Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 September 29

< September 28	September 30 >

September 29

File:CR60Eastbound.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 as F8 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unidentified subject. One can infer from details in the picture that it's a County Route 60 somewhere in New York state, but otherwise, who knows. Would support moving to Commons only if location can be positively identified. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons - It's a county road in Rockland County, New York, and as soon as I fix all the details, I'm moving it to the commons. ----DanTD (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2011 (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:CR35&CR60Junction.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 as F8 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality. No sense moving it to Commons, because it's still very blurry even after what appears to be an attempt at correcting it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons - The image is visible enough to be identified, and it has been already. ----DanTD (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2011 (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:Oldpepsi newpepsi.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted product art, as the labels are unquestionably the subject of this image. Technically, this image qualifies for speedy deletion as a copyright violation (F9), but it seems only fair to give someone a shot at converting this to non-free with a suitable fair use rationale. If this image is changed to non-free with a suitable rationale, this discussion may be closed early by any administrator. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the labels plus the bottles are the subjectj of the image. But I agree w/nom that appropriate rationale is the best course for treatment of the image.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2011 (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:NewWildCherryPepsiCan.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted product art, as the labels are unquestionably the subject of this image. Technically, this image qualifies for speedy deletion as a copyright violation (F9), but it seems only fair to give someone a shot at converting this to non-free with a suitable fair use rationale. If this image is changed to non-free with a suitable rationale, this discussion may be closed early by any administrator. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:50, 29 September 2011 (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:7riyat-Final-.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 ⚡ 06:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#10. Non-free that is not significant and doesn't add to the value of the article. Rafy talk 08:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its main article has been deleted so it meets #7 as well now.--Rafy talk 11:51, 30 September 2011 (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:The Weeks of the Dedication of the Church.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 ⚡ 06:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal file. Looks like the screenshot of a calendar issued by the church. No encyclopedia use. Sreejith K (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2011 (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:Mackey Martin.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 ⚡ 06:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified individual. No foreseeable use. Fleet Command (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2011 (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:E-Mail tab of Windows Live Toolbar.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 ⚡ 06:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of the now-deprecated Windows Live Toolbar, a copyright-protected work of Microsoft Corporation. It lacks a fair use rationale, it is not used in any article and has no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Fleet Command (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2011 (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:Human-shield21a.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC #2 and #3 nableezy - 16:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) 16:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it was collected and posted by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in their old website, it does not violate the fair-use laws. The documentation of at least 4 cases of human shield cases make it relevant to the article Human shield as an historic non-replaceable image. I oppose the delete. MathKnight 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use laws in the United States are a bit more loose than the non-free content criteria here on Wikipedia, though I fail to understand the point that because ITIC posted the pictures it means that this is a valid claim of fair use. Additionally, these photos may have been collected by ITIC, but they are not owned by ITIC, so what they did with these pictures is not really relevant to the question. nableezy - 18:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that since a law-abiding institute does a fair use Wikipedia can too. I understand that you claim that since it is a collection of 4 pictures, the use is problematic. If we choose one picture out of the four, will you remove your objection? MathKnight 18:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because whether or not this constitutes a valid fair use claim is besides the point. The point is that here, on Wikipedia, there are requirements for the use of non-free content. Those requirements are stricter than the minimal requirements for fair use in the United States, and they are purposely stricter. Whether or not Wikipedia can claim fair use for these images is irrelevant to the question of does this image meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The image very obviously does not, and neither would any one of the four used. nableezy - 19:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator is right, although I think the image also violates NFCC #1. Fleet Command (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm convinced by Math's observations, above.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? He has not responded, at all, to the reason for deletion, namely that this violates Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. This is not a vote, and that policy cannot be allowed to be trumped by partisans seeking to disregard it for whatever reason they wish to pull from the sky. MathKnight's "observations" revolve around whether or not this constitutes a valid claim of fair use. That is not in any way relevant to whether or not the image violates NFCC, which is what matters here. nableezy - 15:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator is correct. It may be useful to take a look at WP:ITSFAIRUSE and WP:ITSFREE. The fact that another website makes the images available for download does not in any way prove that the owner of the copyright has relinquished their rights to the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2011 (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.