Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 16



Image:Articolo31Passa il funk.ogg

 * Image:Articolo31Passa il funk.ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by TUF-KAT ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. Bigr  Tex  00:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Art Of Noise With Max Headroom - Paranoimia (12in mix) excerpt.ogg

 * Image:Art Of Noise With Max Headroom - Paranoimia (12in mix) excerpt.ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Ian Dunster ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. Bigr  Tex  00:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Art Of Noise - Close (To The Edit) excerpt.ogg

 * Image:Art Of Noise - Close (To The Edit) excerpt.ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Ian Dunster ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. Bigr  Tex  00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Untitled(HowDoesItFeel).ogg

 * Image:Untitled(HowDoesItFeel).ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by TUF-KAT ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Ogg files for songs are supposed to be 30 seconds long, this is double. Also, no FUR for any of the articles it's on. Undeath (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 debate was: Deleted. Obsolete. Wily D 18:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rggi_map.GIF

 * Image:Rggi_map.GIF ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Atb129 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Obselete; Image:Rggi_map.svg is of much higher quality
 * Delete per nom. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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 debate was: Deleted. Orphaned, now on commons. Wily D 18:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:NorthBerwick(3).jpg

 * Image:NorthBerwick(3).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Greenock999 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image moved to Commons with a more appropriate title - commons:Image:Dirleton Station.jpg Stewart (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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 debate was: Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:AMTDZoot.jpg

 * Image:AMTDZoot.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Tillman ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image fails WP:NFCC#8. The image is not necessary to the understanding of the article. None of the individuals pictured or the significance of this meeting are discussed in the article. Nv8200p talk 13:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Nv8200p has it spot on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to keep, WilyD seems to be right about non-renewal of copyright. Image re-tagged as PD-US-not renewed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete certainly could be used to discuss the actions of these individuals and how this meeting pertained to their actions...but since it doesn't, the image should go. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This image is extremely likely to be public domain. According to John Mark Ockerbloom at University of Pennsylvania's Catalogue of Copyright Entries, no daily newspapers outside of New York City renewed copyrights on papers published before 1945.  If this was first published in the Los Angeles Daily News in 1943, it should be in the public domain for nonregistry/nonrenewal. Wily D  19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Interesting... Should I go ahead and retag this as PD? At the least, we should add this ref and statement to the image page.


 * Also, for context: the LA Times ran at least a couple of this type of photo at the time, but I don't have the time to track down the original news articles. But some future editor might, so it would be good to keep the photo as a visual prod. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC), the orig uploader
 * Someone has retagged it as PD, anyhow. Wily D  13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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 debate was: - While the photo in it's exact form is not replaceable, an adequate free image of an ASNOVA piece of architecture is clearly possible, and given the quality of the reproduction desirable. Clearly fails NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:ASNOVA_kitchen.jpg

 * Image:ASNOVA_kitchen.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Owenhatherley ( [ notify] | contribs).

Yes it is. Quote: ''A few realized projects survive in the former USSR. Most notable are Ladovsky's apartment block on Tverskaya in Moscow (1929) and a series of three 'social condenser' kitchens and communal facilities built in Leningrad between 1928-31 by an ASNOVA team made up of A. K. Barutchev, I. A. Gil'ter, I.A. Meerzon and Ya. O. Rubanchik.''Owenhatherley (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Any wikipedian in St Petersburg could do so, but I live in London. It's by no means certain that it's not a free image, it's just not at all clear who took it - but I severely doubt that the photographer who did is either litigious or alive. Also, this image shows the original Constructivist signage, which doesn't survive. Owenhatherley (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is not necessary for the understanding of the article. The building is not discussed in the article. Nv8200p talk 13:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: If this building "survives", could a free image be taken now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per owen's comments. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this building is still in place, a picture could be taken.  If not, some other relevant building apparently survives and a picture of one of those would serve the same purpose.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Agrupacion_de_Guerrilleros.jpg

 * Image:Agrupacion_de_Guerrilleros.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Murderbike ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image of the unidentified men is not significant to the understanding of the article. Also fails NFCC#10a as geocities.com is not considered a valid source. Nv8200p talk 16:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 debate was: - Delete - certainly fails NFCC#1 and the licence is not, by wikipedia's definition, free so all of the NFCC points need to be addressed. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Airliner_on_Sepulveda?.jpg

