Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Wikipedia:Files for deletion
< August 11 August 13 >

August 12

File:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza3.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: no consensus. There is no agreement on whether 1) it can be replaced with text 2) it significantly improves readers' understanding. The end decision is on hold, deferred to

Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

File:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Halibutt (notify | contribs).
  • It is not clear what this image is intended to show. The rationale states that it "Shows Armia Krajowa soldiers training wearing captured German helmets. Shows that the organization was sufficiently well organize to capture equipment, and use the captured equipment in organized training exercises that were photographed." I fail to see how any of this could not be explained in text. The point about German equipment could even be illustrated with free images of said German equipment. J Milburn (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I tried to explain
    Armia Krajowa, leśni, the unit which is not yet stubbed but likely notable). It is also a rare image showing Polish partisans training with German weapons. As another editor noted in the expanded fur rationale, the image "shows Armia Krajowa soldiers training wearing captured German helmets. Shows that the organization was sufficiently well organize to capture equipment, and use the captured equipment in organized training exercises that were photographed." I also mentioned that the author is uknown, and Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has given us permission to use it; while it is not a free license and to be honest the Ministry is not the copyright holder (they just own, have digitalized and now host the collection it comes from), a chance of us being asked to remove it is smaller than the chance of hell to freeze :) If a free image which illustrates the same issues can be find to replace it, fine, otherwise, I think there can be little argument with keep. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That argument misses the point. The image is only currerently in use on
      Armia Krajowa, so it has to be determined whether its use there is necessary. It is not the primary image of the subect (we do have free images of that) so the question has to be asked- what does it show? It "shows Armia Krajowa soldiers training wearing captured German helmets. Shows that the organization was sufficiently well organize to capture equipment, and use the captured equipment in organized training exercises that were photographed"? Why is a non-free image required for that? We do not need a non-free imnage to illustrate every point mentioned in the article. Why does that particular point need to be illustrated with a non-free image? J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Speedy Keep - Per User:Piotrus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Too many imgs about WWII in Poland contested already. --Poeticbent talk 02:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has given permission to use it, so what's the problem? --
    talk) 07:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. "The point about German equipment could even be illustrated with free images of said German equipment" - no it couldn't, and would most likely confuse the reader, by presenting just one aspect pulled out of context and it is the combination - training soldiers + uniforms and distinctive armbands + captured equipment - that illustrates the reason given in the rational. "I fail to see how any of this could not be explained in text" - this is a specious reason as it is true of any image whatsoever.
    talk) 07:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Not at all. If the important part of any image could be illustrated by a free image, the free image could be used. Why not show a free image of German equipment in a museum? We don't need the image to show that they did train with the material- we already say that in the text. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it's not just the captured German equipment - it's the combination between, allow me to repeat - training soldiers + uniforms and distinctive armbands + captured equipment. The sum is greater than its parts and that's why we actually use images (any images) in articles in the first place. And again, the contention that "I fail to see how any of this could not be explained in text" is meaningless since any image can be explained in text in some way (your related comment on Piotrus' talk page said "random photos showing people posing with guns" - sure, and Mona Lisa is just some random lady who might be smiling). Gimme an image an I'll give you a way that it can be explained in text, which, according to your interpretation of [1] would make any image superfluous. I think you're confusing the idea of "Burden of Proof" (who needs to provide the rationale) with "Level of Proof" (what constitutes what Wiki calls "valid rationale") - and in the process making the standards for level of proof/valid rationale (almost) impossible to meet - but that's not the intent of the relevant Wiki policy. The Burden Proof is on those who wish to retain the image, but this burden can be met - and it has been in this case.
        talk) 21:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Comment: If this was published before 23 May 1994 without a copyright notice, it can be assumed public domain, as per Template:PD-Poland. Do we have any evidence that it was? J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it's very hard to verify that. We obviously know it was taken before that data and it made its way somehow into the Ministry archives. Anything else... we don't. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First we don't retain copyrighted content because the chance of the copyright holder complaining is next to nil. Second per
    WP:NFCC #8; the image isn't referenced by the text. It's not tied to it, and not critical to support the text. All that said, I would agree with keeping the image if it is determined to be public domain. That needs to be proven first, not assumed. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. This image and several others were used in the past under this license till it got deleted. Please see talk, which includes notes that an editor talked with a ministry person and was assured we can use the images. I think we should try to contact the Ministry again and ask for a proper free license, but really, put the copyright paranoia behind us - those images are SAFE to use. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not copyright paranoia and I resent the use of that term. This image is non-free, and so must meet our NFCC- that's all I have mentioned. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with J Milburn, and I'll re-iterate what I said above. We don't retain copyrighted content because we think we're safe. We have to have proof. We don't in this case. Contacting the Ministry is useless; they do not have rights to the image, (by their own admission) and therefore can not release rights (they don't have them to release). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Until such time as you get it in writing that it is ok to use the images under an applicable licence, it is not safe to use the images. All Kremlin images were deleted at
        Dialogue 06:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Delete as per
    Dialogue 06:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - important image.--
    talk) 16:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Why is it important? How does the image comply with
    WP:NFCC? Can you base your keep vote on something in policy? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The compliance of the image with NFCC is already explained in the fur (rationale). You're talking as if the rationale hasn't already been provided.
talk) 13:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Any image can be replaced by sourced text. The point of images is that they illustrate. This is not a reason to delete the image.
talk) 17:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. Per Piotrus.--Adi (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is nothing iconic about this photo. There is nothing it depicts that can't be explained in text. The reasons given here for keeping it are not supported by policy. --B (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hammersoft. Image is replaceable by free text and/or does not add substantially to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Piotrus. The image text should be amended to indicate the results of prior correspondence with the ministry. A picture is worth a thousand words and images are an integral part of encyclopedic content. Every last image in WP and Commons can be replaced with text, that's not an argument for deletion. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is. Please see the
      non-free content criteria, which explicitly state that non-free images should not be used if replaceable by text. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
No, the criteria do not say that non-free images should not be used if replaceable by text. They say that they shouldn't be used if they can be adequately replaced by text. The key word in the criteria is "adequately" which leaves room open for interpretation and opinion. Obviously there's quite a number of editors here who feel that the image cannot be adequately replaced by text, and the criteria admit this subjectivity.
talk) 23:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You're leaving out the second half of the criterion - we only use this image if its absence would be detrimental to the user's understanding of the topic. You couldn't possibly argue that not seeing a random photo of these guys would be detrimental to the user's understanding. There are certain images like the
Kent State Shootings and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima where you couldn't possibly talk about those subjects without the iconic photo. Everyone born in the last 30 years saw both of these photos in their history books. That's the kind of image it's appropriate to use. Some random stock photo of the subject is not appropriate to use. I don't even think we could prevail in court if we were sued for using this photo. We're just using it like free stock photography to avoid paying royalties. We're not offering critical commentary about the photo. We're not doing anything transformative with the photo. It's flagrant copyright violation, regardless of our NFCC policy. --B (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2009 (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:2ask2.gif

