his death. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case I'll see if I can find critical, sourced commentary about the photo. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=fLC2Ei-VvuoC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Emmett+Till+%22Christmas+photo%22&source=bl&ots=95E1gcBdbG&sig=EokBLgzqeUuso9PBZCvGPdqt8PU&hl=en&ei=l2AiTs_EBcyDsALRysXBAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Emmett%20Till%20%22Christmas%20photo%22&f=false - And I think I found some. Adding to the article WhisperToMe (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Iconic" images are listed under WP:FAIR#Acceptable use as an acceptable reason to use an image. --B (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Now it has sourced commentary - having sourced commentary specifically about the image and its significance is a reason to keep it. A book describes how this particular photograph, when it ran in the Mississippi press, humanized Emmett Till's image in the minds of Mississippians. The book describes the photo in text, and it stated that the story that ran the photo was one of the most positive portrayals of Till in the Mississippi press. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep - I agree with WhisperToMe's reasoning that the photo seems highly relevant to the story. --B (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Caplanhouse.jpg

WP:NFCC#8. Image itself not the subject of critical commentary, nor is the image necessary to understand the subject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:GrimesCrimeScene.jpg

Appears to fail WP:NFCC#8, as this image itself is not the subject of critical commentary itself, nor is it otherwise necessary to understand the subject of the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The picture illustrates how police and press are trampeling the crime scene. This was also in the description of the picture but seems to have been removed from the article at some stage. This considerably hindered the investigation at a later point because the crime scene was thereby altered by press and police. You can also see the alignment of the bodies when they were found, this is hard to describe in words and seeing it in a picture helps. So I think WP:NFCC#8 is thereby fulfilled. ColdCase (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you need a picture to demonstrate the trampling, particularly if the article doesn't even mention it. Nothing can be conveyed in the picture that can't be said with "members of the press trampled the crime scene six feet from the bodies". I would be more inclined to say that the photos of the bodies themselves are relevant to the topic, but you can barely see them in this picture ... so I don't know that this photo really helps your understanding. --B (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment the Grimes sisters are dead, so no new free photos can be taken of those two... (our article is called "Grimes sisters", so 'should' be biographical (though in reality, is a crime article, so should probably be renamed) ) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Merit badge group.png

A collage of multiple non-free images is almost never accepted as fair use. I know this is pretty, but I can't think of any reasonable justification for this being used. There are plenty of other (non-free) images being used on this page already to illustrate the subject. I don't object to those, it's just that this one is gratuitous. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the images at History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) are also collages. --98.249.32.186 (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes, they are technically two separate non-free images in one picture. However it's the front and the back of same object, where both sides are discussed in the article, so it's not the same as the one up for deletion, which is five different objects, all of which are already in the article already. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:1977Talladega500DavidPearson.jpg

Non-free, random low-quality snapshot from a car racing event in the 1970s. Fails NFCC#8, doesn't convey any concrete visual information that is crucial for understanding the article. Purely decorative use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:1980Firecracker400.jpg

Non-free, extremely small and low quality snapshot from a car racing event. Fails NFCC#8, as it doesn't convey any concrete visual information that is crucial for understanding the article. Purely decorative use, but really too small to be useful even just as a decoration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:1966Firecracker400.jpg

File:1965Southern500NASCAR.jpg

Non-free, extremely small and low quality snapshot from a car racing event. Fails NFCC#8, as it doesn't convey any concrete visual information that is crucial for understanding the article. FUR claims that it shows some specific aspect of the race, but that is not the object of discussion in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:CobWeb Queen 1778.JPG

Orphaned, unidentified subject. Google search for "cobweb queen" sheds no light. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Rafial Magigico 1779.JPG

Same reasons as for the nomination immediately preceding this one. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Bugatti Galibier 16c.jpg

I have strong doubts about the copyright ownership of the uploader. This car is a prototype which has only been shown in car shows but is not on the road. This looks like a cropped version of a press image Hektor (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Hope College1.jpg

