Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

November 6

File:Alapayevsk location.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality image; possible copyright violation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a photograph of a (probably copyrighted) paper map, with an added red circle Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:23, 9 November 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:Qqqq.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free image, not used in any images and arguably not a potentially useful addition. Cloudbound (talk) 03:00, 6 November 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-W lagrangian.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, can be replaced using math template Skier Dude (talk) 04:07, 6 November 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:Ckladd.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned user image; no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 04:44, 6 November 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:Campaign1.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, no encyc use or target article Skier Dude (talk) 04:45, 6 November 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:Monster-DLP-Logo.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, left over from Monster DLP deletion Skier Dude (talk) 05:26, 6 November 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:DLS-PS logotype.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orhpaned - maybe a business card for user page? - no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 05:27, 6 November 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 Dead 193 x 213.5cm.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned user's art; no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 05:50, 6 November 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:PERSONNEL LOGO.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned user-made logo; no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 06:08, 6 November 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:Kiss1144.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, no target article or encyc use foreseen Skier Dude (talk) 06:16, 6 November 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:Englishmark.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned user image, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 06:17, 6 November 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:Aprilo.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No credible source for this glamour portrait. Verification of the claimed free license via OTRS would be required. Fæ (talk) 07:10, 6 November 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:CherokeeDiversity2.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free political advertisement not referenced in the text of the article, does not really add to the understanding of the article, and there is no legitimate reason why is should be in two parts. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:35, 6 November 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:CherokeeDiversity.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free political advertisement not referenced in the text of the article, does not really add to the understanding of the article, and there is no legitimate reason why is should be in two parts. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:35, 6 November 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:Obaidullah photo.PDF

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. The overarching point here is that we don't know the source of the image. Without knowing the source of the image, we don't know the copyright status, and therefore can't use it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the rational at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Obaidullah_photo.PDF, there is no authorship/attribution information here. The previous template (PD-USGov) could not be verified. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close as inadvertent forum shopping -- As I wrote in Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Obaidullah photo.PDF shouldn't a file be discussed at either WP:Non free content review or WP:Files for deletion -- but not both?
Nominator removed the purpose section of {{Non-free use rationale}}, which I regard as inappropriate. Contributors discussing the file should be able to see that someone attempted to draft a compliant rationale. Contributors discussing the file should be able to discuss, and possibly refine, that attempt to draft a compliant rationale. Geo Swan (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not close It isn't forum shopping, this is the place it should be. Simply put, there is no authorship information, and there is no way to determine the proper license, considering that the original license given, PD-USGov, does not hold weight. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to assume the attorney wasn't the author. If it wasn't the attorney, it was probably the US government, in which case it's a moot point. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: I am treating this as a valid nomination, and in relisting, am discounting any allegations of forum shopping, misconduct, etc. as irrelevant. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Magog's analysis. It is extremely difficult to think of a way there could be a copyright holder for this image. Based on the image quality, it is obviously not the work of any kind of commercial entity. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is always a copyright holder, unless copyright has expired. It's just a matter of conclusively finding out who it is and properly sourcing that. Even when something is released PD there is still a copyright holder. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we accept that the photo was taken by the attorneys (it would have to be taken by them, if it were taken by someone else and handed to the attourneys, we'd have to know who that someone else is), then the PD-USGov template is false, and there is no evidence of permission. If we accept that the image was taken by the US government and publicly released (works not intended for public release are not PD-USGov) then the authorship information is false, and we would need a source showing where it was publicly released. Somewhere in this process the uploader messed up and then pounded a square peg into a round hole. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So we just treat it as belonging to the attorney. Worst that happens is that we're wrong, and it's actually public domain, in which case a copyright violation hasn't occurred. IMHO it is wikilawyering to state that it's a copyright violation of the US government and should be deleted as WP:NFCC#10. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:48, 13 November 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.

Sound Factory

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. The posted permission statement is not sufficient to make the images 'free content' as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It specifically states that permission is granted to Wikipedia; to be 'free', they must grant permission to everyone to reuse the images and to create derivative works of the images. If you contact them to try to secure the necessary permissions, it would be best if they just specifically release the images using the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. But if they make their own statement, you can't just slap on a CC-BY-SA template; you have to use the permission they actually give. Anomie ⚔ 03:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient permission. According to their permission statement, they are giving permission to use the images on Wikipedia. Based on the way it's worded, with no mention of any free licenses or otherwise, I cannot believe that the licenses given on the file description pages are necessarily correct. I would be most comfortable reading that statement as Wikipedia-only permission, which is insufficient for our needs. As far as treating it as non-free content, there is nothing there to indicate that this band is not still together, and it is therefore possible to create a free image that would reasonably convey the same information (WP:NFCC#1). SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep i can believe it. you are interpretating their statement, it does not say wikipedia only. why don't you follow up with an otrs? Slowking4: †@1₭ 18:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that they don't mention the key words, i.e. naming a free license. Mere permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:09, 13 November 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:ER Group92.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 The deletion rationale of "unencyclopedic" is clearly false, as the image is currently being used for encyclopedic purpose (that being to show the founding members of the company in Avid Elastic Reality). Which leaves no valid argument for deletion. Anomie ⚔ 03:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic. This isn't Flickr, folks... SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I previously nominated File:ElasticRealityTradeShow.jpg for deletion for exactly the same reason. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:02, 6 November 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:Halo of the Sun.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 ⚡ 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not greatly enhance readers' understanding of the article it is used in. Hula Hup (talk) 15:21, 6 November 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.