Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 28

< September 27	September 29 >

September 28

File:TerryByrne.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other files uploaded by this user have turned out to be copyvios; all are professional-looking portraits uploaded at web resolution with a PD-self tag. This must therefore throw this image into suspicion. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the uploader's contributions, it appears likely that he is closely connected to Terry Byrne, and therefore likely to have access to original photos of the subject. It is a colour photo, of which a cropped B/W version appears at http://www.nycosmos.com/about . As an independent sceptical editor, I am therefore prepared to believe that this PD-self tag is credible. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless clear evidence of permission shows up. Image tagged for no evidence of permission. If the permission situation is murky, we can't use it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:01, 4 October 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:Halifax Flag.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: Keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license, no proof the flag is in the public domain. Svgalbertian (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Offical municipality meeting minutes which indicate that free use has been given on the flag which means its use is in the public domain. News article which also indicates that free use has been given for the flag. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In 2007, the city decided to make avalible the flag for purchase to anyone (see: http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/c071204.pdf). In 2010, they have revisted the issue, adding more restictions to usage, including $500 fine or 30 days jail for disrespecting the flag (see: http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/100914ca1115.pdf). I see no evidence that the flag is in the public domain, only that they are allowing sale of the flag to the public, albeit now with new restrictions.--Svgalbertian (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have updated the template to perhaps a more appropriate version. Either way deletion is not the right avenue for this discussion. Also if you read your second link it mentions that reproduction is also allowed, which is what this would be. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even that does not seem appropriate. The only usage they have granted, is for the physical flag to be sold to the public. And in the second link they state "the public may purchase duplicate copies of the official flag from the Municipality", not that anyone can make reproductions. If the file it to be kept I recommend {{Non-free symbol}} --Svgalbertian (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It mentions further down that reproductions can be made by anyone as long as certain standards of quality are met. Either way it should definitely not be deleted, at worst a template change. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is this what you are quoting? "Duplicate copies of the official flag may be produced and sold to the public provided that they are produced based on the standards and guidelines as outlined by the Office of the Municipal Clerk to be registered in the registry of the Government of Canada Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges". That is from Schedual A, which is still under revision, as stated "Schedule A, which is intended to outline the administrative oversight of Administrative Order 19, was not updated at that time and requires updating in order to ensure appropriate oversight and administration of the Order". I do not think we can clearly state any free usage; the laws were written in reference to the physical flag and are unclear and are still changing.--Svgalbertian (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid deletion rationale. If it is a fair use image, then template it as such. There is no purpose or benefit behind deletion. Hell, the image even has NFCC rationales for its use in two articles. Reso lute 14:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless properly tagged as fair use (currently there is a rationale but no fair use tag). Stifle (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Have an expert review Copyright status Legitimate use for a non-free image. I err on the side of keep here. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:14, 28 September 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:MuhlenbergHaasCenter.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of that red sculpture. Artist is Mark di Suvero, who is still living. GrapedApe (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not add anything to any of the articles, and per nom. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:16, 28 September 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:Amavadin.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned poor quality image; replaced by File:AmavadinRevd.png. Leyo 08:25, 28 September 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:Galactose.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned poor quality chemical structure; many better images in Commons:Category:Galactose available. Leyo 08:29, 28 September 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:Nusuh.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project. Saqib Qayyum (talk) 10:42, 28 September 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:Farmers of the Blue Hills, 2010.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: keep'. This appears to be on the way to a resolution, and it's obviously going to get kept with permission logged in OTRS. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced as own work and pd tag applied, though is actually a painting by artist Richard Winkler Acather96 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He probably is not aware that taking a picture of a painting does not qualify him as copyright holder and to release it to the PD. The permission of the artist would be required. BTW: See also File:Richard Winkler Portrait.jpg. --Leyo 17:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... How can we provide the permission from Richard himself? Do you need us to fax a signed consent? I'm sitting next to him but it is 1.15 AM here in Bali now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimsil (talk • contribs) 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be done by e-mail. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission might help. --Leyo 17:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... should it be done by Richard himself or me? Do you need supporting documentation? We will send copyright permissions via mail. Sorry for the confusion but we are fairly new to uploading files. In the past I mostly submitted text...--Kimsil (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (incl. file names and licenses) should be sent by the author/copyright holder of the paintings. --Leyo 17:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Leyo... Is there any special license he should state in his letter? His intent is of course that it is used to display on Wikipedia but not used for any commercial purposes by anyone else. Thank you very much for your quick feedback...--Kimsil (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not possible (see Wikipedia:Licenses#Guidelines). --Leyo 17:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problem... we should then upload it under GNU license. Is that ok?--Kimsil (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also help me to adjust the citation on the page? I.e. {{http://artradarasia.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/artsingapore-2009-fair-new-photography-fair-high-value-sales-and-gallerists-pick-top-fairs-in-asia-today/ see link for the text citation.

