Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 May 22

Image:1huy.jpg

Image:1huy.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Laperlamusic (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader MER-C 10:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jam012.jpg

Image:Jam012.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Roycewegner (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader MER-C 10:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Royce.jpg

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

• Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader MER-C 10:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TripleGinuwine.jpg

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

• Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader MER-C 10:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ginuwinetripey.jpg

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

• or ue ab MER-C 10:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned images

I am now nominating the following images from my watchlist for deletion. They are all unused (only used in deleted aticles).

• Image:1LN6.gif - Uploaded by Nuklear (talk · contribs). Rotating image of some molecule, marked as {{GFDL-self}}, possibly unfree. (See uploader's talk page for multiple copyright warnings.)
• Image:2iqo.gif - As above, marked as {{PD-self}}.
• Image:Receptor activation.gif - Diagram of some chemical reaction (?), uploaded by the same user as the images above.
• Image:AVi Image.jpg - Uploaded by GopalMan (talk · contribs). Company logo.
• Image:Mrguy.jpg - Uploaded by Nonoffensive (talk · contribs). Supposedly uploader's personal picture, more likely a film screenshot. Used on uploader's user page (or would be if he knew how to include it). Uploader is currently serving his one-month block for vandalism.
• Image:PC310078.JPG - Uploaded by Simonsays123 (talk · contribs). Personal picture, user has no other contributions except some editing experiments a month ago.
• Image:Sweet Facial Hair 009.jpg - Uploaded by Brandon Connors (talk · contribs). Personal picture, uploaded half a year ago, only one edit since.

Mike Rosoft 11:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xmascluster.jpg

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

• Delete - This is an ugly, low-quality image that includes several "enhancements" that are inappropriate for Wikipedia images (such as a border and word art). Moreover, it is unclear as to where the unprocessed image came from or what the copyright status is of the unprocessed image. Other images of the object are already in use in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very low quality 132.205.44.134 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Image-PGR.jpg

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

• Delete - This is an ugly, low-quality collage of galaxies that includes word art and other image effects that are inappropriate for Wikipedia images. Moreover, it is unclear as to where the unprocessed image came from or what the copyright status is of the unprocessed image. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it looks like its a copyvio? 132.205.44.134 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Compare neb map2.jpg

Image:Compare neb map2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Acom (notify | contribs).

• Delete - Aside from this being an ugly image, the image refers to a "Philippine Nebula", which is effectively a neologism (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Nebula. The image is misleading and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete low quality 132.205.44.134 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Location NGC2264 2.jpg

Image:Location NGC2264 2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Acom (notify | contribs).

• Delete - Aside from this being an ugly image, the image refers to a "Philippine Nebula", which is effectively a neologism (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Nebula. The image is misleading and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused and misleading 132.205.44.134 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Philippine Nebula2.jpg

Image:Philippine Nebula2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Acom (notify | contribs).

• Delete - Aside from this being an ugly image, the image refers to a "Philippine Nebula", which is effectively a neologism (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Nebula. The image is misleading and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very low quality 132.205.44.134 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DrAngelRamos.jpg

Image:DrAngelRamos.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Marine_69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary unfree image of a magazine cover. Other than showing how a given living person looks like, iit doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. The mazine issue in quenstion is only mentioned in a sentence that reads "In February 1993, Ramos was interviewed and featured on the cover of DeafLife magazine, discussing his role as a deaf Hispanic advocate" Abu badali ^(talk) 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I totally disgree! The magazine is mentioned and referred to in said article and the image has been placed in the section where such reference is made. 2.The magazine features the subject of said article and is noteworthy because it serves as a visual aid to the reader as to the notability of the subject. 3.If the image is properly sourced and it's copyright status in order, then I see no need for deletion. Tony the Marine 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use, points 7 and 8. The article's mention of the magazine issue in question is already sourced; it does not need an illustration of the magazine cover. This image does not serve to explain or clarify what is stated in the text about the particular magazine issue; instead it is being used to show what the person looks like. —Bkell (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point #7 says: "An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply." (Bold is mine.) The magazine cover picture is not simply to show what the subject looks like; in the second sentence of #7, we see that the issue itself is notable enough to be a topic in the artice. This specific issue, which illustrates the subject's notability as an advocate for the deaf (by virtue of his selection to not only be interviewed, but also to be featured on the cover). #8 says, "An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like." But, as indicated, the purpose is not just to show what Dr. Ramos looks like. — ERcheck (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use is just a guideline that is intended to explain the real policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. If we found out that the guideline's text is not in accordance with the policy (or the foundation resolution), it must be updated. As a matter of fact, to keep unfree material usage to a minimal, we don't use unfree images of magazine covers whenever the magazine issue is mentioned. The cover image itself must be notable (as if it caused some controversy or had a monument build after it). --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph.

