Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 August 6

< August 5	August 7 >

August 6

File:NZ Regions Modification.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This unused map has an error, the scale of the islands is mismatched, the North Island is too large. The file is redundant to File:NZ Regions.svg also. XLerate (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2010 (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:MDEC.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality/resolution and orphaned chemical structure, replaced in Ethylone. Leyo 13:06, 6 August 2010 (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:Microsoft.svg

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly made (blurred) SVG image; orphaned/replaced in Microsoft and other articles by a better version. Leyo 13:43, 6 August 2010 (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:Charon plutoface.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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I previously tagged this image for deletion as replaceable fair use. Admin Fastily deleted it on those grounds. 9 hours later, admin Kwamikagami restored it (see deletion log), claiming it was acceptable because no free equivalent is available. He went on further to state "There is no comparable image of Charon, and no way of creating one short of making shit up". He then went on to clarify his stance stating "Hammersoft appears to have no understanding of the issues involved, and there was no community discussion". Just to clarify; the tag {{rfu}} does not require there to be community discussion. No policies or guidelines were violated in not having a community discussion. If Kwami objects to this, he may wish to place the {{rfu}} tag for deletion. As is, it's long standing practice and covered by Wikipedia:CSD#F7. I believe the image should be deleted because:

WP:NFCC #1 does not ask us to retain non-free content until free is available. It asks whether free content could be created. The Plutonian moon Charon is still in existence, and there's no reason to believe it's going away any time soon.
Hubble has previously imaged Charon, and the raw data from that work is still publicly available. Any other scientist, or indeed even the scientist Marc W. Buie himself who made this resulting image, could create a free image from this data. Scientists have contributed work to Wikipedia before.
The New Horizons spacecraft will be making a flyby of Pluto in July of 2015. It is extremely likely it will also image Charon, Nix, and Hydra on this mission. Given that imagery from many other NASA space probes has been available under free license, it's highly unlikely that this imagery will not be so available. We have a number of imprisoned criminals who will be released whose non-free images were deleted because at a point in the future it's reasonable to presume a free alternative could be created. We know for a fact that the New Horizons probe will fly by Pluto in five years.
There are other observatories in operation or planned which can image Charon. Herschel Space Observatory and James Webb Space Telescope for example. Though both observatories are infrared platforms, there's no reason to claim that an optical presentation of an infrared image by these observatories would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose of this image.
We already have other images of Charon available under a free license that serve the same encyclopedic purpose. This image is a highly pixelated image giving no significant information to the lay person. The encyclopedic purpose here, of depiction, is also served by File:Pluto-picture.jpg and File:Pluto system 2006.jpg.
Those looking at the source page of this image ([1]) might think the statement on the bottom of the page means this image is free. It doesn't. This image was previously deleted from Commons as not free enough (see deletion discussion). It does not appear either from Commons or here that any attempt has been made to contact Dr. Buie to ask him to release this image under a free license.

In summary, Charon isn't disappearing into history, free data already exists, free imagery already exists, more free data and imagery is coming. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to use these images as you like. The only request I have is that if you use or otherwise publish any of these images in any public format (such as WWW pages or printed materials) that you include the following credit line: "Image(s) courtesy of Marc W. Buie/Southwest Research Institute".
— http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/pluto/plutomap1.html

