Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 January 21



Image:Plot regression women.jpg
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by User:Deimos 28 ( [ notify] | contribs). Obsolete; replaced by Image:Plot regression women.svg +mwtoews 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted on WIkipedia. Image on Commons coming through -Nv8200p talk 14:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Data plot women weight vs height.jpg
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by User:Deimos 28 ( [ notify] | contribs). Obsolete; replaced by Image:Data_plot_women_weight_vs_height.svg — +mwtoews 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted on WIkipedia. Image on Commons coming through -Nv8200p talk 14:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Otoole.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Kapranos ( [ notify] | contribs). User is most likely not the original creator. Copyright violation — Phoenix Hacker 10:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Procedural relisting - this image was nominated for deletion on January 15, but the uploader was not notified. Thus, I am relisting it so that a consensus may be gained. --BigDT 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete but re-upload - This image should be deleted if it is a copyright infringment and then possibly should be re-uploaded and palced on the appropriate article but with a correct copyright tag. Telly addict  12:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:STA_0240.JPG (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by DangerousBob ( [ notify] | contribs). This is a personal photo and is unencyclopedic. Seems to have been made to be added to United States — McDisneysoft 04:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Delete per nom. Telly addict  12:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tedslogo.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Scandle ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, UE, a logo drawn on notebook paper. BigDT 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not relevant to Wikipedia in any way.12:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tedspic1.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Scandle ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not relevant to Wikipedia. Telly addict  12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Selfportraitlogo.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Jonnyrooms ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, a corporate logo BigDT 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Possible delete If this is the logo for a company which as relevance to Wikipedia then it should be kept but it also could be seen as spam if the company is not relevant to Wikipedia. Telly addict  12:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:David_Glenn.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Oetting281 ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, personal photo of unknown encyclopedic value, uploader's only contribution BigDT 04:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * delete per nom.-- Telly addict  12:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Siwithhorse2.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Edparkin ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, A7 bio pretending to be an image description page BigDT 04:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:D.T.B.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Yung-dunn ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Concorde Flight Deck.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by PaddyBriggs ( [ notify] | contribs). Low Quality - Photoshopped Rayward 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * delete would be a good picture if it had not been photoshopped but it is the pilots though and not actaually the aircraft it's self.

Image:GK2005.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Garin ( [ notify] | contribs). UE, OR. From now-deleted vanity bio/user page. — Calton | Talk 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Image:Thing.png (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Free Fall ( [ notify] | contribs). UE, OR. From now-deleted vanity bio/user page. — Calton | Talk 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Image:3195dialock.png (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Free Fall ( [ notify] | contribs). UE, OR. From now-deleted vanity bio/user page. — Calton | Talk 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Dleted on Wikipedia. Image is coming through frm Commons. -Nv8200p talk 12:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sbcsad.png (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Free Fall ( [ notify] | contribs). UE, OR. From now-deleted vanity bio/user page. — Calton | Talk 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Image:Eyefreaky.PNG (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Free Fall ( [ notify] | contribs). UE, OR. From now-deleted vanity bio/user page. — Calton | Talk 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Image:Strawberryandthehare.png (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Free Fall ( [ notify] | contribs). UE, OR. From now-deleted vanity bio/user page. — Calton | Talk 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Image:Sbcsad.png.png (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Free Fall ( [ notify] | contribs). UE, OR. From now-deleted vanity bio/user page. — Calton | Talk 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Image:MelloYelloColck.PNG (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Free Fall ( [ notify] | contribs). UE, OR. From now-deleted vanity bio/user page. — Calton | Talk 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Image:Antichrist.JPG (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Ernstfuchs ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan.  Was attempted to be spammed into various articles awhile back by the uploader, see his contribs.  Doesn't seem to be much point to it.  Also, he's claiming a "with permission" rationale, which is slightly odd if it's actually under a free license, like the tag says.  This also goes for the similar Image:Workerinthelight.JPG, which should be deleted as well.  See the uploader's talk page for a fairly damning account of their little spam campaign, which included hijacking URLs of legitimate minor artists and redirecting to himself. — SnowFire 06:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Balboa.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Chadhart ( [ notify] | contribs). Magazine cover, not being used to illustrate the magazine or issue in question. See the seventh fair-use counterexample. —Bkell (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jimbocannon.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Culverin ( [ notify] | contribs). UE, not used in any articles (although it is not orphaned). Core desat  08:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a free image and it currently being used on multiple user pages (3,if I remember).--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep not orphaned, free, acceptable within community standards. -- MECU ≈ talk 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted image. The sources of the two merged images were not listed so it could not be verified that they were PD. -Nv8200p talk 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ia2.JPG (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Ngard039 ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ia1.JPG (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Ngard039 ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ia3.JPG (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Ngard039 ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ia4.JPG (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Ngard039 ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ia5.JPG (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Ngard039 ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ia7.JPG (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Ngard039 ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:18-11-06 1846.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Megatronyesss ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, unencyclopedic, tagged with a clearly invalid copyright tag. —Bkell (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