• Strong keep. One of the stranger requests I've seen to delete fair use. First, it illustrates Angel Ramos, the subject of the article; this goes to the very intent of fair use. Second, it illustrates an aspect of Ramos, namely his hearing disability. Third, the magazine in question is discussed in the article itself. There are almost too many examples to cite where this is acceptable, but
  David Shankbone 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Indeed we have. But the cleanup is already taking place. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 May 2 for similar cases. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep when the image is the only one that is available to be put on the article, I don't understand how it could be deemed unnecessary.... though if there are more suitable images that can be found then they ought to go in. However the current image shouldn't be removed before any replacements (if there are any) are found, otherwise we're just leaving a hole? SGGH ^speak! 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As strange as it sounds, we want to leave a hole, to encourage the creation of free content. Unless there is a gap that needs to be filled, there is little motivation for anyone to create a free alternative. —Bkell (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose that does make sense... SGGH ^speak! 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How does image expand the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. "Dr Ramos was interviewed and appeared on the cover of DeafLife magazine" is perfectly clear. Does the article need the image? No. Does it make the article look nice (as SGGH says, without it "we're just leaving a hole")? Yes. Ergo, it's a decorative use and fails
  chat} 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Because there is no graphic representation of the individual. It shows what he looks like. Under your logic, there is no need for images on Wikipedia at all, since a written description will suffice. It does not. --

David Shankbone 23:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, the article could use a picture of Dr. Ramos, but if the magazine cover is to fulfill that purpose, then that specifically fails

chat} 00:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The magazine cover is placed in the section where reference to said magazine is mentioned (maybe in only one section, but it is still cited). It is no longer placed near the opening paragraph, so I still fail to see the big deal. I can understand the deletion of images that fail the copyright status or are unsourced because of the legal implications, but I fail to see what harm is being done with this particular case. Tony the Marine 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about harm or legalities, it's about

chat} 05:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, I didn't mean leaving a hole physically, I meant content and coverage wise :) SGGH ^speak! 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep, the magazine photo is a representable image of Dr. Ramos. If it is good for a magazine cover, than it is good for this site. Let's concentrate on other things on this site that will benefit others. Deleting this image only will create a gap in providing a reasonable image of Dr. Ramos. --162.83.132.164 02:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — by my reading #8 of the non-free content criteria — "Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose." — the use of this image is acceptable free use as it illustrated specific, relevant points...in the text. — ERcheck (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What's the part of the text that needs illustration and is helped by this unfree image? --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. Look at

  chat} 05:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep— this is not about a "text that needs illustration", this is about the fact that the magazine itself is mentioned in the article and the uploader has not violated any of Wikipedias copyright policies. On the cover the magazine states that Mr. Ramos is an activist for the deaf as is mentioned in the article, therefore the magazine cover collaborates and serves as a reference to what is stated in the article.
  Antonio Martin 05:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Dispute - I'm sorry but it is about "a "text that needs illustration". We don't use unfree magazine covers everytime the magazine issue is mentioned because, by

  out policy on unfree content usage, we don't use unfree material whenever it's legal and useful. We use it only when it's necessary for the article's comprehension. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • Keep - Per the exact same reason Antonio listed above my post. -
    凶 11:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. Sorry guys, it pains me to do this but policy is policy, and it's pretty clear to me that the magazine cover must be notable itself, no matter who is on the cover. I know it hampers Wikipedia's quality (many great articles can never reach FA only because of this clause), but we don't establish these rules. Personally, I think this approach of enforcing policy is just paranoia affecting many worried minds. And I do not appreciate Abu badali's style of bulldozing through many good faith efforts by established editors without taking the time to talk to them, especially after reading this. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, policy is policy. But, it seems that various editors here have a different interpretation of the policy. It illustrates a specific, relevant point of the article; thus, many here interpret the policy as saying that, in this case, policy allows it. — ERcheck (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is this image illustrating? The information "John Smith was interviewed by Mimes Magazine and appeared on the cover of it's September 1985 issue" doesn't need an image to be understood. Using an image is just decoration, something the we only do with free material. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is pretty clear on that. It sucks, but it's clear. And I don't think this is a policy that consensus will easily change, not with the intervention of legal advisers and such. Abu's arguments are based on the established policy, and not his opinion (maybe). However, this is just one small picture. If you wish to establish your views on Fair-use in all its aspects, this is the place to do so. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding featured content, I haven't been to FAC for a while but I doubt this policy would stop articles from becoming featured. Garion96 (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The image fails the non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Howcheng, image fails non-free content criteria. --Iamunknown 20:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Danny.png

Image:Danny.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Dannyok (notify | contribs).

• unencyclopedic — Senordingdong 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Daniel O'Keefe Jennifer McIllroy Andrew Docherty.png

Image:Daniel O'Keefe Jennifer McIllroy Andrew Docherty.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Dannyok (notify | contribs).

• unencyclopedic — Senordingdong 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ordesa_Casada.jpg

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

• where does it state this is under the creative commons license indicated on the image page? Yonatan ^talk 16:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to