Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 September 9



Image:Moh-jesus.jpg

 * Image:Moh-jesus.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Corax ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic drawing Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Da6452445abdcada4df2bd8bc7dad34c0_mid.jpg

 * Image:Da6452445abdcada4df2bd8bc7dad34c0_mid.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by BearBeatsShark ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Weed.png

 * Image:Weed.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Fantom ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orphaned image, user absent since uploader, if image is what it preports to be there may be some legality issues; at minimum there are stupidity issues... Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fullbd.gif

 * Image:Fullbd.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Cody_13415 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orpahaned animated gif, absent uploader, unencyclopedic self dancing shots Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:William_everly_self_portrait.GIF

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


 * orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal image Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Self_protrait.gif

 * Image:Self_protrait.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Mcxco ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Will_Pattison_Self_Portrait.gif

 * Image:Will_Pattison_Self_Portrait.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Williameis ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * orphaned image, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal drawing Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vips.jpg

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


 * orphaned image, sole contribtuion of user, unencylopedic personal image Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:08, 9 September 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 via CSD I1. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:In-Flight Safety - The Coast Is Clear.jpg

 * Image:In-Flight Safety - The Coast Is Clear.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Paul Erik ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Very low quality, has been replaced with a better quality version. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy-deleted as CSD I1. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 10 September 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:Dabigatran etexilate.png

 * Image:Dabigatran etexilate.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Jfdwolff ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned, and incorrect placement of nitrogen on uppermost aromatic ring (ref here)  Ja Ga  talk 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:BS Bottom Video.JPG

 * Image:BS Bottom Video.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Maneisis ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fails fair use criteria as it does not siginifcantly increase the readers understanding of the music video, being only a screenshot of the artist Million_Moments (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Szxzti.jpg

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


 * No foreseeable use. Ian ¹³  /t  14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adaaasız.JPG

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


 * No foreseeable use (except maybe in emo, but red oval detracts). Ian ¹³  /t  14:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:MilkenPredatorsFall.jpg