Keep: There are no-high resolution images of Charon available. Marc W. Buie is the only recognized author that has done any research rendering accurate albedo maps of Pluto or Charon. Marc Buie allows free use. -- Kheider (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During the flyby delete Marc Buie's image and upload one from NASA. Simple. -- Kheider (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in contact with Marc Buie on a regular basis, and he has no problem with his image being used on Wikipedia. Commons deleted it because I did not push Buie to release it as a "creative commons free license image". Though he may not want you to modify the image and sell copies on the streets of San Fransisco for $19.99. -- Kheider (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't intersperse your comments into mine. I've moved your comments to the end of mine. To respond, again we do not retain non-free content waiting for the day when free content is available. We retain it if it can't be made...ever. Whether or not they are available right now is irrelevant. The salient point is CAN one be made. The answer here is a clear and emphatic "yes". Marc Buie allows free us, but as the Commons deletion discussion noted, not free enough. There's no clearance for derivative works or for commercial use. Why don't you contact him using Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission as guide? If he doesn't want commercial use, then it must be used as non-free here. There's no wiggle room on that. Sorry. "Permission to use on Wikipedia" is completely irrelevant to us, and is in fact even a speedy deletion criteria. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought inserting my comments would make the conversation flow better. But whatever, you are a great Wiki-cop and can do whatever you want since YOU have obviously already made up your mind that you know everything and make all the rules. We are only claiming a fair use statement for a non-profit website and wish Marc Buie to hold full copyright. Pluto and Charon are frequently visited pages on Wikipedia and Marc Buie's super-computer rendered image is the only one that really shows how limited our understanding of these two bodies are. -- Kheider (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you like to delete images you can also look at File:Pluto.jpg since I replaced it with Marc Buie's latest image File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg See also Deletion requests/Image:Pluto.jpg -- Kheider (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no Wiki-cop, and I don't make up any rules any more so than any other editor contributing to pages containing and discussing Wikipedia guidelines and policy. I supported my assertions with links to the relevant policies. You are supporting your assertions with attacks on me. I suggest you try a different approach. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My links are every bit as good as yours. I will bow out of this and allow other users to chime in. -- Kheider (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to my post as "wiki-cop bs" (edit summary) does not constitute a link to relevant policy and/or guideline. A relevant link in regards to your attack on me is Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It would behoove you to read it. Your link to the Commons deletion debate on the Buie produced Pluto image only serves as a replicate of the link I made to the deletion discussion for the Buie produced Charon image on Commons. Both debates ended in delete for the images in question. They are not considered free for our purposes. We must use them under WP:NFCC policy here because no release under a free license has been made by Dr. Buie for these images. Permission to use here is not sufficient, and as I noted is in fact a reason to DELETE the image on sight. I invite you to create a credible assertion as to how we can not make a free license version of Charon when the data/imagery exists in public domain form to do so, or if you can create such a credible assertion why we can't, why we're supposed make a special exception to retain this content until New Horizons flies by in five years when WP:NFCC does not permit such. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Marc Buie's File:Pluto.jpg is on en.wiki (and we NOW have a newer free license version) there certainly is no reason to exclude File:Charon plutoface.png which was created at the same time from the same mutual eclipses February 1985 - October 1990. Since Buie's older and more recent images were created with a super computer using data that is not readily available, the image (albedo map) of Charon CAN NOT be ACCURATELY replaced until New Horizons flybys in 2015. Anyone can make a sphere and claim it to be any poorly known Trans-Neptunian object. -- Kheider (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not retain non-free content waiting for the day when we have free content available. The question is can free content be created to serve the same purpose, and the answer is a resounding yes. We know for a fact that New Horizons will be flying by, as you acknowledge. We also know for a fact that we already have free content to serve the illustration purpose of this image. This highly pixelated image does nothing to add understanding to the article that the free images do not add. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an overly legalistic interpretation of policy lacking any common sense. Any image could be created; by that logic, there should be no free image use on WP whatsoever. And yes, it presumably will be able to be replaced, in about five years, but that again is devoid of common sense, as it would apply to all fair-use images which may some day be replaceable. That is clearly not the intent of the policy. One of the rationals of that policy is, "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." Not "To remove all non-free content with the argument that one could imagine a universe in which it were free." These images have passed deletion proceedings before, and Commons has different criteria than we do. The relevant question is, could one of us create a substitute image? and the answer is, no. Therefore free image use is appropriate: it is "judicious use". — kwami (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not overly legalistic and lacking in common sense. It's simple. Can it be replaced with a free license version? The answer is yes. We already have free licensed alternatives. It's common sense that Charon exists, and isn't disappearing. It's common sense that New Horizons is going to fly by in five years. We do allow non-free imagery when free imagery can not be made. Such is the case for logos of organizations, dead people, and the like. When we can create free imagery (whether it exists now or not), we don't accept non-free imagery. Sorry you find that lacking in common sense, but that argument doesn't undermine WP:NFCC in any respect. Further, Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, an edict from the Foundation itself, states "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". It doesn't say we allow it until there is free imagery, it says we don't allow it when we can reasonably expect there to be. We know for a fact that New Horizons is going to fly by, and it's reasonable to conclude (based on a slew of other NASA probe missions) that the imagery will be available under a free license. You claim this image has passed deletion discussions before. That claim was made before, and I went looking but couldn't find such discussions. Cite please? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We already have free licensed alternatives." Then please direct us to one and we'll use it instead. You're right, that would be simple--why haven't you yet done this?
Your "common sense" is irrelevant: It doesn't enable us to replace the image.
"An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". The key term here is "reasonable", a word which appears to be unfamiliar here.
You also don't appear to understand what "is" means. The policy is written in the present tense.

