Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Files for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steven Walling (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 15 September 2007 (→Image:Metart-cover.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 14 September 16 >

September 15

Image:Natein99.jpg

Image:Natein99.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scythetleppo (notify | contribs).

Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg

Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ssbohio (notify | contribs).
  • This is a photograph of a living person claimed as fair use. It is a private photograph of uncertain date and ownership, taken without permission from the personal website of one of the subjects.

The two people depicted were involved together in child pornography websites both before and after the younger turned 18. It is impossible to say whether the younger subject was a minor at the time of this photograph. This means that photograph may or may not depict the younger subject in the act of underage prostitution.

The notoriety of the two subjects was passing, and has not become lasting notability. I have proposed and received support for making the article this image is listed into a redirect. DanB†DanD 00:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has never been alleged that the two individuals depicted had a prostitute/client relationship. It is an otherwise unremarkable tourist snapshot taken of two people in a public place. No other image exists to replace it with, and since it was published on the Internet, it can be appropriated under fair use for the article. Hermitian 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, I wish I had such a flexible definition of the fair-use policy available to me when my commercial photographs of artists performing were deleted!
Also, sorry for my imprecision of thought! I can see how wrong it is to suppose that someone who is both customer and business associate in your business of live webcam sex shows is in any way engaged with you in prostitution! DanB†DanD 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the problems with this nomination are many, some subtle, some so at variance with the facts as to beggar belief.
  1. It is a photograph of a living person claimed as fair use. What Dan leaves out is that it has a valid fair-use rationale that meets FU and which has previously been reviewed. It is a photo of a living person as he appeared during the period of time for which he is notable along with one of the people he became notable for knowing.
  2. It is … taken without permission from the personal website of one of the subjects. That's the definition of fair use. Fair use requires no permission. Fair use requires a valid rationale, which this image has.
  3. It is impossible to say whether the younger subject was a minor at the time of this photograph. THe photo is taken in a public place and is not even suggestive, much less salacious. Berry's age is not a deciding factor, unless deciding by simply not liking it.
  4. The photograph may or may not depict the younger subject in the act of underage prostitution. This is an unfounded accusation against two living people, one which on its face meets the definition of libel. Nothing in the article or the image suggests that Berry ever prostituted himself for Gourlay. It's hardly fair or sensitive toward Berry to accuse him of such a thing in order to win a deletion debate.
  5. The notoriety of the two subjects was passing, and has not become lasting notability. I have proposed and received support for making the article this image is listed into a redirect. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of deleting this image. If the article is deleted, then the image goes away as fair use content not used in any article. It is not in any way a reason to delete the image separate from the article.
This nomination appears to be a case of forum shopping when the nominator was unable to gain the advantage in a content dispute in the article. This image has been viewed and reviewed by a number of editors and admins. Its fair use rationale is solidly within policy guidelines. This nomination treads the fine line as to whether it is in good faith. --Ssbohio 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When was this image reviewed by admins, and who were they? DanB†DanD 05:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't actually publish logs of who views an image. Thankfully, this isn't trial by ordeal, and I'm not required to jump through hoops to prove the clear claim of fair use that is already evident here. However, let me go back & find out for you. So, I'll look in my talk page archive and see if I still have the bot notice or any other comments. --Ssbohio 14:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So by "reviewed" you did not mean that any admin had reviewed the image's fair-use rationale? DanB†DanD 18:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20102000 sean.jpg

Image:20102000 sean.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alkivar (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of a living normal football player from a news story on nfl.com. Previously nominated as a replaceable image, but inexplicably kept. There is no fair use justification for the use of this photo - we cannot use news photos and call it fair use. Our use is not at all transformative - it's merely an attempt to not have to pay royalties. Even if we could legally use this photo, it violates our replaceability policy as it is used only to show what the guy looks like and he is still living. B 00:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Delete This image is clearly replaceable fair use. It is an image of a living person as he currently appears, thus lacking the characteristic of being nonreplaceable. It might arguably be legal fair use, but it is not within fair use policy. --Ssbohio 01:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've weakened my position based on the claim below that the photo is historically significant due to the issue of the disbanded team. However, the image must be used in an article to be keepable, and it needs to have a clear fair use rationale for use in that article. --Ssbohio 14:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while a photo of Sean Morey is potentially findable, it is impossible to replicate this image as Sean Morey no longer plays in NFL Europe. The team he played for The Barcelona Dragons was disbanded after the 2003 season. It is 100% impossible to replicate a photo of Sean Morey in a team uniform that doesn't exist anymore, in a game with a team that doesn't exist anymore, 4 years after said team was disbanded! As such this is a historically significant photo for Morey. Obviously a free image would be better, but until such time as we have one, this should be kept.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Harringbaby02.jpg