=
Image:NewHorizons@Jupiter.jpg (talk | [ delete]) =====


 * Uploaded by Hurricane Devon ( [ notify] | contribs). According to, this image is under a non-commercial licence.- Conscious 08:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, Hurricane Devon was an extensive copyright violator, now perma-blocked. Mango juice talk 10:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rapid keep, We want to see how the spacecraft go to JupiterJer10 95 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Influenzablue.pdf (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Bluebaramundi ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, awkward file format, apparently a screenshot of vandalism to Esperanza (see uploader's talk page). —Bkell (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Influenzablue.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Bluebaramundi ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, apparently a screenshot of vandalism to Esperanza (see uploader's talk page). —Bkell (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Heinousjay.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Heinousjay ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, unencyclopedic, uploader's only contribution. —Bkell (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nocover.jpg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Aston ( [ notify] | contribs). Not used in any articles and obsoleted by Image:Nocover.png — Alex valavanis 11:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Jogers (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anna_chakvetadze.jpg (talk | <span class="plainlinks" id="Image:Anna_chakvetadze.jpg">[ delete])

 * Uploaded by Alexisrael ( [ notify] | contribs). Unlikely to be self-made - very low res. pfctdayelise (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Igor_kunitsyn.jpg (talk | <span class="plainlinks" id="Image:Igor_kunitsyn.jpg">[ delete])

 * Uploaded by Alexisrael ( [ notify] | contribs). Unlikely to be self-made - very low res. pfctdayelise (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:NoCover.jpeg (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Maniwar ( [ notify] | contribs). Not used in any articles and obsoleted by Image:Nocover.png — Alex valavanis 11:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Jogers (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nocover-old.gif (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Tizio ( [ notify] | contribs). Not used in any articles and obsoleted by Image:Nocover.png — Alex valavanis 11:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Jogers (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nocover1987.gif (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Paulisthewalrus ( [ notify] | contribs). Not used in any articles and obsoleted by Image:Nocover.png — Alex valavanis 11:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Jogers (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nocoverphoto.gif (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by NendoShisu ( [ notify] | contribs). Not used in any articles and obsoleted by Image:Nocover.png — Alex valavanis 11:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Jogers (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yulia_beygelzimer.jpg (talk | <span class="plainlinks" id="Image:Yulia_beygelzimer.jpg">[ delete])

 * Uploaded by Alexisrael ( [ notify] | contribs). Unlikely to be self-made - suspiciously low-res. pfctdayelise (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ryanair passengers.png (talk | [ delete])

 * Uploaded by Ludraman ( [ notify] | contribs). OB by Image:Ryanair passengers.svg —  Рэд хот (t • c • e) 13:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Image:Hq9p.c
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Cyp ( [ notify] | contribs). Source code, not an image.  Also, because HQ9+ is such a simple language, interpreters really aren't that interesting. Superm401 - Talk 14:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nocdimage.jpg
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Fishingthesky ( [ notify] | contribs). OR + OB by Image:Nocover.png — Alex valavanis 14:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Delete per nom. Jogers (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Noimageforcd.gif
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Ral315 ( [ notify] | contribs). OR + OB by Image:Nocover.png — Alex valavanis 14:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Jogers (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lizwar.JPG
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Craigy144 ( [ notify] | contribs). The image was uploaded with a PD-BritishGov tag attached, but the uploader hasn't given any evidence that the image was originally under Crown Copyright. There're a few obvious reasons why a professional photographer outside of the British Government might be interested in taking a shot like this, and the only credit provided is to Encarta (who almost certainly don't own the copyright.) It's possible that the photographer was enlisted at the time, but it's by no means certain. — GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 15:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scan0022.jpg
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Kinglupeofneopia ( [ notify] | contribs). This image is a low-quality orphan uploaded seemingly as the cover of an album by a band that doesn't appear to exist. I'm listing it here because I'm not sure of the image deletion policies. — Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 16:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC).