Can't find cite for image, I just remember going through this before. But regardless, the policy is pretty clear, and this passes. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re #1: I already have in my point #5 above. Re #2: Do you or do you not acknowledge that New Horizons will fly by in 5 years? Do you or do you not acknowledge that, like so many other NASA probes, imagery from it will most likely be available under a free license? Re #3: If you acknowledge what I said in Re #2, there's no debate. As to #4, I'm going to ask you, politely, to back off of your assertions of _me_. Comment on content, not the contributor. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As to not finding the cite, I can't find where it passed a prior deletion discussion before either. Had it been placed for deletion, it would have been tagged as such on the image description page. Looking at the image's history, no such tagging ever occurred. For our purposes it therefore didn't. This is the first time it's been brought for deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re #1: No, you have not. You have provided no link to an equivalent image. The image in question shows details of Charon's surface. AFAIK, it's the only one which does. A point of light is not equivalent to a map of a world. That is common sense. It would be like replacing a portrait shot of a dead person with a distant shot of an unidentifiable blur of the back of their head in a crowd, just because the latter is free.

'#2 and #4: That wasn't a personal attack. Your comments show that you still don't understand that the policy is written in the present tense. Your WP:Crystal ball assertions of what will be reasonably possible are entirely irrelevant to policy re. what is reasonably possible. Here I need to comment on the contributor, because it's the contributor's lack of understanding that's the problem.

'#3: despite your attempts to make the policy go away, it's still there.

The debate wasn't over this file, but rather a composite of this image of Charon with Pluto. Same content, though. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should New Horizons fail, this will remain the best REAL image (map) of Charon for quite some time. -- Kheider (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: your best argument appears to be that I lack common sense. I think we're done. @Kheider, the failure or success of New Horizons is speculative. The intention, and every effort of NASA is bent upon is, the success of the mission. So far, the mission is performing as planned. In fact, the LORRI system has already imaged (File:112806 pluto animation.gif) Pluto. Not surprisingly, the image is available under a free license. There's also another one from it that is available under a free license at File:Jupiter little red spot NH.png. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my best argument is the policy.

