Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 April 4



Image:Celingmexico.gif
Unencyclopedic. Just a joke. Thebestkiano 19:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Groves.jpg
Unencyclopedic. Simply some image of some guy taking a picture of himself while snorkeling. BlackBear 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not needed. Acalamari 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sa-homepage90207.png

 * Image:Sa-homepage90207.png ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Steveob2007 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * CV - Picture is a screenshot of a copyrighted webpage in high resolution. If the reader wants to view the webpage, they can just as easily click the website link right above the image without provoking copyright issues. Image has not been released into the public domain by Something Awful or its operators. — Cumulus Clouds 04:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nomination. disastrophe 12:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ you guys are Nazi's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.111.229 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It appears to be the norm on Wikipedia to have an image of the website in question on the article. Examples: Slashdot, Fark.com, HardOCP, Wikipedia. GeeCee 04:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, strong valid reasoning. Other website screenshots should probably go too.  --Iamunknown 04:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the image at Fark is clearly in violation, and the others are all copyrighted as well so they should be ifd with the rest. Cumulus Clouds 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What the hell? If the image is too high resolution, we reduce it.  Web screenshots are widely accepted and standard to illustrate articles about websites.  We want to be medium independent and not assume everyone can just click a link. It's not a copyvio, it's well within the usage prescribed by our standard Fair Use guidelines.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Mine is that I think that it fails WP:FUC as an unnecessary decorative image.  Thanks for participating and helping to form a consensus.  --Iamunknown 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it pretty interesting that the only people willing to ignore Wikipedia's rules for issues relating to Something Awful are users of that site, even if they happen to be administrators on this one. The image is gigantic and clearly illustrates the copyright notice at the bottom of the page, making it blatant violation of that copyright. Considering the image is right below the link to the website in the article, the picture is unnecessary and certainly isn't worth risking a CV over. I also agree with the editor above me that the picture serves no useful purpose other than a glorified thumbnail. Cumulus Clouds 23:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is this website different from all other sites? It's standard practice to include a screenshot to show what the site looks like.  Web-screenshot is there for exactly that purpose.  Are we supposed to delete the screenshots from CNN.com, Slashdot, Digg, MySpace, and every other website? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the screenshot for Slashdot is low resolution, and as such meets the requirements for that template, however the pictures at CNN and Myspace should be deleted as they are very large pictures at very high resolutions, and violate the requirements of Web-screenshot. Digg is licensed under Creative Commons, and so is exempt from copyright issues. Cumulus Clouds 05:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If resolution is the problem, you want Fair use reduce, not IFD. Resolution isn't a serious issue here, though, because all you get is a single image of an outdated frontpage; it's not a large amount of content at all. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The picture shows a great deal of content, produced by the website's operators under their copyright. The image deserves to be deleted and this argument isn't worth having.Cumulus Clouds 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And you've claimed that the picture "Illustrates the look and content of the website in a way no free alternative can," but you follow that up by saying it "includes a minimal amount of content from the site, so as not to deprive it of commercial value." I would have to ask you which one of those two things you think it is because they strike me as being mutually exclusive.Cumulus Clouds 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a humor website that makes its business by having people read the articles and look at ads, or register for the forums. Our screenshot shows no more than a paragraph from any one story and only headlines and taglines for most.  Yet, it shows the layout and look/feel of the site so that people know what it looks like it general. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which they could get by clicking the link at the bottom of the infobox or visiting elsewhere. --Iamunknown 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in a paper article. You could say that for any cover or poster or screenshot illustration.  We're trying not to be dependent on having the other thing at hand. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to set some kind of precedent then you should nominate the other violators instead of just saying that they should be. Why pick on Something Awful? Many articles about websites have screenshots of said sites, Something Awful should not be an exception just because you have something against the site. GeeCee 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure once this one is deleted the rest will follow. Cumulus Clouds 08:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and reduce resolution. "they can just as easily click the website link" is really not true. Not everyone is reading Wikipedia on the web. This sort of reasoning could be used to delete every image that is available elsewhere on the web. --- RockMFR 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the reasoning isn't "they can just as easily click the website link," it's also that the image is copyrighted, displays that copyright in it and does so at enormous proportions. The reasoning behind the quote that you mentioned is that the entire argument over whether or not to preserve this image is stupid because the physical energy it takes to move your mouse 17 pixels higher to click a web link and actually see what the page looks like without violating any copyrights is so small that it would make any opposition seem almost petty.Cumulus Clouds 08:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not trivial in a printed edition. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the article for Something Awful's entry wasn't selected to be in the printed version of Wikipedia, as far as I know, and more to the point that reasoning is entirely useless because the picture would violate copyrights in print too.Cumulus Clouds 08:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Every article has a print version. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete on grounds of WP:FUC; this doesn't contribute significantly to the article (you can just link to the front page, although admittedly SA is down quite a bit) and there's no point in violating copyright by posting such a high-resolution image. --Jacj 09:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep unless there are similar deletions for all other websites on wikipedia Trampled - talk 09:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why do people assume that all readers of Wikipedia will have access to Something Awful? Also, the standard for copyright violation is not wheter or not the copyright notice is readable. I also strongly oppose size reduction, because the way to reduce proportion of reproduction of websites is right there in the template: a limited number. Not any reference to resolution, because that applies to things like photograps, artwork and TV screenshots. --GunnarRene 09:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the rest is generally a poor argument. However, if there are quite a number of violators, it might be wise to treat them as a group and bulk nominate them for deletion rather then to delete them one by one. This will reduce confusion and avoid silly arguments like 'what about XYZ?' Nil Einne 11:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, no objection to reducing resolution I don't see any real grounds for deletion listed here.  It's illustrating the topic, perfectly valid fair use.  --Minderbinder 12:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Page layout not discussed, so this image adds nothing. ed g2s &bull; talk 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete SA can change it's site layout and that won't actually change SA. As odd as it sounds, how the front page looks isn't significant to the topic of SA. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The same could be said for nearly any website, book, movie, or other thing that we use a fair use image to illustrate the appearance of, including, say, the harry potter books. They could be released under any other cover and it wouldn't change the book.  Is that the implication you intend? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could say the same thing, and I would agree for those situations too. This is why I often remove DVD cover images from articles. We don't need these images to understand the topic at hand, nor do they provide anything significant. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- we aren't offering anything here that a link to the copyright holder's website wouldn't provide. Jkelly 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Perfectly legitimate fair use. "They can just visit the website to see what it looks like" is a bogus argument that ignores printed editions of articles, etc. etc.  No need to reduce resolution, since image is already limited in scope, etc. etc.  — Omegatron 18:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Crop and keep - Leave it at full resolution, but only use the top part of the web page (the part visible without scrolling down). A web site like this is a complex and dynamic thing, and one screenshot of it is certainly fair use, especially if we were to crop the screenshot. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Playboy_Jul_06_Vida_Guerra.jpg