Orphaned, statement of permission sounds dubious, "Permission Granted on 3/15/2006 from Hope College Public Relations to use this image in Misplaced Pages" B (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Srbac BiH.png

Orphaned, File:Srbac municipality.svg is a much better image, no indication of where the blank map came from B (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Sins.jpg

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, statement of permission sounds dubious - "Author Pip (aschloss@gmail.com) has given permission for his images to be used on wikipedia from www.sincomics.com" B (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Thesins.jpg

File:Sinsnames.jpg

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, "Image is copyright of Pip (Adam Schlosser) of www.sincomics.com" B (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Virtues.jpg

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, "Images copyright Adam Schlosser of www.sincomics.com" B (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:UNTL.jpg

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use, description page gives a source URL (which is now a dead link), but no indication of permission nor even a claim that the uploader is the author B (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikifur14july2006.png

Orphaned screenshot of WikiFur website. The screenshot contains, among other things, a copyrighted screenshot from the Daily Show (which I assume they are using under a claim of fair use). B (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Biotechcellencepro.jpg

Orphaned, logo for article Biotechcellence, which was deleted four years ago, claim of GFDL license is dubious B (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Rohan1.jpg

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Cham albanians gallery.jpg

Per Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_March_30#File:Cham_refugee_camp_in_Albania.jpg, which is one of the images included in this gallery, which makes the image's use here non-free. Orphaned. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Delete. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Victoriaboarding.png

Non-free historic photograph of a ship taken during a naval raid. While the historic event is no doubt notable, the image doesn't add anything concrete to its understanding. Purely decorative use, fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to understand how having an actual image of the raid itself in the article "doesn't add anything concrete to its understanding". You are misinterpreting "purely decorative". If we inserted a generic image of a ship, this would be a "purely decorative" use. This in contrast is a unique, rare image of the historical event described in the article, showing the ship being intercepted by a Saar-5 corvette, as described in the article. Marokwitz (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be an authentic image of the event, but it doesn't increase my understanding of the event. It simply shows two ships sailing next to each other. I can visualize two ships sailing next to each other just fine, without seeing an image of them. Show me any random photograph of the Victoria, and any random photograph of a corvette, and I can imagine them sailing next to each other even better. But nothing in the visual detail of this particular photograph helps me to actually understand better how the interception worked. The text (which is pretty well written) helps me to understand it a lot. The image just doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A well written article always covers the details shown in the photographs, so if we use your strict criteria we would have no fair use photos remaining - it is always possible to simply describe them. Perhaps the text is enough for you, but many people would find an actual photograph of an event instrumental. This type of use clearly qualifies as Fair use under U.S. and Israeli copyright laws. Furthermore, the IDF Spokesperson has released this video to the public, and explicitly specified in their terms of use that fair use is permitted. Lets see what other editors have to say. Marokwitz (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The precedent cited does not apply, because this image is a book cover of the deceased person's biography and writings, which the article goes on to use extensively in discussing the ongoing youth movement and organization that was founded based on the book. NFCC policy, it should be noted, specifically allows "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". While the extent or degree of "critical commentary" is necessarily subjective and, hence, subject to differing views, in this instance the standard is certainly met. It identifies the book for the reader, and confirms for the reader that the article in which it is used is about the same person pictured in this iconic image that is used in numerous publications and mailings distributed by the organization founded in the victim's memory. The organization's widespread use of this specific image to appeal to the public and galvanize support for its goals makes its fair use in this article essential to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" per NFCC #8. In summary, the image as used in this instance meets all 10 tests for non-free content. JGHowes 14:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFC#UUI #9 This is a cropped book cover used to illustrate an article on the person whose photograph is on the cover, where the cover itself is not the subject of sourced discussion in the article. Indeed, the article barely mentions the book. And the cropping of the cover image makes it worthless to identify the book. —teb728 t c 05:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:

Archived files for deletion discussions