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


 * Fails NFCC#8. Non-free rationale does not suffice for the inclusion of image in the article. Citing also Non free content giving examples of unacceptable use of non-free images: "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." Obviously, the rigorous requirement for an exception to the general prohibition outlined here (i.e. source discussion of the magazine cover) is not met by the nominated image. meco (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a historically significant cover that is non-replaceable and is appropriate in several articles about the history of leveraged buyouts, private equity and the collapse of the buyout market in the 1980s. As per WP:Non-free_content a magazine cover is not acceptable to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate. This is the case in the history of private equity articles and as such is appropriate. |►  ϋrban яenewaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 22:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you quote the full sourced discussion in that article of the magazine cover here, please, because I am unable to locate it. __meco (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is a magazine cover. There are tons of magazine covers in Wiki--why this is to be deleted?Lamro (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in general, delete from Michael Milken - The Times cover's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the Drexel Burnham topic discussed in Private equity because it illustrate the collapse of Drexel Burnham at that particular time frame in a way that words can't. As for the Michael Milken article, the cover itself is not the subject of sourced discussion in the article. Rather, the times cover is serving the source for footnote 4 and the text description in footnote 4 is sufficient without an image to convey footnote information. The written article contains no sourced discussion about the intersection between the times cover and Michael Milken. Michael Milken probably was on many magazine covers at that time and there seems to be no reason why the Times Magazine cover stands out among those. The Times cover layout does seem to convey "collapse" by using the weight of the words on Milken to push his head down, but that is more in the context of Drexel Burnham. The Milken article says "In 1996, he received $50 million when Time Warner acquired Turner Broadcasting." If you can find a reference that furthers that comment with something like "and six years prior he was on the Times cover", I would say the image is a keeper in the Michael Milken article. -- Suntag (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say your arguments for keeping are based on a significant lowering of the threshhold for interpreting the NFC provisions than their actual wording. I think you are accutely vague in your defense of this use and you expressly omit citing the guidelines which you believe can be applied to support your position. ("The Times cover's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the Drexel Burnham topic discussed in Private equity because it illustrate the collapse of Drexel Burnham at that particular time frame in a way that words can't" - right, "A Picture can Tell more than a Thousand Words..." Does that constitute a general free-for-all to include non-free images wherever we feel like?) __meco (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NFCC. Its presence does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the articles. Fails WP:NFCC: Any encyclopedic purpose it may have could be replaced with text. Also, despite what some people think, the guideline in WP:NFC is not an exception to the policy WP:NFCC: What the guideline means is that if use of a magazine cover fully satisfies NFCC, it is acceptable even though the cover shows a person. —teb728 t c 08:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (Keep). Having reviewed the comments here, I really would like either meco or teb728, who seem to have exactly the same opinion on this to justify the existence of any of the Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers.  The fair use rationale for this picture in several articles relating to private equity history is far more compelling than the use of the other covers in that category.  My only question is if this cover is not acceptable, why wouldn't the policy simply state no magazine covers, ever, period because I find it hard to think of a situation that will satisfy these two users. |►  ϋrban яenewaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 18:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the category that you mention. In fact I recently encouraged fellow editors to work together to purge this category. __meco (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all magazine covers are unacceptable: If the cover itself is a major topic of discussion in an article, and seeing the cover is necessary to understand that discussion, use of the cover may be acceptable. As I mentioned on User talk:Urbanrenewal, Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png is acceptable on Photo manipulation because use of the image is needed for readers to understand the photo manipulation of the TIME cover. Similarly Image:Vanity Fair August 1991.JPG and Image:Naked gun three.jpg are acceptable on Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. because visual comparison of the two images is a central point of the article.
 * Where the cover itself or the magazine itself is the topic of article, the cover can be used for “identification.” (IMHO this is weakening of the normal significance standard, but it is an accepted practice) Thus Image:Time Magazine - first cover.jpg is in the public domain, but even if it were not, it would be acceptable use for “identification” in Time (magazine). Similarly Image:Time 100.jpg is acceptable use for “identification” in Time 100.
 * As for your category, I predict that most if not all of its member images will be deleted. —teb728 t c 20:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not my category. It has been constructed through contributions from dozens of editors over the course of several years in accordance with the policies laid out.  I really think if you want such a doctrinaire interpretation of the rules you need to make a push to change the rules and allow the people who are focused on copyright policies to comment. |►  ϋrban' яenewaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 15:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel a little stupid that I didn’t get until now that the crux of your argument is the existence of so many magazine covers. You certainly said it clearly enough. I overlooked it because it is an invalid argument, but it certainly deserves an explanation. The explanation is that anyone can upload an image. The non-conforming covers were uploaded in good faith by people who do not understand WP:NFCC, and they have not been nominated for deletion yet. My understanding of policy is not a change; it is the standard by which admins close IfD discussions. As you can see, Image:BoonePickens.jpg and Image:KravisRoberts.jpg were just deleted according to that standard. How many magazine covers can you find that have survived an IfD? —teb728 t c 08:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would help you to understand if I tell you that Wikipedia (and all other Wikimedia projects) has a policy of strongly discouraging non-free content. Some Wikimedia projects do not allow any non-free content at all. Others including English Wikipedia allow non-free content only where it is of high value to the project. —teb728 t c 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for educating me. This has been an enlightening discussion.  I think we all understand the objectives of Wikipedia.  Some wikimedia projects (not Wikipedia) do restrict the use of non-free content, however Wikipedia does create certain exceptions in certan cases where a claim of fair use can justify inclusion. It hink this claim has been debated and supported by several editors and suggest that this is sufficient. |►  ϋrban яenewaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 15:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment- I think this argument is going in circles. There is a very good fair use rationale to use a notable cover of an important magazine covering a notable moment in history. The image is an important piece of several articles about the collapes of a major investment banking firm and the collapse of the junk bond market.  The coverage of these events is discussied in the articles themselves and is not intended just to depict the individual involved. This appears to be consistent with longstanding Wikipedia precedent (given the number of other magazine covers used for similar purposes) despite the comments of two editors who tagged a number of similar images for deletion at the same time.  I think this discussion needs to be part of a larger discussion of the fair use of magazine covers as the fair use rationale for this particular article is sufficiently strong to justify using this important image. I understand the nominating editor's objectives but the best interests of Wikipedia are served by the selective use of certain fair use images in accordance with policies in certain circumstances.  This happens to be one of those circumstances |►  ϋrban яenewaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 15:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Summit Point Jefferson.gif
An .svg image already exist and has taken its place on the Summit Point Motorsports Park article. Fclass (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:OopsIDidItAgainBritneySpears.jpg