 * Image:Playboy_Jul_06_Vida_Guerra.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Jaysscholar ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unnecessay image of a playboy cover. It's used simply to mention that a given model was featured in the one of the magazine's issue. The image itself is not notable and doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already covered by text only. Abu badali (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Unneeded picture, please remove. LifeStar 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Decisiones042.jpg

 * Image:Decisiones042.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Yakuman ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * No verifiable source information provided to backup the claim that this is a promotional image. This sems like an image from some website. We would need to read the site's "terms of use" to know what use the copyright holder intended for this image, so that we could claim that our use don't replace the original market value for this image (WP:FUC#2) (the "original market value" could be, for instance, to increase the value of the copyright holder's website) Abu badali (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a title card from a Spanish-language TV serie. Complete rationale on imahe page.  Yakuman (数え役満) 02:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry my ignorance, but what exactly is a "title card"? This seems to be an image from some website, and the concerns I posted in the nomination would apply. --Abu badali (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Madreluna041.jpg

 * Image:Madreluna041.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Yakuman ( [ notify] | contribs).

Keep This low-res, monochrome image was specifically created to promote an upcoming TV series. Yakuman (数え役満) 02:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * same case as above . --Abu badali (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When/where was this image released as promotional material? --Abu badali (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oakham_School.png‎

 * Image:Oakham_School.png‎ ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Nick.lowe ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Oakham_School.png - obsoleted by Oakham_School.svg
 * Keep and delete Image:Oakham School.svg as it fails the Fair use criteria, specifically criterion no. 3 that states that "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy)...." --Iamunknown 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oakham_School_Logo_BW.gif

 * Image:Oakham_School_Logo_BW.gif ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Nick.lowe ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Oakham_School_Logo_BW.gif - obsoleted by Oakham_School.svg
 * Delete both, the latter fails the Fair use criteria, specifically criterion no. 3 that states that "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy)...." They should be obsoleted by Image:Oakham School.png.  --Iamunknown 22:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Iamunknown. Acalamari 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Police_with_seized_dynamite.jpg

 * Image:Police_with_seized_dynamite.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Wowaconia ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non-notable image from Associated Press (AP). Please, consider speeding it. Abu badali (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bolivian_miners_protest.jpg

 * Image:Bolivian_miners_protest.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Wowaconia ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unnecessary non-notable image from press agency Associated Press (AP) Abu badali (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would say that image is anything but "non notable" Cumulus Clouds 04:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any published commentary about this image? Or has it won some award? --Abu badali (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Protesting_miners_light_dynamite.jpg

 * Image:Protesting_miners_light_dynamite.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Wowaconia ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unnecessary non-notable image from press agency Associated Press (AP). Abu badali (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:La_Paz_riot_police_during_Water_Wars.jpg