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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2ask2.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Guyactive (notify | contribs).
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:Etisalat.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Etisalat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jseng (notify | contribs).
  • Low-quality screenshot of non-free web page. Should be readily replaceable. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and lack of
    talk|contribs) 02:24, 14 August 2009 (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:Eisnereurodisney.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eisnereurodisney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SergioGeorgini (notify | contribs).
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:ART4.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ART4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ajgarcia (notify | contribs).
  • Unused user created artwork, uploader is absent, uploading this in 2007 is the only action ever performed by this acount. Sherool (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.   —
    talk|contribs) 02:28, 14 August 2009 (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:AVTS.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AVTS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Avts (notify | contribs).
  • Unused photo (article about subject have been deleted multiple times), also not clear that author and uploader is the same person. Sherool (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.   —
    talk|contribs) 02:30, 14 August 2009 (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:Nostalin.gif

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nostalin.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vecrumba (notify | contribs).
According to that link, the file was deleted for "Quelle stimmt nicht", which is German for "Source is not correct"[3]. So we still have a situation where permission and license for the source cannot be
talk|contribs) 21:31, 13 August 2009 (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:Uqpeter.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uqpeter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Selwin_wu (notify | contribs).
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:St andrews presbyterian church nabha road.gif

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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:St andrews presbyterian church nabha road.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Anabshams (notify | contribs).
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:Toshiba HD-A1.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toshiba HD-A1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MindTooth (notify | contribs).
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:Imaginifer.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imaginifer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Samort7 (notify | contribs).
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:FieraMilano1.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: Removed from everywhere but

FieraMilano - I have tagged it as fair use. --B (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

File:FieraMilano1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mariokempes (notify | contribs).
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_12&oldid=1089912761"