 * There's nothing wrong with listing it here. Alternatively, you could have tagged it with, since the image description page indicates that it is not available under a free license, and it's not used in any articles. —Bkell (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh right, thanks. I've never nommed an image for deletion before and I just wasn't sure if there was an equivalent of or something for images. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hq9-plus.py
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by LittleDan ( [ notify] | contribs). Not an image, and not notable. Superm401 - Talk 18:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ovid_Marker.jpg
(talk | <span class="plainlinks" id="Image:Ovid_Marker.jpg">[ delete])
 * Uploaded by Miglia ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, a photo of a historic marker sign, which would probably be non-free as a derivative work of the sign BigDT 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Maple_Grove_Cemetery.jpg
(talk | <span class="plainlinks" id="Image:Maple_Grove_Cemetery.jpg">[ delete])
 * Uploaded by Miglia ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, low quality BigDT 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wikipedia IE7.jpg
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Muhaidib ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, screenshot saved in JPEG format, disagreement on whether or not this needs a  tag and thus would be an orphaned fair-use image. —Bkell (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Timecode1.jpg
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Time code genius ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, unintelligible nonsense. —Bkell (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sketch-4race-transparent2.png
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Nectarflowed ( [ notify] | contribs). WP:NOR Delete - Reasons for deletion


 * Inaccuracy on this sensitive topic is unacceptable -- According to the caption on page 26 of the "Comprehensive Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology"  one if the three sources listed for this graphic the standard deviation for two various bell curves is not the same. It is 13.0 for blacks and 14.7 for whites. I opened this image, that claims to be based on this source in photoshop and over-layed the curves. They are all identical. The curve for whites should be more spread out.


 * WP:NOR - Adding bell curves for other "Asian" and "Hispanic" seems to be original research since the graph in these sources only has curves for black and white. The numbers are given, but doing a normal regression on these numbers amounts to research. However, since the bell curves are all identical, I doubt a normal regression was even done when this graph was created.


