Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 15

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 debate was:

- Delete - Per the below discussion (and my judgement here) the image fails NFCC#1—it can clearly be adequately replaced by text alone— and fails NFCC#8—this low-quality shot does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic Peripitus (Talk) 03:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KABCDisneylandDeath.jpg

Image:KABCDisneylandDeath.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mickeymouse1955 (notify | contribs).

• Does not increase reader's understanding, as its usage is about the incident depicted and not about the telecast this depicts. ViperSnake151 00:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It really does not matter what kind of ambulance they used, and you cannot see even where the ambulances are. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not very helpful to the project, picture is rather blurry and hard to comprehend. --Meldshal42? 16:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vey obviously not legitimate fair use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fair use of news coverage images to provide perspective on how an event was covered is quite legitimate. I have removed the image use at the main article, and have revised the caption at the Incidents at Disney parks article, where its use is relevant, to reflect that it is depciting news coverage. Dhaluza (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the article isn't about the news coverage of the accident. It's about the accident itself. The news coverage is not an object of (meta-)comment by us - except for the trivial mentioning of the existence of the news coverage in the image caption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but news coverage of the accident is an important facet of the event. It helps to establish notability, for example. The content could certainly be expanded to further develop this facet, if that is your concern. Dhaluza (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you can discuss the news coverage without the screenshot, which doesn't really inform us about the news coverage in any way. Mosmof (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can, but a picture is worth a thousand words. That's what fair use is for. Dhaluza (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is not. Fair use is for discussion of the intellectual work itself, not to use it as a substitute for a thousand words of prose.--Mosmof (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather narrow interpretation of both what I said, and fair-use images in general. Fair use for images is apprpriate with irreplaceable content, which is usually true for news coverage which cannot be repeated. The content has to be relevant, not just decorative, which I think is met in this case. My point was not that a fair use image is a substitute for prose, but that if you are not satisfied with the level of discussion, then WP:SOFIXIT. Dhaluza (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not narrow at all. In fact, fair use is meant to be narrow, as you're basically excusing yourself for infringing on copyright. One of the tests mentioned in NFCC#1 is "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?". In this case, it's an aerial shot of an emergency workers doing something, but it's really unclear. Neither the image itself nor the content of the image is remarkable at all. The encyclopedic quality of the image is simply too poor to even replace textual description, let alone enhance it in an irreplaceable way. And I'm not going to SOFIXIT because there's just nothing to discuss about the image. --Mosmof (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The image does not directly relate to anything in the article text. It doesn't add anything to the article, or increase the readers comprehension. PC78 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It shows the aftermath of a listed incident, so it does directly relate. It also obviously adds something, so saying it doesn't add anything is overstating your case. Tracking the original article through the wayback machine shows that the editors at kabc-tv used a similar image, so they apparently thought it would add something to their article. Dhaluza (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be reasonable. The image is so small it could be of any incident anywhere. An image of the actual derailment (should one exist) would relate directly to what is said in the article; a tiny, blurred image of someone being bundled into the back of an ambulance does not. Answer me this: what essential information does the image convey that is not included in the text? PC78 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See that's my point. By raising the threshold to "essential information", you have set the bar so high that any fair use image could be challenged. That's not WP policy nor is it required by copyright law, it's just over-the-top. I've edited the caption and incorporated the reference to tie it to the article so it does illustrate a relevant facet of the event. Dhaluza (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess that's where we disagree: I don't believe the bar is too high, nor do I share your interpretation of Wikipedia policy, i.e WP:NFCC. PC78 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The height of the bar is set by copyright law -- WP policy, and interpretation of that policy, should not make it higher. But that is not the point. The issue is whether your "essential information" criteria sets a higher bar, which I think it does. No image is essential, and irreplacable only means that it cannot be duplicated, not that it is essential. In fact the word essential does not appear in the WP:NFC policy at all. Dhaluza (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my "essential information" criteria, and the height of the bar most certainly is set by Wikipedia policy, which is more narrowly defined than fair use law. Have you actually read WP:NFCC? Do please have another look at criteria #1 and 8. PC78 (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This image is of too poor quality to be useful in this context. As a non-free image, it needs to go. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:50, 20 August 2008 (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.

