Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 11

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

File:Srinivas G Phani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Srinivas (notify | contribs).

• I am the one who uploaded it and now I would like to delete it. Thanks. Srinivas 12:16, 11 July 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.

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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Disavian (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned non-free image. Orphaned by myself as only use was in Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate which was an article on the rivalry, not the book and was thus clearly contrary to NFCC 1 and 8. CIreland (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Images like this should be tagged {{
  talk) 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, but when the person requesting deletion is the same as the person who orphaned the image I think a bit more transparency is required. So far as I know we don't have a satisfactory procedure for such cases so I'll be continuing to list them here. CIreland (talk) 15:29, 14 July 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.

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playgirlatkinscover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fallout boy (notify | contribs).

• that's not my name 18:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Non-free image of a living person; free alternatives exist. — Σxplicit 21:24, 13 July 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.

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⚡ 19:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alania 10 12.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PANONIAN (notify | contribs).

• This personally drawn map of
  talk) 18:57, 11 July 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.

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: Nomination withdrawn Lenticel ^(talk) 08:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nazi-SovietRelations Six.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mosedschurte (notify | contribs).

• Contains non-free elements. As a decorative image, this should be replaced with a completely free image, or at least have the non-free elements cut. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - as the page clearly explains, the image is not "decorative" and the proper tags are included with each image. There is no problem.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain what an image of men holding a piece of paper is adding to the respective articles? J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just realised that this image was primarily being used on a template. Non-free images (which this is, due to the non-free image within it) are not appropriate for use on a template. This kind of "picture to show relations" should be entirely free. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• FIXED - To solve the problem, I just replaced the one non-free image within the file with a free image here. Note, this was after this deletion request was started.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The problem was fixed by Mosedschurte.Biophys (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Issue resolved, consider nomination withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good to hear issues was resolved--
  talk) 05:51, 12 July 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.

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

File:Sailor sculpture (Kirkland, Washington) crop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ed Fitzgerald (notify | contribs).

• If non-free, this image is not justified. This particular statue is not even mentioned in the article. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be used in a different article. Do we have something about soldiers returning home from war? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am considering having this image used at Leave (U.S. military), since this portrays a soldier home. This one can definately be used at I think this statue can represent the significance of a soldier returning home, as that is what many soldiers do when they are on leave. This one can definately be used at Lake Washington Shipyard since, according to the file description, this commemorates the shipbuilding at the shipyard. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I altered the FU rationale so it applies to the shipyard article. I would categorize this as a Keep since I made the FU rationale acceptable. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't think that the rationale works for the article. According to the article linked from the image page this sculpture ...commemorates the

homecoming of a World War II soldier, it does not illustrate the significance of the military shipbuilding at the shipyard as stated on the image page. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:52, 20 July 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.

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 Delete per NFCC8, or as a blatant infringement of fair use laws. This is an obvious violation of fair use, even if it's a well-meant one. This picture shows nothing that cannot be adequately explained in words, for example "There is a well-known picture of Generals from both sides having a friendly discussion over attack plans". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the image, as majority of editors below see the FURationale as valid. At the very least, the discussion should be allowed to continue. I've asked Cavalry to unarchive this thread. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have redeleted the image, after much thought. The close was legitimate. If Cavalry believes your complaints have merit, then he is able to restore the image himself. Leaving the image sitting around but the debate closed in the mean time is not positive. J Milburn (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion at User_talk:J_Milburn#File:German_Soviet.jpg I know endorse the deletion as well :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:German Soviet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Piotrus (notify | contribs).