 * Distortion of the graphs original intent -- This style of graph was used in conjunction with labels such as "Clerk, teller, police officer." or "Attorney, chemist, executive." and other professions. It is meant to be used to show the relation between these labels, IQ, and social pressures Without them the graph becomes even more meaningless since there is no scale for the y-axis. One might assume it was based on population or some such thing. They ought to be replaced or the caption should reflect the original intent of the graphic.— futurebird 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - WP:SNOW - example source image can be found here (PDF, p.8). Futurebird objects to details of the WP graph which exist in source graph. Argument about needing to do "a normal regression on these numbers" is false, data table in the source lists underlying CDF values for each curve, which has been rendered in the graph using the style of the source. The original intent of the graphic is clear and is identical to its use in WP (discussion). --W. D. Hamilton 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This topic is far too controversial and sensitive for WP:SNOW. Taking a set of data and fitting a normal curve to it is OR plain and simple. This isn't about a technicality, it is about the way the meaning of this graphic differs from the references. And come to think about it I should add in the credibility of the references as another issue. futurebird 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The CDF data in the table doesn't get "fit" to a PDF, it uniquely defines the PDF. The correspondence between the two can be seen in the source. But moreover, the parameters for the distributions are explicitly given in the legend of the source. There's nothing in the WP figure that doesn't come from the source. Thus, there's no basis for deleting the image. --W. D. Hamilton 23:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the standard deviation and mean is supposed to define these curves, then it should be 15 for both Asian and Hispanic and 14.7 for whites and 13.0 for blacks. But, all of the curves are identical. You could easily quote the mean scores given in these essays, (essays which, I must point out, are not universally regarded as good sources in the first place.) There is no point in using a normal curve graphic if the standard deviations are wrong. These images extrapolate a picture of an entire poorly defined group of people (a "race"), and not only is extrapolation, it's incorrect extrapolation.
 * The fact that the standard deviation for Asian and Hispanic is given to two significant figures, while the SD for blacks and whites is given to three seems to indicate that the data for Asian and Hispanic are less precise. This may be why those normal curves were not included in the graphic in the essays, but rather listed in a table. Including these curves adds original research to this graphic.
 * I agree with Kevin Murray, the race classifications are vague and ill defined.futurebird 11:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the source graphic, all curves are set at SD=15, so the WP graphic shows SD=15. (There are technical reasons why this is a preferable presentation, but all that matters is the source is copied.) No "extrapolation" (this is a statical term, wrongly applied here) involved. "Race classifications" are copied verbatim from the source. There's nothing about this image that violates NOR, it sticks to the source. --W. D. Hamilton 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, my mistake, it isn't exactly extrapolation, It would be better to simply call it "a wild guess." Regardless, it is still original research because creating these curves assumes that the mean IQs and SD are as accurate as those for whites and blacks. The data for means used in Gottfredson's essay came from different studies. Even Gottfredson admits they are not as accurate because there have not been as many tests for Hispanics and Asians. This is probably why the curves were not in the graph in any of the three essays you cited as sources. You only have two pieces of information, mean IQ for Hispanics and Asians (as 'set' by Gottfredson) at 91 and 106 respectively, and the SD of 15 also ('set' by Gottfredson). The mean and SDs for blacks and whites came from WAIS, a slightly better source than Gottfredson... even if it is 26 years old. futurebird 19:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your criticisms are of the source. There's no reason to defend/argue about the source here. --W. D. Hamilton 19:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not quite right. My criticisms are not just about the sources. Curves are included in this graphic marked for deletion that are not in any of the essays you cited as sources. Adding them is original research.futurebird 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gottfredson's graph, which is published in identical form in at least three different papers, presents two curves (Black and White) but also a data table which gives the distributions for Asians and Hispanics -- all in the same "figure". The image in WP has Gottfredson's black and white curves with identically rendered curves for Asians and Hispanics based on the data Gottfredson reports in her figure -- they are laid out the same as the source. --W. D. Hamilton 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the curves for black and white are identical then Gottfredson's graphic is also wrong. (Another reason this image should be deleted) The curves should reflect the SD she has listed in the text, especially when she has chosen to normalize the curves to the same hight even though the population sizes and sample sizes are not the same. In any case, adding new curves is original research. Especially when the sources for the data are not the same. By this I mean the sources of Gottfredson's data are not the same, she says so much in the caption.futurebird 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - for the reasons User:Futurebird gave above. --Rebroad 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - per W. D. Hamilton. If the graph matches the source data, then it serves by giving a clearer picture of the I.Q differences based on "race".  The controversy and the parsing of the terms "race" and "I.Q." is to be covered in the article. The data that is used for the table should be accepted at face value. - Mytwocents 03:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But, you see, the graph does not match the source data. The standard deviations are different.futurebird 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the source graphic, all curves are set at SD=15, so the WP graphic shows SD=15. --W. D. Hamilton 18:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is true then source graphic isn't even constant with its own caption! (not surprising) For clairity, we should note that when you say "all curves" you mean "both curves" because there are only two curves in the source graphics rather than the four shown in this partially derivative image.futurebird 19:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep --Ryan Delaney talk 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not Sure I'm much more concerned with the aggregation of so many various people into the black, white, asian and hispanic classifiactions. The standard deviations of the distributions are probably not relevant considering the simplicity of the graphic.  To me the graphic is over simplification of a very complex and sensitive topic.  I'm not sure that deleting the graphic is the solution, but I have critisized its use as the first visual at Race ad Intellegence --Kevin Murray 08:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. A novel synthesis of data from multiple sources which constitutes original research. Sample sizes and SD are represented as similar, which is also misleading. Some data used is 26 years old, and note long tails in Gottfredson's original two-curve black vs. white data (not represented in this graph). Graphs are powerful persuaders, and this one is misleading original research that adds additional bell curves not in the original graph. Jokestress 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is wierd. When I moved them over I must assumed they would be different heights. They are clearly not the same shape. Did Gottfredson make a mistake? I think you're forgetting that shape isn't the only problem here, it's also those extra curves, based on data from a different study. futurebird 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the source graphic, all curves are set at SD=15, so the WP graphic shows SD=15. The "multiple sources" are not being synthesized, the same source figure has been republished in three different papers by the same author. Age of data - data is copied from the source; this is an argument with the source. Long tails - the normal distributions