Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

January 24

File:Cf2008.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 ⚡ 05:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image which will never be used, as the article for Godsic has been deleted multiple times per lack of notability. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 24 January 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:Pavel Tsvetkov (colour).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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obsoleted by File:Pavel Tsvetkov.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:19, 24 January 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:From the Past.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 ⚡ 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; looks like a prom photo. Probably no encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 15:33, 24 January 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:Michele bennett duvalier1980 wedding.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 ⚡ 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free image of living person. Not found on source website (that is unlikely to be the copyright holder anyway). Damiens.rf 15:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Keep~~: How is it "replaceable"? Where is the replacement image? Veriss (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you stick to the argument you have proposed, this file should not be listed here but should be tagged for another process. Please see this page's information for details: "if a file has a non-free copyright tag but could be replaced by a free file". Wrong forum. Veriss (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Going through the queued-speedy is possible for obvious cases that are expected to be uncontested, but it's common practice to prefer FFD for cases where opposition can be anticipated. As your reaction shows, this choice was correct in the present case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. She's still alive. A photograph of her could be taken now. The article doesn't establish a need to see a picture of her at that particular moment of her life. Routine NFCC case per Foundation policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What Wikipedia guideline does that fall under? "The subject is still alive so it might be possible for some entrepreneurial editor to dash past her substantial security to snap a pic to donate to the encyclopedia under the appropriate GNU license?" You have got to be kidding me? Please cite the exact policy that you refer to? You two are really starting to look like a tag team. Start coughing up direct links, as previously requested, to references and policy guidelines or there will be appeals. Veriss (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spare us your bitterness. Try foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Replaceability is assumed for "almost all portraits of living notable individuals". Exceptions for people who are notorious recluses and demonstrably impossible to take photographs of are interpreted extremely narrowly. Nobody has yet made a case (let alone provided proof) that the subject of this picture is one of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterness? Try incredulous as a more appropriate term. You missed the sentence following the one I believe you rely on which states: "Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." This statement implies that this image is valid because the article is valid until a suitable replacement can be obtained. Clearly an available alternate version has not yet surfaced and since this person is a known recluse as evident in all the references linked to her article, we cannot anticipate the availability of a current photo of her within the foreseeable future. The very fact that the most recent photo of her available dates from her wedding in 1980, thirty years ago, gives credence to the rarity of images depicting her. If you wish to address her notability, then we need to discuss deleting her article. Veriss (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

En-wiki WP:NFC is very explicit in that we in fact do not wait until a replacement is actually produced; we omit non-free images as long as it is deemed possible that one could be produced. If you want to argue "known recluse" status (our classic case for comparison is J D Salinger), then you need to provide proof: your say-so is not sufficient, we need at least a reliable source explicitly confirming she has consistently refused to appear in public, give interviews and the like. Such a case was not made originally on the FUR page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you changed references since the one you cited just above was shown to not back up your claims. Now in this new reference, which I have reviewed, exactly which portion do you cite as the reason for deleting this 30 year old image? Veriss (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFC is en-wiki's policy that implements the foundation policy, so the two belong together. You asked for a reference for the Foundation policy, and I gave it to you. You then made the claim that we could wait keeping a non-free image around as long as no free one was readily available, and I gave you the reference that contradicts that. I told you: argue your case for "notorious recluse" status, with references, then we can review the situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your assertion is that it is reasonable to expect that a free version of her image could likely be found somehow when none have surfaced in the past 30 years? My assertion is that is an unreasonable expectation. I don't believe that your insistence on a "notorious recluse" defense is valid as this is not a public figure such as a prominent author profiting from his notability or from his published works but that this is the ex-wife of a former dictator leading a quiet life as a private citizen. A reasonable person would not expect her to be granting interviews and making public appearances except under the most unexpected circumstances. I applaud your enthusiasm and hard work to keep Wikipedia free of copyright infringement lawsuits but I really think your efforts and energy are misplaced here. Cheers Veriss (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent that you feel very comfortable working in this section of Wikipedia but I will remind you of the policy called Wikipedia:No personal attacks per your comment of "Spare us your bitterness." Until this point I have maintained a professional disagreement with you but you chose to descend below that level. If the decorum here continues to decline I will be forced to request an uninvolved administrator to review this action. Let's keep this discussion and debate centered on the policies at hand. Veriss (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only person who made the tone here deteriorate has been you so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because I chose to stand up to you and insist on policy references? Show me any personal attacks I have ever made on you or your cohort, there are none. You got the message, just keep it clean and professional and we'll come to a reasonable conclusion. Veriss (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1. Kelly ^hi! 17:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that it is impossibly hard to get an image of her, such that this image is replaceable. (And an image of the wedding day itself is not necessary.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Objection Withdrawn After some reflection I withdraw my objection to deletion as the subject of the article is not really all that noteworthy in her own right at this point and there is some question that the use of a wedding photo is the best choice or that more suitable images may eventually surface if and when she does become more notable. I will remove the link to the image in the article myself and save the closing admin the effort. Cheers everyone, this has been an educational experience. Veriss (talk) 04:26, 29 January 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:Ohio recount2.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 ⚡ 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just got the notice 'cause i uploaded this. not only is it orphaned, it's very outdated. go ahead and delete, fine by me. Kevin Baas^talk 14:24, 25 January 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.