Image:Harringbaby02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by knulclunk (notify | contribs).


Image:JaneZhangandKitaro.jpg

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

Image:XtremeTennis.jpg

Image:XtremeTennis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Oddball115 (notify | contribs).


Image:Met-art-cover.jpg

Image:Met-art-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pitkina (notify | contribs).
  • This is just pornographic/advertising/offensive material and does not contribute to the article. Thus UE DandanxD 13:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saying the image is unnecessary is one thing. But Wikipedia is not censored, for taste or sensibilities. Being pornographic is not a valid qualification for deletion. 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Met-art-movie-cover.jpg

Image:Met-art-movie-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pitkina (notify | contribs).
  • This is just pornographic/advertising/offensive material and does not contribute to the article. Thus UE DandanxD 13:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saying the image is unnecessary is one thing. But Wikipedia is not censored, for taste or sensibilities. Being pornographic is not a valid qualification for deletion. 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Metart-cover.jpg

Image:Metart-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pitkina (notify | contribs).
  • This is just pornographic/advertising/offensive material and does not contribute to the article. Thus UE DandanxD 13:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saying the image is unnecessary is one thing. But Wikipedia is not censored, for taste or sensibilities. Being pornographic is not a valid qualification for deletion. 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:RussiaTower-project.jpg

Image:RussiaTower-project.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pitkina (notify | contribs).

Images from hisxpress.com

Numerous images from this site (listed above) were uploaded under GFDL license based on this entry at Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission. However, due to some questions about one of the images, AnonEMouse did some checking, and the permissions folks apparently do not feel this is a good permission, because New Millennium Video, an online retailer, likely does not own the copyrights or have the right to release the images under the GFDL, and possibly gave the permission for purposes of self-promotion. Changing the license tag to non-free wouldn't help, as so far as I can see they would all be WP:NFCC#1 violations if claimed under fair use. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ferret_Avatar.jpg

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

Image:Erroneous_file_download_screen_shot.jpg

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

Image:References_screenshot.jpg

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

Image:42DivisionGallipoli1915.jpg

Image:42DivisionGallipoli1915.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:Rcbutcher#Image:Image:42DivisionGallipoli1915.jpg listed for deletion|Rcbutcher]] ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Rcbutcher|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | [[Special:Contributions/Rcbutcher|contribs]]).

Image:April cover.jpg

Image:April cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VanTucky (notify | contribs).
  • Image is a copyrighted cover of a newspaper which was accidentally uploaded under a GNU/CC license. Image was provided to me by the copyright holders to illustrate the subject in question, so it could be changed to a fair-use clause easily. However, there is a new and more suitable image already in use, so the image becomes redundant. In other words, it's an unused fair use image. VanTucky Talk 21:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vvoice march cover(2).jpg

Image:Vvoice march cover(2).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VanTucky (notify | contribs).
  • Image is a copyrighted cover of a newspaper which was accidentally uploaded under a GNU/CC license. Image was provided to me by the copyright holders to illustrate the subject in question, so it could be changed to a fair-use clause easily. However, there is a new and more suitable image already in use, so the image becomes redundant. In other words, it's an unused fair use image. VanTucky Talk 21:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:November Cover.jpg

Image:November Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VanTucky (notify | contribs).
  • Image is a copyrighted cover of a newspaper which was accidentally uploaded under a GNU/CC license. Image was provided to me by the copyright holders to illustrate the subject in question, so it could be changed to a fair-use clause easily. However, there is a new and more suitable image already in use, so the image becomes redundant. In other words, it's an unused fair use image. VanTucky Talk 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_September_15&oldid=158144520"