"the failure or success of NH is speculative"! Have you read WP:crystal ball? It doesn't say that predictions of the future are an acceptable rational because alternate predictions are speculative! Common sense appears to have gone out the window. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm eliminating the "see also" to the WT:NFC discussion, as centralized discussion on this image should happen here. As to your continued assertions of my lack of common sense, your insults serve only to undermine your own arguments. Please continue them. I enjoy insults, as you can see from my userpage. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that this image lacks a fair use rationale for use here, making it non-compliant with WP:NFCC #10c. I'm not going to tag it as such, but will if the image survives this FfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would one of you kind souls, especially Kheider, please contact Dr. Buie using the instructions found at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission? All this debate is meaningless if Dr. Buie would be so kind as to release his work under a free license. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently reluctant to contact Buie simply because of typical Wiki politics. I only care to see a FAIR USE disclaimer for the image. Besides this scientific (but ugly and pixelated) image should be very obsolete in 4 years -- Kheider (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but, include the caption "Image(s) courtesy of Marc W. Buie/Lowell Observatory" at each use (in situ) per the licensing terms. –xeno^talk 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about contacting the author for release? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he already released it as long as we credit it as requested. But there would be no harm contacting them for a cc-by-sa release as well. –xeno^talk 20:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons already (see deletion discussion) for failure to have a specific release for commercial and derivative purposes. I.e., it's not free enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it's here. Commons has stricter criteria than we do. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Commons' criteria for what is and what is not a free image is the same as here. There's no difference. If an image fails their criteria of what is a free image, it would have to be used here under terms of fair use. Any image here which is (appropriately) licensed such that it does not have to be used under WP:NFCC would be acceptable at Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the creator does not have a problem with its use as long as it is attributed in the manner specified. My position is unchanged. –xeno^talk 15:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then your position is wrong, as the creator does not specifically permit commercial and derivative uses. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it did. I said that we can use the image as long as we attribute it in the manner specified ([2] [3]). –xeno^talk 15:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Disruptive nomination of obvious fair use image. The fair use infobox says pretty clearly: Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. Can a free equivalent be created reasonably to give the same information? In theory, yes -in practice, it requires building your own space telescope. So, fair use it is. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I call your vote a disruptive vote? Keep your personal attacks to yourself, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a personal attack and I apologize if you felt it this way. It is a criticism of the nomination, which in my opinion doesn't help Wikipedia at all, and it seems to me to rise only from a copyright paranoia. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. You should strike the comment, or reword it thank you. I understand the belief that removing a non-free image when free alternatives exist or could be created harms the project. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to strike the comment since it is obviously not a PA, and it is worded as clearly as possible. That said, the point is that free alternatives do not exist and we will have to wait until 2015 until one will be created (no, the ones you pointed are absolutely not "alternatives"). If an obvious alternative exists now, I'd be all with you. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a nomination disruptive does nothing to add to the debate. It only adds fire. WP:AGF please. I didn't attempt to disrupt anything by making this nomination to delete any more than you disrupted Wikipedia by voting to keep the image. It's simply unnecessary to be 'clear' in calling this disruptive. If that is your continued intent, then this most certainly is a personal attack. As to waiting to 2015, there is no time limited suggested by WP:NFCC #1 nor by WP:NFC as to how long is an appropriate time to wait. 2015 seems reasonable enough to me. If we didn't have New Horizons on the way, I could see hosting the non-free image. But, we do. Also, nobody seems to be making any effort to contact Dr. Buie about release this image under a free license. The point of an alternative image is to ascertain what encyclopedic purpose is being served by the image. Is this a 'map' or Charon? Hardly. It's so badly pixelated as to be worthless to that purpose. It's purpose is to depict. We already have other images with which to depict Charon. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you are a fine person who happens to do nominations that I personally find disruptive, so it's not a PA, and that's the end of it. It is absolutely not worthless. It is a map, and a fairly good one, given the size and distance of the object: it tells us, for example, that there is an equatorial belt with a much higher albedo than the poles. Which is very far from worthless, it gives a fair image of how this world looks like. If you can find another, free image with the same amount of information, let me know, and I can change my mind. All other images I've seen are mere homogeneous spots of light. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's such an important photo depicting the surface albedo that the non-free rationale mentions nothing of the above, and the article doesn't discuss what you mention. No, the image is being used for depiction purposes only, not to discuss varying albedo between equatorial and polar regions. Such conclusions without secondary sources to back it up is original research anyway. Any yes, I have found a candidate image. See the last image on the right at [4]. It's not the same as this image. There's no credit for the image, other than a reference to "some" images on the page being from AURA/STScI, though that source does not have the image (which would be nice, since their release is compatible with our requirements). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is used for depiction purposes. It is a better depiction, since it gives details on the actual appearance of the planet (the albedo thing is just an example of the information one could glean), it is not merely a speck of light. The "candidate image" you talk about most probably comes from the same research, but if you can find it is free, very good, we can reconsider. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the purpose is depiction, rather than supporting cited discussion of the body, then the free images serve the same purpose. We don't retain non-free content because it looks better than the free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't simply look better -it's not a merely higher quality picture. It contains much more information. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent a bit) So you say, but there's no cited discussion about that. That's original research. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but no need for original research. Here it is the full text of the Buie paper. "The one notable feature in the Charon maps is the general latitudinal trend of albedo. Both filters show a general brightening near the equator and drop in albedo toward the poles.", for example. Thanks for asking, I am now adding this info to the article, if not present. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information added to article and caption. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that, ladies and gentleman, is how we improve things on Wikipedia. Though, it's still missing in the rationale. That said, I still feel it's replaceable. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an obvious case where fair use applies. No free alternative to this image is available or could possibly be made at this point in time, thus this is all we are left with. When New Horizons reaches the Pluto system, then a free version may be available, but it isn't there yet. Our non-free policy does not exclude topics which might be available at some point in the future, only those that are available for a free alternative now. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Free alternatives already exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I was unaware that another textured surface map of Charon existed. Mind pointing it out to me, since I can't locate it? — Huntster (t @ c) 20:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that counts as a textured surface map for you, I fear for your orienteering skills :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is the most detailed map available, so I suppose "textured" is a relative term. That said, I found the equatorial feature on the right side of the image to be a particularly cozy locale when I went on holiday there last week. :P — Huntster (t @ c) 20:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The criterion for replacability in fair use is not "Does a free-use image currently exist?" but rather does it seem plausible that one could be created. It is true that this is the only image of the subject - however to me it seems highly improbable that no other images of this subject will ever be created. If NASA is to photograph it that photo would automatically be public domain being a government work and could replace this one easy. It seems the creator of this photo is generally "all-right" with its use here - but unless he explicitly grants permission through the proper forms or make the image the right kind of creative commons his "all-right"ness doesn't have the proper legal weight to it. I know that its very important to have an image of such an important subject - but this image does not appear to meet fair-use standards since its plausible that a fair-use replacement could be made. Solid State Survivor (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my reading of this is based on the wording in the fair-use rationale that asks if a free-use alternative "could be created". That wording "could be" is not in the present tense as the word could in this usage is an auxilary verb expressing indefinite possibility. It is possible for the words "could be" to be used in the present tense but that is conditional on being specified (EX could an image be created now?). However, without providing a specific time the word is not conditionally modified and the possibility must remain indefinite. If the writer had intended the present tense it could clearly be communicated by asking if a free-use image "can be created". Sorry if this seems like a majorly dumb over-analysation but I truly think the that the future is kept in mind. Solid State Survivor (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solid State, I asked this question on the non-free content policy page, here, and the response was that this image clearly qualifies; we are not concerned with 'could' in the sense of the hypothetical future, but 'could' in the present sense of if someone went to a reasonable effort today, they'd be able to. — kwami (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You "think" the future is kept in mind is not really a good reason to harm Wikipedia by removing the best image of Charon that science currently has. The status of Pluto and Charon have been highly public since 2006, and the albedo-map image of Charon will NOT be ACCURATELY REPLACEABLE until 2015. In 2014-15, likely 6 months before the flyby, feel free to delete Buie's image with extreme prejudice. Since Buie's image will be obsolete in 2015, unless New Horizons fails, I do not see how Wikipedia's fair-use of this scientific image causes any harm to the copyright holder(s). -- Kheider (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of people who believe harm comes to the project by way of including non-free imagery when free imagery could be created. Removing such content, from that perspective, does not "harm" the project. In fact, it helps the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of people in this debate seem to "believe" comparable free imagery can NOT be created at this time. -- Kheider (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't a vote. The point is invalid, whether 100 people say or it 1 does. I've repeatedly asked for Dr. Buie to be contacted (and a person in this debate has routine access to him) for release under a free license. Still no feedback on that. Even if it was fundamentally impossible at this moment in time, it matters not to me. It matters, according to policy, whether content could be created...not WHEN...but CAN. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a vote, but the response on the non-free content discussion page agreed with the understanding of "could" that the rest of us have: not "could" in some hypothetical future, but "could" if one were to make the effort today. — kwami (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other albedo map of Charon available. Since the albedo thing is now covered in the article and sourced, and especially that study is explictly mentioned, the image now falls clearly under fair use to describe that specific research. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing it qualifies as fair use. But being legal under fair use (which it is) and being acceptable under our non-free content policy (which I feel it isn't) are not the same things. The albedo issue can easily be addressed when New Horizons performs the flyby in five years. We have plenty of articles of incarcerated people whom we know are going to be unavailable for many years to come whom we do not retain non-free imagery of. This is really no different. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, your comparison is a bad example since images of people are subject to much stricter privacy laws and "incarcerated people" have nothing to do with a NASA project involving a public/scientific debate on the planetary status of Pluto, Charon and other spherical bodies. -- Kheider (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's an excellent example; the availability of the subject is the point, not the nature of the subject. Privacy of individuals does not come into play with regards to the replaceability of a non-free image. The only thing that would make comparison of a person different is death, and I'm not debating that. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your reasoning the image of the nucleus of Halley's comet would also need to be removed because "it isn't disappearing into history, free data already exists, free imagery already exists, more free data and imagery is coming." -- Kheider (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about Charon's image, not Halley's Comet. If you feel any images of Halley need to be deleted, you can follow the instructions at WP:FFD. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your best comeback then I motion to close this discussion as a KEEP. -- Kheider (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2010 (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:Pluto.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC) No longer used and replaced with File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg -- Kheider (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does it show the same hemisphere? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Category:Pluto has 3 images (Pluto-map-hs*.jpg) that cover the different hemispheres. But keep in mind that Pluto has become significantly redder, while its illuminated northern hemisphere is getting brighter. So images taken at different times likely will not match. -- Kheider (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Kheider points out, various faces of Pluto are available on Commons, thus IP's argument is irrelevant. The point is, free images adequately showing the surface of Pluto is available, making this non-free image obsolete for our purposes here. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg has been nominated for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg . 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, though the nominator will probably withdraw the nom since he's also agreed that it is keepable. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (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.