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


 * Fails fair use criteria as it does not siginifcantly increase the readers understanding of the music video, being only a screenshot of the artist Million_Moments (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:BritneySdlmbtltk.JPG

 * Image:BritneySdlmbtltk.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Greatz00 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fails fair use criteria as it does not siginifcantly increase the readers understanding of the music video, being only a screenshot of the artist Million_Moments (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ovdc.jpg

 * Image:Ovdc.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Batteryacid84 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fails fair use criteria as it does not siginifcantly increase the readers understanding of the music video, being only a screenshot of the artist. Million_Moments (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Notagirl.jpg

 * Image:Notagirl.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Batteryacid84 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fails fair use criteria as it does not siginifcantly increase the readers understanding of the music video, being only a screenshot of the artist. Million_Moments (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:BoyZBS.jpg

 * Image:BoyZBS.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Batteryacid84 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fails fair use criteria as it does not siginifcantly increase the readers understanding of the music video, being only a screenshot of the artist. Million_Moments (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mpbrit.jpg

 * Image:Mpbrit.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Batteryacid84 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fails fair use criteria as it does not siginifcantly increase the readers understanding of the music video, being only a screenshot of the artist. Million_Moments (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:TYLAMvideo2.jpg

 * Image:TYLAMvideo2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Max24 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fails fair use criteria as it does not siginifcantly increase the readers understanding of the music video, being only a screenshot of the artist. Million_Moments (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - There doesn't seem to be any sourced info about how this particular screenshot characterizes the theme song or siginifcantly increase the readers understanding of the theme song Then You Look at Me. If the lyrics meant "Then Céline Dion looks at me", where me was the subject of the lyrics, this screen shot might siginifcantly increase the readers understanding. -- Suntag (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Schleyerbwe.jpg

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


 * "Permission for use on Wikipedia" is not the same as releasing something into the public domain. -Nard 21:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Only a free use license will work for this image in English Wikipedia. Between Wikipedia and Commons, there are a variety of licenses used for this image so I'm going to assume fair use license applies. Delete this image from Wikipedia and use Commons:Image:Paul von Rague Schleyer.jpg once commons resolves the issue. -- Suntag (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:ChiPitts area.png

 * Image:ChiPitts area.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Ctjf83 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * The only useful revisions of this file are identical to the image with the same filename on Commons. Powers T 22:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a speedy deletion matter?  C t j f 8 3 Talk 22:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked, and technically speedy deletion requires that all the revisions of the image be duplicated on Commons as well. I see the speedy has been done, though, and I won't quibble since the intermediate revisions of the image were worthless.  Powers T 01:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The image has been deleted or merged, I guess  C t j f 8 3 Talk 02:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said, it was speedied under I8, despite the minor problems I mentioned. Powers T 16:12, 10 September 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 discussion was: keep. Evidence presented that obtaining a free image is not possible. -Nv8200p talk 02:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jalaluddin Haqqani.jpg

 * Image:Jalaluddin Haqqani.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Beh-nam ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non-free image of living person user to illustrate the looks of that person. Even though this is a person in hiding, I don't assume this makes an adequate exception to the ban on such images to illustrate living people. Nominating just to be sure. meco (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If this does not represent fair use, though I think it does, why not lower the size of the image until it is fair use, and provide credit and a link to the source? Make it half size and credit the source. Make it a thumbnail even. How can anyone reference current events with draconian limits that equate to censorship? -- 68.13.139.177 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep, First, to our little friend this isn't censorship and claiming it is really doesn't help matters. That said, Meco, there's no such ban on these sorts of images. It is merely a very useful test for whether an image of a person is replaceable. If someone is alive it generally is replaceable. However, in this case there's no likelyhood at all that we will be ever able to get a picture that is free because the subject is in hiding so this isn't replaceable and should probably be kept.' JoshuaZ (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - one of the rare cases a fair use image of a living person can be used. The resolution should be reduced though, it can be tagged with nfr Million_Moments (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not replaceable. If a September 2008 U.S. airstrike targeting Haqqani could not find him, I doubt that a Wikipedian with a camera will have better luck. -- Suntag (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The image comes from a german website about giving help to Aghanistans children, where he is merely exemplifying 'a Taliban',- can we be sure that this is Mr. J. Who says so?Nick Finnsbury (talk) 16:14, 13 September 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.