• Clearly unwarranted image. Yes, maybe the meeting was important, but what it looked like is not. We do not need a non-free image to know what men holding paper looked like. The copy-paste rationales are completely unilluminating, and fail to explain anything. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles themselves, at least the ones I've seen, discuss quite clearly the post-Poland invasion coordination discussed therein illustrated by the photo. Doesn't seem to be a problem.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that they discuss the post-Poland invasion coordination. They don't discuss this image though- this image is serveral men and a piece of paper. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FIXED The image is from irreplaceable German propaganda newsreel footage (note: this might even have some sort of free rationale, but I'm not sure, and it doesn't matter here) and shows the coordination of German and Soviet troops in their September 1939 invasions. The descriptions for use in three of the articles are now contained in new usage rationales in the file just inserted here.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing rationale IMHO is quite clear: a low-resolution screenshot. Whether that's ok by US Law, I don't know, I am not a lawyer. But that is the only possible issue here, whether low-resolution screenshot is copyright ok for the limited usage this one has. As for "what men holding the paper look like", I believe this is not copyright related. That would be to pass a judgement on the content, i.e. to assess the historical (non-)importance of Nazi-Soviet demarcation lines, which we have no right to do as mere editors. Dc76\^talk 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is about our

non-free content criteria, specifically, point 8. Does the use of this image significantly increase reader understanding of the topic? No. You're making this far more complicated than it actually is. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

IMHO, this image helps increase the understanding of the article(s) by the reader, because few (if any) other images of Soviet and Nazi officers discussing demarcation lines are available on WP. (the point 8 you mention) If such images exist, please do give me one or two links, and you will swing my opinion to your side. My point is, humbly, even simpler: the image as used where used does not infringe on copyright low. If you believe it does, it shouldn't be a problem for you to point what it violates. Dc76\^talk 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that this is a standard image, I'm sure there aren't many comparable images. The point I'm making is that it's not needed. There aren't many images of me on the Internet, that doesn't mean you're justified in using one however you like. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NFCC8 - doesn't add to readers' understanding at all. I have long meant to nominate this image for deletion myself. No one is going to say aha, that's what they were talking about or anything like that upon seeing this image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The reader could however say in his mind aha, Soviet and Nazi officers were talking about dividing territory like good friends or something of the kind. Are we forbidden to add to WP material that might tint the "holy" memory of the Soviet Union? I hope not. The image has a serious information to deliver, perhaps too serious, and possibly thus is more carefully scrutinized for copyright. Dc76\^talk 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Like good friends? That's not apparent in the least from this image. Yes, they stood next to each other. But one could probably guess that without an image... Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW this has nothing to do with the "holy memory of the Soviet Union", just WP image policies. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep see my comments above. Dc76\^talk 01:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see my comments above, and this was already the subject of a long deletion discussion, where it was voted to "keep". I