 * Image:Airliner_on_Sepulveda?.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Tillman ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fails WP:NFCC#1 as road and runway still exist so a similar image could be created or is understandable with text alone. Nv8200p talk 16:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be a difficult photo to reproduce, which is why it was considered newsworthy when it was published in the LA Times. And a text description of the event wouldn't be effective, in my opinion. So I believe the image meets all NFCC requirements. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep While the highway and the airport still exists, you don't see an airline pass over the freeway everyday. It would be extremely hard to re-produce it. (if impossible) Undeath (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The degree of difficulty to reproduce is rarely considered for non-free content. A free image could be created. -Nv8200p talk 23:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If a free version of this photo later becomes available, the present one could be retired. It's also worth noting that the present photo is licensed for free, non-commercial reuse. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The question in NFCC#1 isn't whether a free alternative exists, but whether one can be created. And for the purposes of Wikipedia, if an image is not licensed for commercial use, then it is not really free. Mosmof (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - there's no discussion of the image itself, or even a mention of the photograph or the illusion of the taxiway being level with the street in the article body. Since the taxiways over Sepulveda are active, it would be possible to create an image of a plane going over the street without unreasonable difficulty (i.e. this image on Flickr), and if one set up a camera in the same spot and pointed to the same angle, one could create an image that serves an identical purpose, right? --Mosmof (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This images is creative commons licenced on the source page, it has had the wrong tag added, so fix licence Fasach Nua (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

weak delete The nature of the source licence is that it can be used on WP, however it is moving the project away from its goal Fasach Nua (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, replaceable, and the point being illustrated is only a minor curiosity anyway that isn't really of encyclopedic concern for a discussion of the street. "The street passes under a runway" is an encyclopedic statement about the street. "If you put your camera at a certain point, you can make a snapshot that makes it look as if an airplane is rolling across the street" is not an encyclopedic statement about the street. This image is certainly nice and entertaining - but not more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The image draws attention to the article's statement that Sepulveda passes "underneath two of the runways of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)." And who says encyclopedia articles (and illustrations) shouldn't be entertaining?


 * Lighten up, folks. This photo is Creative Commons-licensed, amusing, and encyclopedic. We are supposed to use common sense for this kind of stuff. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody said encyclopedia articles shouldn't be entertaining, and nobody is arguing for deletion because the image is too gosh darn entertaining. And common sense says you can create a image free of restrictions that makes the same point and draw attention to the point that the street passes under two taxiways, albeit not one as dramatic or in as aesthetically pleasing. Anyway, it's all Jimbo's fault for not allowing non-commercial images on Wikipedia, so blame him, not us. Mosmof (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Anyway, it's all Jimbo's fault for not allowing non-commercial images on Wikipedia, so blame him, not us."


 * Oh, I do, I do. Thoroughly dumb policy, imo. But somehow I doubt he'll be intervening here ;-]


 * More seriously, why not let the image stand until something better comes along? Do you really think the article would be better without it? --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This argument may seem common sense, but it's been discussed ad nauseam project-wide and rejected. We don't do that, as a matter of principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it seems common sense because it is common sense? Remember, Ignore all rules! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR?. More to the point, this is a copyrighted image we don't have the legal authority to use just because it's a "fun" image. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the license. It's a CC license, for free (non-commercial) reuse. Wikipedia indeed has the right to use it, as does anyone else, except for resale. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia has to allow for commercial use of its contents, or it wouldn't be free (as in, not "free of charge", but "free of restrictions") and contradict the terms of the GFDL license. And have you noticed what happens when you enter the correct license for the photo? --Mosmof (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely replaceable image. No need for a copyrighted image. Simply adding a link to CC license doesn't suddenly make the image free for use. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:BrianUNM.JPG

 * Image:BrianUNM.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by StarScream1007 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Invalid non-free use rationale Inasmuch as there is a free image of Brian Urlacher at Commons: Image:302343997 76a1a28f71.jpg, this image fails WP:NFCC. The use also fails WP:NFCC, for the article’s only critical commentary on the image is that Urlacher set a weight lifting record at the University of New Mexico, but this is perfectly clear without the image. The image had to be IFDed because the uploader has repeatedly removed di-disputed fair use rationale tags. —teb728 t c 19:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This image has already had more than its fair share of discussion, and has gone through a trainwreck of a disrupted process, starting from a mistaken out-of-process non-admin "closure" of an initial replaceability tagging. Talk page discussion has already determined that it's not legitimate, even without the free replacement that's now been found, so I'm closing this early as delete. This should have been deleted back in February. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:WTVG-3d.jpg

 * Image:WTVG-3d.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by RingtailedFox ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non-free image, almost IDENTICAL to the logo in the infobox . Not neeeded ViperSnake151 20:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Delete. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)