 * Image:La_Paz_riot_police_during_Water_Wars.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Wowaconia ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unnecessary non-notable image from press agency Associated Press (AP) Abu badali (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Waiting_coca_farmers.jpg

 * Image:Waiting_coca_farmers.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Wowaconia ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unnecessary non-notable image from press agency Associated Press (AP) Abu badali (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Father_Obermaier.jpg

 * Image:Father_Obermaier.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Wowaconia ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unnecessary unfree image from The New York Times Abu badali (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:41236014_ap_evo_mbeki220.jpg

 * Image:41236014_ap_evo_mbeki220.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Wowaconia ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unnecessary non-notable unfree image from press agency Associated Press (AP) Abu badali (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:121205_MickievsVictoira_002_0001.jpg

 * Image:121205_MickievsVictoira_002_0001.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Fr3nZi3 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Images with tv logo's in are against copyright. Govvy 11:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Daisy wall 1.jpg

 * Image:Daisy wall 1.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Adam893 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unencyclopaedic entry about a non-notable person who was a school champion in hockey — Simply south 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - Cute Cumulus Clouds 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stoned_person.jpg

 * Image:Stoned_person.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by GarconDansLeNoir ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This is probably a joke, see discussion. Image was removed from article Cannabis_(drug) anyway — Ratfox 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Image:Queen Bicycle Race.png

 * Image:Queen Bicycle Race.png ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Miketm ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Duplicate to Image:Queen Bicycle Race1.png— evrik (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * This image was uploaded because Image:Queen Bicycle Race1.png did not have a source. And also because it does not have the 1 in the title.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 17:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The numeral 1 is there to differentiate it from Image:Queen Bicycle Race2.png. --evrik (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Soonymoore.jpg

 * Image:Soonymoore.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Vipseh ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphan & Unencyclopedic image file that was apparently uploaded for a vanity page that is also now listed for deletion. — LifeStar 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Roselyn_sanchez_026.jpg

 * Image:Roselyn_sanchez_026.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Rastamania ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * no evidence this was released as gfdl. Abu badali (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Duh.png

 * Image:Duh.png ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by ThefirstM ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Parody of advertisement icons licensed by Microsoft (under an unknown license) in yesteryears. It uses the Internet Explorer logo and is thus un-free.  It could be used under fair use under parody, but since it is only used on a user page, such a rationale would be insufficient justification per Wikipedia policy.- Iamunknown 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ottomugshot.jpg

 * Image:Ottomugshot.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Tyguy101a ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Useless nonsense pic --EEMeltonIV 20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sheepshank.png

 * Image:Sheepshank.png ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Kwantus ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orphaned image, and replaced by Sheepshank.svg on commons User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lufbra.JPG

 * Image:Lufbra.JPG ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Jamie123 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orphaned image, absent uploader. Another image, Hazlerrigg Front Lawn.JPG currently exists and is in use in the appropriate article.  While I have no reason to doubt the licence, there was some question when uploaded and the alternative image is slightly better sourced. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Trafalgardetail_legoland_Copyright2003KTai.jpg

 * Image:Trafalgardetail_legoland_Copyright2003KTai.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Kaihsu ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orphaned image. The uploader added a GFDL tag, but in the text added with the image it states, "Copyright © 2003 Kaihsu Tai".  The uploader and copyright holder appear to be one and the same. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, it is not inappropriate to apply a label to images one uploads in the form "Copyright © 2007 MY-NAME". Content licensed under the GFDL license is still copyrighted, but licensed copy-left so that anyone can use it for commercial reuse and derivative works for free provided they attach a copy of the GFDL text and attribute the authors.  So we should not automatically assume that this image is incorrectly licensed.  Assuming that the uploader is also the copyright holder, I wonder if he or she knows what others can do with GFDL-licensed content.  Further discussion is necessary.  --Iamunknown 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will upload it to Wikimedia Commons. One has to understand that GFDL is not public domain: I still should hold the copyright in order to license the content. If I disclaim my copyright, I do not have the right to license it under GFDL. Read the licence. – Kaihsu 12:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * n.b. Blue link to Commons. --Iamunknown 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vapepband.jpg

 * Image:Vapepband.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by ElmoHoo ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orphaned image, absent uploader. Tagged as GFDL and author as Alex Ham but unsure if uploader is photogrpher nor is any other specific source provided. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cdrom.jpg

 * Image:Cdrom.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Poor Yorick ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orphaned image, low quality. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Image is on commons, this isn't the place. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:42nd_street.jpg

 * Image:42nd_street.jpg ( [ delete] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ logs] ) - uploaded by Robert Merkel ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orphaned image, low quality User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's no longer needed, so be it. --Robert Merkel 01:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now sits at Commons. --Iamunknown 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)