In addition, as a separate reason, it may be public domain anyway. People had apparently assumed that because a company was selling subject matter DVDs of cut up Die Deutsche Wochenschau films here, that it was not. That has zero bearing on whether it is in the public domain. For example, this business selling footage specifically lists Die Deutsche Wochenschau footage under "Public Domain Films And Royalty Free Stock Footage". In addition, Die Deutsche Wochenschau are available in full length in places like the internet archive, which lists them as "Open Source Movies," such as Die Deutsche Wochenschau No. 512 here. Other sites also list Die Deutsche Wochenschau as being the public domain, such as "THIS FILM IS IN PUBLIC DOMAIN! THIS IS PART OF THE German Wartime Newsreel (Die Deutsche Wochenschau)" and "Die Deutsche Wochenschau newsreels are public domain." It is also not clear if the German government or other entity that originally shot the footage retained rights or whether it is in the public domain (regardless of its capture later by U.S. forces, which is a separate issue).Mosedschurte (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion discussion ended as keep bc the image was retagged as PD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on copyright status
  Wikipedia:PD#German_World_War_II_images says that most of the Wochenschau reels are still copyrighted. I think proof is needed that this particular reel was seized if this is going to be tagged as PD. See previous discussion of this image's copyright here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep agree with Dc76 comments.--
  talk) 05:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Iconic image. 'Nuff said (above). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not enough said. We don't suddenly get to do whatever we want with an image because we think it's "iconic". If it's so iconic, where's the sourced discussion of it? J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These same issues have been discussed in previous deletion discussions which resulted in a "keep". There is some evidence provided by Mosedschurte that indicates this image is PD, but in any case the current rational seems to be adequate even if it is not PD. The image succinctly illustrates the close cooperation between the Nazis and Soviets between 1939 to 1941 in a way that words could never do. --
  talk) 11:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Merely stating that does not make it so. Could someone please explain what this image actually shows? J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. "Fair use" justification may be appropriate in some articles but inappropriate in others. Looking at the list of articles involved, it seems to be justified everywhere. Photo illustrates Soviet-German collaboration, and the articles are indeed about the Soviet-German collaboration.Biophys (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, we know it illustrates German-Soviet collaboration, but that doesn't mean that it is needed. What does this particular image add? Yes, Nazi-Soviet collaboration is important, and worth discussing, but that doesn't mean that this image is. You're kind of missing the point here. J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The crux here appears to be that some editors are missing what it "adds," why it appears in as many articles as it does, and why it is not replaceable with another image. It is not just about the activity of "collaboration". That can be just about anything. It illustrates (daresay I, with more clarity than any other image in WWII related articles) the role of Stalin actively assisting Hitler in the invasion of Poland and the start of WWII, this image of Nazi and Soviet forces (later to be opposed), coming together in mutual self-congratulation at that front line, being the moment signifying the destruction of the Polish state--in fact, Stalin posessing more Polish territory than Hitler. There is no image as meaningful, significant, evocative, or unique in its purpose of illustration of this event and its underlying circumstances—and the ensuing destruction of Eastern Europe and the Baltics between the two powers, whether in concert or conflict. Are the editors supporting deletion aware this discussion was had before and the result was "Keep"? (Personally, I see it as the antithesis to Eisenstadt's similarly unique "Kiss at Times Square" celebrating the end of WWII.) VЄСRUМВА  ☎  15:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the point of public domain use, per the earlier discussion: "Anyway the copyright of this image is a matter of debate, in the UK (the source listed is the imperial war museum) it is free of copyright because of the enemy property act of 1953, and I believe the same applies to the US since the National Archives holds copies of the Wochenschau news reels from WWII Bleh999 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
    • As was said above, the last discussion closed as keep because it was determined that this was PD, which it seems it is not. I'm afraid I find your arguments completely unconvincing- yes, this may show a rather important point in the war (the "coming together in mutual self-congratulation at that front line"), but that doesn't mean that the image is needed. I am not challenging the importance of what the image shows, I am challenging the need to see a picture to understand the fact that they were together. People are able to imagine what officers chatting look like; an image is not needed to show that. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unconvincing to you??? Are you serious?! Removal of this iconic image is absolutely unacceptable.--
        talk) 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • As for the need, as I explained in the earlier discussion, many Americans (and this is English language WP) are completely unaware of the degree of Nazi-Soviet cooperation. This is a different image of cooperation from pictures of diplomats, etc. chatting together. This is the only image on WP I have seen of this level of cooperation, troops on the ground (and, as I said, at the first milestone of WWII proper, the destruction of Poland). So, no, the average reader is incapable of "imagining" Nazi and Soviet troops chatting together. J Milburn, I'd like to understand how you determined the prior PD argument was insufficient. "Seems" is a rather ambiguous term if you're nominating a uniquely iconic image for deletion. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  16:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that the image is unusual does not mean we're able to use it- it has to add to the article in a considerable way. People do not need to see a picture to know that the Nazis and Soviets collaborated (and your dubious claim that not many people realise they did is frankly unimportant). And yes Jacurek, I'm completely serious- you seem to have completely missed the point here. Vecrumba: if you're convinced this is PD, could you please explain why? Could you perhaps add the correct PD copyright tag to the image? J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Historical or iconic image is not a reason to keep in a deletion discussion regarding fair use of a copyrighted image. NFCC#8 is pretty clearly failed here, in my opinion. There is nothing being illustrated here that the text doesn't already convey. As noted by the nom, it's some guys standing around a piece of paper. We don't need to use a copyrighted image to tell readers that Soviet and Nazi troops spoke face-to-face. Just tell them. They are readers, after all. They'll get it.
  vecia 16:50, 12 July 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.