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 debate was:

- Keep - appears to meet all of the WP:NFCC requirements for fair-use. NFCC4 interpretation in the nomination is far too broad and would deny most photos of artworks and architectural works. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Life Underground Alligator.jpg

Image:Life Underground Alligator.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dhaluza (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image published inside Wikipedia. NFCC4 violation ViperSnake151 02:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NFCC4 violation. I still don't understand what the image is about, after looking through the summary and info. --Meldshal42? 16:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand it, why are you taking a position on it? Dhaluza (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is nonsense. 2D representations of artwork are permitted for illustration and commentary--see the text of the {{Non-free 3D art}} template for example. If the issue is the first publication of the image, that's a rediculous interpretation of the fair use guidelines. You should consider the casting of the sculpture and its placement in a public place as the first publication of the copyright work. Dhaluza (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. It's legitimately used to illustrate an article about the actual artwork. This is what fair use is for. (In contrast to 90% of our other allegedly fair use images, which are not.) And Dhaluza is right about the interpretation of NFCC4, everything else would be nonsensical. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FutPerf...did I just say that? :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:52, 20 August 2008 (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.

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 debate was:

Kept.  As there are no allegations of copyright infringement, and images are not orphaned, there's nothing to see here.  Watermarks are not a cause for deletion, they're a cause for using the template:sofixit.  WilyD 18:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by Caesarjbsquitti

Image:Thunder Bay Online John Potestio.JPG

Image:Thunder Bay Online John Potestio.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Caesarjbsquitti (notify | contribs).

• Image is prominently stamped with the originating site's URL. The license information appears to be valid, but the uploader needs to submit a version without the URL stamping. Mosmof (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author appears to have complied. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC) (note: nominator's complaint applies to all images under this heading, collated for convenience ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Alfred Petrone.JPG

Image:Alfred Petrone.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs)

Image:Port Arthur Collegiate Institute.JPG

Image:Port Arthur Collegiate Institute.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs)

Image:Tbonlinegregzelinskimayor.JPG

Image:Tbonlinegregzelinskimayor.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs)

Image:Roy Piovesana.JPG

Image:Roy Piovesana.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs)

• Keep All images, but the url needs to go from the Port Arthur Collegiate Institute image. Now the articles in which they are contained seem iffy, but I'll reserve judgement on the images until/if those articles are deleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:58, 20 August 2008 (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.

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. Caricature of Guy Fawkes. Not necessarily V. -Nv8200p talk 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:V-animation.JPG

Image:V-animation.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Steviebengiefan (notify | contribs).

• derivative work of copyrighted character, used only in userspace Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I fail to understand what copyrighted character this portrays. It's not a good image, but its use in userspace is fine as-is. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's V (comics). Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems to be a bit of a stretch as a copyvio. I'll let the closing admin make the call. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • Well, clearly, it's supposed to depict him (look at the filename). V is copyrighted just like mickey mouse is, and it was immediately recognizable to me when I saw it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it wasn't recognizable to me. I don't care either way on this image, just throwing in my . On a related note, I thought it was an impression of Weird Al Yankovic's Amish Paradise.

• Keep - sufficiently poorly matching work that it could also be a character from the Dudley Do-Right segment, or a version of this. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:33, 23 August 2008 (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.

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 debate was:

- Delete - Looking at the uploader (and his sock's) other uploads and deleted images I feel that on balance Calliopejen1 is correct to be suspicious about its source. I am minded to delete this unused image with many free replacements available on commons.- Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:V-strom_ban.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Packa (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, kind of confusing whether the uploader actually took the photo as opposed to composing the image from other sources Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image found here...though after the image was uploaded to Wikipedia. I see no evidence of copyvio, but the logo of the vehicle portrayed needs to be annotated on the image page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:14, 20 August 2008 (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.

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 debate was:

- Keep - Rationale fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 23:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marwan al-Shehhi at Wedding.jpg

Image:Marwan al-Shehhi at Wedding.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonathan ryan (notify | contribs).

• Rationale is written in a unserious joking tone. WP:NFCC requires that it be presented in clear language. ViperSnake151 18:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't a reason for deletion. I simply removed "blah blah" and suddenly the sentence becomes more clear. This is a simple fix to the problem and shouldn't be used as a rationale for deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:34, 20 August 2008 (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.