Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 May 29

May 29

 * Image:Frawleystadium.jpg  (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by MrAmazing8270 ([ notify]). CV.  Free alternative could be taken. —fuzzy510 01:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Barnhillarena.jpg  (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Cardsplayer4life ([ notify]). CV.  Free alternative could be taken —fuzzy510 01:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All this is very cryptic and misleading (to me anyway). What in the world does "Free alternative could be taken." mean? If there are going to be mass pictures listed for deletion for the same reason, then there needs to be adequate information given to the uploaders to make arrangements if changes are necessary. "Free alternative could be taken" means to me that if there is a free one (also unclear on what "free" means), then change the pic, but if not then ignore this post. Please provide clarification to uploader talk pages as to what this means. (Cardsplayer4life 07:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC))
 * It falls under the stipulation in WP:FUC #1 that a promotional photo only counts for Fair Use if a free alternative couldn't be created. This protects fair use of images of things such as celebrities or events, since it is not possible to go up to a celebrity at any time and take their picture, nor is it possible to take a picture of an event that's already in the past.  This does not, however, protect pictures of stadiums such as this one, which are still standing and constantly in one location.  It is entirely possible and feasible for someone to go and take their own picture of the venue, and for that reason, it doesn't completely fall under Fair Use.  I completely think it's lame, but rules are rules.  --fuzzy510 16:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I would take a pic of the building, but I do not live anywhere near it, so if someone else can upload one, then we can use it instead, but until then, the press release photo should be fine. (Cardsplayer4life 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Image:Indian Stadium Sellout.jpg  (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Jakz34 ([ notify]). CV.  Free alternative could be taken.  Also has a rather obvious watermark in the lower-right. —fuzzy510 01:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-fair use image it seems. FunkyChicken! 21:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:StephensCenter1.jpg  (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Scaife ([ notify]). CV.  Free alternative could be taken. —fuzzy510 02:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Scaife appears to be taking a Wikibreak, for reasons explained on his user page; this image is only being used on the Stephens Center article. Could we hold onto this until Scaife returns or a free alternative is actually found? Septentrionalis 02:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly fine by me. To be completely honest, I don't want any of these deleted because I feel that pictures should accompany all of these sports venues' articles, but it's my understanding that use of copyrighted images like that one violate Fair Use because somebody can (but simply haven't) take their own picture, and as such they should be deleted.  If they can be kept around until we can have a free alternative, please somebody say something, and I'll both stop tagging new images and removed the IfD tags from all of these that I've marked as such.  --fuzzy510 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was my understanding that if the photo was released as a part of a promotional release, then it is covered under fair use. This photo was both released by the University on the internet in its press release for the opening of the Stephens Center, as well as in print. By my understanding it would be covered. Thoughts? --Scaife   (Talk)  [[Image:Red Flag waving.png|18px|]] 07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if it is released as part of a press release it is fare game, so if true Strong Keep, if not true Delete. FunkyChicken! 21:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Arrowheadpond.jpg  (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by 3bulletproof16 ([ notify]). CV.  Free alternative could be taken. —fuzzy510 02:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete How hard would it be for someone who lives around there to go and shoot it? Not hard at all. FunkyChicken!


 * Image:BuckShaw.jpg  (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Jecowa ([ notify]). CV.  Free alternative could be taken. —fuzzy510 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.jpg  (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by AlexTheMartian ([ notify]). CV.  Free alternative could be taken. —fuzzy510 03:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete How hard would it be for someone who lives around there to go and shoot it? Not hard at all. FunkyChicken!


 * Image:Chamomile flowers 2.jpg  (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Silversmith ([ notify]). Obsoleted by Image:Chamomile flowers.jpg and Image:Chamomile@original size.jpg &mdash; Silversmith Hewwo 03:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Image:Chamomile flowers 2.jpg


 * Image:Matthew gribben.JPG  (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Escortpwr2005 ([ notify]). Was used on the article Matthew Gribben, which was speedied as a non-notable bio.- --Chris (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Shingles.jpg  (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Idleguy ([ notify]). CV - Copyright belongs to ADAM.com, not NIH —Steven Fruitsmaak 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Johnnykraft.jpg, Image:Joshgrimley.jpg, Image:Justinturmo.jpg, Image:Mattkraft.jpg, Image:Left on mute.jpg. Uploaded by User:Grim bass, only used in a speedily deleted article Left On Mute. - Mike Rosoft 20:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:DmcW.jpg  (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Mr.Nozzle ([ notify]). Image used only in vandalism; description on the image page is not accurate. —Demiurge 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Carmen electra scary movieOrig.jpg <sup id="Carmen electra scary movieOrig.jpg"> (talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Nick Dillinger ([ notify]). CV. Movie screenshot used to illustrate the Carmen Electra article under a Fair Use claim. But we do have a free alternative- Abu Badali 22:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: There's a dispute going on Talk:Carmen Electra. Some users (including me) believe that as we have one free image of her, we can't claim fair use for a movie screenshot to illustrate the article (as the main picture in the article, not justillustrating some section). Other users want to use this image (the movie screenshot) anyway, as they believe that using an mugshot image is (somehow) not NPOV. --Abu Badali 23:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Just use both pictures. Most pages allow for multiple images.  Unless Miramax actually offers a cease and desist letter protesting the fair use of this picture, it should not be deleted!
 * Comment We may use both pictures, as long as the screenshot one has a valid use. Using it as the main picture in the article is not a fair use. And waiting for the C&D letters to come is not the Wikipedia way of dealing with possible copyright violations. We use a preventive approach. --Abu Badali 00:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The free image is a grainy mug shot that looks like the subject had walked through a car wash. It's unacceptable and I could more easily conceive of a C&D letter with the free image than the small screen shot. Ifnord 13:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think the beautifulness of an image makes a case for Fair Use. This is not a photography contest, we are deciding either or not the use of the image is violating the Wikipedia policies. --Abu Badali 16:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I humbly disagree. As pointed out (by others, I have not entered that debate) on the talk page the fact that an extremely disparaging photo appears as the main and only photo of a well-known model/pinup is POV. Beyond POV, IMHO, it looks like an attack page. Common sense should prevail in this case, the screen shot should remain. Ifnord 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't vote on whether or not to violate copyrights. I don't think it's POV. It's just a consequence of how greedy people are about information. Celebrities don't release pictures of them under free licenses. So, theirs mugshots, whenever available, becomes the only free alternative. --Abu Badali 02:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The mugshot does not give a good impression of who Carmen Electra is, and that should be the purpose of the depiction. This fuss about a screenshot of a movie (of which there are tons on Wikipedia) is just bullocks. Grauw 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "...to give a good impression of who Carmen Electra is..."? Now that would be POV! Let's keep just giving facts about her. And please, let's not forget what we are discussing about: The point is not which picture looks better in the article, but which one may be used under the Wikipedia policies. And to the administrator deciding the fate of this picture, remember copyvios decisions are not just about counting votes. Best regards you all. --Abu Badali 02:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's putting words in the lad's mouth. When he wrote good I'm sure he meant a true(r) impression rather than a positive impression. And as you point out, it's not about counting votes but decisions are made by consensus. Ifnord 18:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course that is what I mean. I wrote ‘give a good impression of who Carmen Electra is’, not ‘give a good impression of Carmen Electra’. Doh. Grauw 15:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but policy trumps consensus every time. The image has been deleted.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but policy trumps consensus every time. The image has been deleted.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)