are the same, tails don't change. Additional curves - are based on the data table included within the figure, and the parameters given in the figure legend. --W. D. Hamilton 18:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the sources again. It says in the caption under the graphic on page 8 of the document you link to above "Cumulative percentages are based on mean WAIS IQ, of 104.4 for Whites and 86.9 for Blacks and SDs of 14.7 and 13.0 respectively. Means for Hispanics and Asians are set respectively at 91 and 106, and SDs at 15 (based on data in Gottfredson 2003b) Percentiles were estimated by use of cumulative normal probability tables." (emphasis mine)--futurebird 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the black and white graphs in the source didn't have equal SD (=15) they wouldn't be of the same shape; one would appear higher at the mode/median. As you can see in the source, this is not the case. Gottfredson rendered the curves with SD=15, so the WP curves are rendered in the same way. --W. D. Hamilton 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not quite right. If the SD is greater the curve is elongated horizontally, the highest points on each of the curves could still be the same.futurebird 21:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The area under a normal PDF = 1. If the variance increases, the height of the curve at the mode must be smaller. [[Image:Normal distribution pdf.png|200px]] --W. D. Hamilton 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. That's right. It's hard to see when the change in SD is so small. Well, I feel dumb! Thanks. I over-layed the curves in Gottfredson's graphic, and to her credit, they are not the same height or shape. Those used in this graph marked for deletion are the same height and shape. futurebird 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It really helps when there is a y-axis! Graphs with unlabeled scales are just confusing and misleading.futurebird 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The source curves clearly have equal heights: [[Image:Gottfredson-clip.PNG]] --W. D. Hamilton 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! But I see what you mean. They have slightly different widths. This is something that someone can change if they like, but it's not materially important for deletion. --W. D. Hamilton 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "extra curves" are from the data included in the source image/legend, discussed at length in this thread. --W. D. Hamilton 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Conditional Keep Due to the emotionally charged nature of this topic, it's hard to find this type of information and I was impressed that the Wikipedia community had the balls and ability to provide the information here. I had the same feeling when I found "depictions" (images) of Mohammed available on Wikipedia: just because the subject is controversial didn't make Wikipedians opt for self-censorship. The community found a balanced, tasteful way of dealing with the issue. The graph comparing the relative IQ curves of different races should be retained until a better graphic can replace it . Apparently, a major source of dispute is the shape of the curves. The curves’ mode — the most prevalent value — doesn't appear to be the subject of dispute; it's the way the tails of the curves tapper off at their ends that seems to be in dispute. Even if my above assumptions regarding the nature of the dispute are incorrect, my fundamental position is that the graph should stay until such time that a more accurate one can replace it. It's going to be impossible to develop a “perfect” and “flawless” graph on this subject that makes everyone happy. Just because the very subject shocks some people's sensibilities shouldn't mean that this graphic should be held to a higher standard than other graphics. Greg L 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or at the very least not use it as a representation for the current situation. In addition to other problems above: The very old data used seems to include people less than 24 years old. More recent surverys have found much smaller differences for children and yound adults. Dickens and Flynn 2006: "Our current estimates: 0.31 SDs (age 4); 0.63 SDs (age 12); and 0.87 SDs (age 18). Thus, the graph does not correctly depict the current situation. Since there are more recent data available, why not redraw the graph using these? Ultramarine 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a really great point. There seems to be a new graph in the works on the talk page. You should bring this up there. futurebird 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) The WAIS is a test of adult IQ, and the black/white IQ data originally came from a paper titled "Demographic Characteristics and IQ among Adults". (2) It's difficult to resolve the 'photocopy-only' policy endorsed by futurebird, Jokestress, and others with the suggestion to redraw using a editor-selected data source by editor selected-criteria. --W. D. Hamilton 00:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not the nature of the objection. If all of the data come from the same source, and if that source has graphed it in a similar way, then redraw is fine. All we need to do is find a more recent source. futurebird 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree more recent data from those over 24 are needed, Gottfriedson uses data from 18-23 years old here: . There are such data, see Dickens and Flynn above. I see no need for a similar graph in an article if the data are available. Most Wikipedia graphs and images are not based on other external images. If they did so closely, it would be a copyright violation.Ultramarine 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Most definitely as per W. D. Hamilton--Lairor 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Greg L until somebody creates a better representation (with different st.devs). In my opinion, a simple PDF graph from means and standard deviations - even if given in different source articles - is not original research; not anymore than summarizing other bits of published statistical data on one common graph (like for instance Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png in the Global warming article). -- Marcika 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- I'm Asian. 'Nuff said.--Hollerbackgril 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR and POV. LotLE × talk  02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - Inaccurate, when compared to each other the bell curves are FAR too perfect (they are exact copies of each other, moved left and right) to reflect a true statistical analysis. Fosnez 07:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Image kept. There is no technical reason to delete this image as it is used on talk pages and user pages. Whether it is used in any articles can be decided by the article editors. -Nv8200p talk 03:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Allison-brewer.jpg
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Jord ( [ notify] | contribs). Invalid license. According to the license, the image can't be modified- Abu Badali 22:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Brewer has retired from public life and it is highly unlikely a totally free replacement for this image could be found. The image was released by her campaign with the sole proviso that it not be altered, and I see no reason why the image would ever be altered, it is a simple head shot, what alteration is conceivable? - Jord 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to see better source information to determine the license more appropriately. -- MECU ≈ talk 20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As indicated on the commentor's talk page, unfortunately this was from an election campaign which is long since over with the information having been taken down. The remainder of the site is available at allisonbrewer.ca but no copyright information whatsoever is listed. - Jord 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Robot.JPG
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Mattjblythe ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image067.JPG
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Brylcreem ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Maudlin_of_the_well_part_the_first.jpg
(talk | <span class="plainlinks" id="Image:Maudlin_of_the_well_part_the_first.jpg">[ delete])
 * Uploaded by Waxwing slain ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, a photo of a T-shirt and thus likely a copyvio BigDT 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:TBC-BW-IQ-SES-withDiff.png
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by User talk: ( [ notify] | contribs). Unencyclopedia, and also NPOV - see image talk page. — Rebroad 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