Richard has now also sent a mail to the email --Kimsil (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)address you informed us about.[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:Political Ideology Interconnectedness Venn Diagram.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User-created Venn Diagram which is not used in any article. Was created to help the user win an argument on a Talk page. The entire diagram is WP:SYN based on the creator's interpretation of sources and, as such, would not be usable in an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delay The file is currently in use in a user page discussion (Xerographica) for improvement of an article, and the creator (Xerographicai) is under a 48 hr. block and may not be able to respond here. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, cannot be used in any articles. TFD (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and per WP:NOT#WEBHOST BigK HeX (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delay Close per North8000; then after Xerographica has had a chance to comment Delete per TFD and wikipedia not being a forum. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let me note that all editors currently in favor of deleting are strongly biased against my viewpoint. As such, I don't think it would be fair for their votes to count in this matter. In order to seek comments from outside editors I'll post an RfC on the relevant ideologies' talk pages. If, after 5 days, more than 50% of outside/uninvolved editors agree that the diagram violates Wikipedia policy and should be deleted...then I'll accept their decision. --Xerographica (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? I am uninvolved. I noted your comments on ANI, followed to the diagram image and noted it is not appropriate for storage on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is out of scope, as WP:OR. --GrapedApe (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just not seeing it...but can you quote me where it says that OR is not allowed on talk pages or user pages? --Xerographica (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the OR certainly makes this image un-encyclopedia, don't you think? It's also troubling that this image LOOKS like it ought to be in an article.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article related to this needs everybody to mellow out. It seems vindictive to be going though this effort to be trying to get a image deleted that a person is using for article-improvement discussion purposes on his/her talk page. I personally don't agree with some items on the diagram, and question others, but that is what discussions are about. Why is this an issue other than to wage more warfare? North8000 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll ask you to strike this comment, and post one related to the deletion discussion. I am not motivated by vindictiveness, and have no involvement in the related article's Talk page discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - image represents poorly thought out original research and has only been used for prolonged soapboxing on multiple pages. Uploader has been blocked for a week for these actions. Yworo (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sourced, therefore pure OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since images themselves in Wikipedia are not cited or sourced, would not an "delete because unsourced" claim be a claim that all images in Wikipedia should be deleted? North8000 (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some images do source the data on the image page, so to answer your question, no.--Rockfang (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all images on Wikipedia are supposed to be sourced. In the case of most images, that source is where the image came from, but in the case of graphs, charts and diagrams, it's not enough to know who made them, we also need to know where the data came from, or on what sources the relationships in the diagram are based. If I wrote in an article that the philosophy of Bob's Political Party was highly influenced by that of People for Hummerdinger, I'd have to source that statement. A Venn diagram which makes the same claim by showing an intersection between the Bobs and the Hummers must be sourced in precisely the same way. If I don't, it's original research of some kind, an analysis or interpretation that I have made on my own, without support from a reliable source.

In this case, the entire image is exactly that, a large number of unsupported claims about relationships between political philosophies. It may, for all I know, be 100% correct, but I don't know that by looking at it, and there's no source provided that I can go to to verify those relationships. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious / learning (rather than debating this one) but with Wp:ver/wp:nor restrictions applying to articles, (and not certain other wp spaces) and with wp conventions, blanks etc. being what they are, would the place for the citation be with the image storage, or with the article when it is used? I'm not talking about where the image came from, I'm talking about the citation for the statements contained in the image. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 4 October 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:Carres-plans-1835.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: speedy delete, G7. The uploader is the nominator, and made the only substantial additions, and so I think we can honor this request. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The license for this image has been retracted. AustinWellbelove (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm pretty sure that once a CC license has been applied to an image, it can't be retracted or revoked. That being said, there were conflicting licenses on the first revision. That revision mentions BY-NC-SA-2.0-UK but shows a license of BY-SA-3.0. I think that the fact the plans are from 1835 is also potentially relevant.--Rockfang (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main reason I wish for this image to be deleted is that I upload a better images in place of the current one on the Carre's Grammar School page. Perhaps I would be best to upload this and then request deletion of the current image which will no longer be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinWellbelove (talk • contribs) 19:08, 28 September 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:Lithuania map with symbols.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 Od Mishehu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lithuania map with symbols.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:Novickas#File:Lithuania map with symbols.jpg listed for deletion|Novickas]] ([{{fullurl:User talk:Novickas|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | [[Special:Contributions/Novickas|contribs]] | [[Special:Log/upload/Novickas|uploads]]).

The file might be in violation of copyright - (The print is owned by my family, but I learned recently that I was mistaken about its age; it's probably from the late fifties or early sixties) - and it's not vital enough to the article where it was used (Symbols of Lithuania) to warrant a fair use rationale. Novickas (talk) 21:27, 28 September 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.