Football kits with copyrighted aspect

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 all —fetch ·comms 02:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the following football kits have a copyrighted aspect, and make a noticable attempt to copy some logo (sponsor/manufacturer/club) that is copyrighted. Following discussion at WP:FOOTY it was noted that there are many other football kits that are redundant and useless. However, to ease the FfD process these are not listed here. All these are kits that can be deleted due to CV. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All uploaded by Nastictarragona (notify | contribs | uploads)

File:Kit body norwichome.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body norwich.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body bradfordcity10 away.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body timor-leste 2010 home.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body timor-leste 2010 away.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body b68 2010.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body b68 2010 away.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body faroe 2010.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body sant julia.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit right arm vanuatu.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body ohi2010home.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body sri10a.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body sri10a.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body hibshome.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body hibs.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body dingli.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body yeovil.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body yeovilaway.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body yeovil10a.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body syrA.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body jordania.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body jordaniaway.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body bpa.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body bpaway.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body reading.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body sol10h.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body sol10a.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body zambiaaway.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body zambia.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body capv.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body fuj.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body fuj2.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body nec.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body equ.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body capv.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body equ2.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body pobla.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body pobla2.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body nastic1011.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body twente.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body UTR.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body UTR2.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body kyiv2010.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body kyiv2010b.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body evertonfc1011.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body brom1011.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body brom1011b.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body eve2010b.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

Speedy delete all as copyvio. I've compiled a list at the discussion Rambo linked above to ensure that we can minimise the disruption. --W F C-- 11:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Big Dom 12:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --W F C-- 14:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As well as being copyright vio's they don't comply with the template in which they are to be used, Template:Football kit. It states that "the template is for showing basic team colours. It is not supposed to be an accurate drawing of the kit." Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2010 (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:300vic.jpeg

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and I doubt it can be used. MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe very definition of an image of a garage band? 7 years later, just as non-notable now [5] as they were then. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2010 (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:Ssr.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:SolidStateRelay-Diagram.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2010 (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:Virtuality Continuum.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Milgram Continuum.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2010 (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:GreaterSheffieldNumbered.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Sheffield City Region.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2010 (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:Valentinrip2.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt the uploader took this photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (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:Valentinrip.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt the uploader took this photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2010 (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:Manjunath in 2006.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned self-photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (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:Darrel1.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (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:Elaragirl.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned self-photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2010 (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:Blurred dog 2009.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No chance of that pic ever being useful. Big Dom 12:19, 7 August 2010 (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.