speedy keep - This image is directly adapted from Herrnstein and Murray (1994) p. 288. See the image in context as used in WP here. --W. D. Hamilton 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Feb 3 - discussion to try and get a better concensus -Nv8200p talk 03:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Herb Orzel Piastowski.jpg
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Emax ( [ notify] | contribs). This image is completely ahistorical, a modern collage of elements dating from different periods. The eagle itself is 13th century, the escutcheon is not earlier than 14th century and the paludamentum – not earlier than 17th century. — Kpalion 23:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to Feb 7 to try and get more info and concensus. -Nv8200p talk 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Imageunknown.png
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Tcatron565 ( [ notify] | contribs). OR + OB by Image:Nocover.png — Alex valavanis 23:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Jogers (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kismet.JPG
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Kismetanne ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kismet1.jpg
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Kismetanne ( [ notify] | contribs). Orphan, no explanation of subject's notability. —Bkell (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fountain_Leak.jpg
(talk | <span class="plainlinks" id="Image:Fountain_Leak.jpg">[ delete])
 * Uploaded by Sanjeevmundluru ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use BigDT 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chrischilvers.jpg
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Chilvers123 ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:SexyDJ2.jpg
(talk | [ delete])
 * Uploaded by Chilvers123 ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:SMB_Banter.jpg
(talk | <span class="plainlinks" id="Image:SMB_Banter.jpg">[ delete])
 * Uploaded by Chilvers123 ( [ notify] | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)