Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 7



File:Chinese fonts juhuasample.PNG

 * 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: Image on Commons / deleted from Wikipedia --B (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Chinese fonts juhuasample.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Benlisquare ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Sample text used is "菊花殘 滿地傷 你的笑容已泛黃", from Song 菊花台， see . is copyvio Shizhao (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. What in the world can I do with a one-liner? It is just one line, 13 characters, 26 bytes of plain text, without even a melody or music going along with it, are you kidding? In my opinion, this is exclusionism gone mad. If all one liners are copyvios, then we should get rid of "Pearl Harbor is there. So is Texas." from Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, since that would also be a copyvio under your interpretation. We should remove "Change we believe in" from Barack Obama, as that would also fit into your category of a copyvio, as with "How you doin'?" from Friends, "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty..." from Albert Einstein, "The Euclidean path integral over all topologically trivial metrics can be done by time slicing and so is unitary when analytically continued to the Lorentzian" from Stephen Hawking, and "S1 Girls Collection - Best of Stark Naked Fuck" and "Nakadashi Raped for 100 Consecutive Times!" from Maria Ozawa filmography. This is bad faith in it's extreme, and I just find your argument utterly absurd. A tiny portion consisting of thirteen characters of a proportionally much larger work is negligible, and also fair use; under your claim of "copyvio", then nothing is free, even the sentence I am typing right now may accidentally be a copyvio if someone else has already typed it before me. Fallacious argument by irrelevance? More specifically, Argument from ignorance, Hasty generalization, False dilemma and irrelevant conclusion? I could argue that the line you just typed, "Sample text used is copyvio", is a copyvio, as it was used by User:ViperSnake151 a few months ago. See how absurd your statement now appears? If ownership of thirteen characters is enforced in such a draconian way, then how about your line of 23 characters? And that would mean that the entire damn English language is a copyvio! Does thirteen characters come under the aspect of originality in United States copyright law? The purpose of the image is to compare five different typefaces for Chinese characters, and is not used in a discouraging or violating manner. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is honestly one of the most ridiculous nomination reasons I've seen in my time here on WP.  GraYoshi2x► talk 14:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as textual copyvio of a song's lyrics. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Poor argument. Clearly does not fall under the category of "derivative work" under US copyright law, as it is original enough. A typeface does not have sufficient detail to be copyrighted, as it is information that is common property and contains no original authorship, while the image is clearly original, only using thirteen characters of sample text, which cannot fall under "derivative work" under such circumstances. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not original at all, it's a pure and simple exact copy of a song's lyrics, copied over five times, in different fonts/styles. And it's not used to illustrate the song, so I can't see it as falling under fair use. There is no derivative work, it's clear copying. If I reprinted say "Thriller" in Gothic, it's still a Michael Jackson song, even if I did it as a JPEG, even if it used Gothic lettering, even if I only used one line from the chorus. It's still copying. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, I declined the above speedy deletion tag as this is far from unambiguous. I suspect 13 characters is unlikely to cause a problem, but I have to ask why a copyrighted passage, however small, was used for this demonstration of character sets - "fair use" hardly covers arbitrary usage of copyrighted material when a free alternative would perform the same function. ~ mazca  talk 10:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The passage was chosen due to its variety of Radicals, however if this is really as problematic as it seems, I could upload a newer version of the image which would not be so incriminating. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following page may also be of interest: w:zh:维基百科:檔案存廢討論/記錄/2009/08/07 --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Image has been replaced by a harmonious version, as per Jingjing and Chacha's requests. There is no longer any scent of "copyvio" fragrance. Current text reads "你的黃花滿地傷", which is entirely unrelated to any song, or any copyrighted written work. Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because User:Benlisquare says keep. BJisSB (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a fucking joke? This is probably one of the most 脑残 arguments I have ever heard. If you have no knowledge or understanding of copyright policy, well then don't bother. The image would hardly be called a "derivative work", but even if so, would clearly be original enough. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "fucking" you want to get banned? Obviously a crazy editor. Delete. BJisSB (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem. How the English language is spoken in a specific exotic style by an individual is irrelevant to the topic; don't run away from the topic. That would be a baseless argument for the topic at hand. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The above user is an International Private Student from Narrabundah College, and is an SPA mainly for personal attacks. Disregard his BS. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Would fall under ineligibility for copyright or just fair use at worst. In any case the nominator (Shizhao) makes nonsensical deletion nominations on Commons anyway (apparently paranoid of the slightest copy of anything), so this deletion should be closed due to a bad faith assumption.  GraYoshi2x► talk 14:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no, while the lyrics would be "fair use" in a legal sense, they would not be consistent with out fair use policy. Someone has copied the image to Commons, so unless anyone has any strenuous objections, I'm inclined to just delete this one and let Commons worry about it. --B (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I personally have no idea as to why the image has all of a sudden appeared on Commons. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like a bot copied it there from zh. I have fixed the description page to properly give attribution and have deleted the image locally. --B (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (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.

File:Burress sb42 td.jpg

 * 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: delete - obviously, this kind of image is not appropriate for fair use --B (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Burress sb42 td.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by JAF1970 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This non-free sports screenshot is not a necessary illustration for the reader trying to understand the articles it's being used in. The text does not calls for an illustration and this one isn't specially helpful. Damiens .rf  15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? The text is quite clear, and it's an accurate pic. This makes zero sense for deletion. JAF1970 (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is perfectly situated with the text. It should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.252.142 (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2009 (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.

File:GordonParks1.jpg

 * 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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:GordonParks1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by SteveHopson ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Book cover for a barely mentioned book. Damiens .rf 17:52, 7 August 2009 (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.

File:Slayer-christ illusion SE.jpg

 * 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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Slayer-christ illusion SE.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Wp-fds ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Already two album covers used in the article; this one is not discussed, while the other two are. I note that this cover was not used when the article was promoted as a featured article. J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2009 (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.

File:WildArmsGame01.png

 * 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 --B (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:WildArmsGame01.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Nall ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * I don't think this image meets the NFCC as it doesn't show anything else besides the fact that part of the gameplay is in 2D, which is already mentioned in the article. This image doesn't do anything to enhance the readers' understanding of the Wild Arms article. MuZemike 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Helps me actually visualize the game. Sometimes I stumble onto a game-related article which certainly sounds interesting based on the text, but I have no idea what it looks like. Definitely helps to enhance readers' understanding contrary to your statement.  GraYoshi2x► talk 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe another question I pose would be: are there other gameplay images in this perspective that shows more material relevant to the article than what this one currently does? In particular, are there 2D gameplay images from this game that are less generic than this; that is, something that more clearly differentiates Wild Arms from other RPGs? All I see is a generic image of a town in a 2D console RPG with a couple of characters. At least it doesn't help me provide a better understanding of the game, and I don't think it helps other readers that much, either (at least IMO). MuZemike 16:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This does seem to be a reasonable fair use of a low-resolution screen shot of the game. As stated on the file's page:
 * 1) Sony Computer Entertainment has not released any such images to the public domain
 * 2) The image is used to demonstrate the game's distinctive art style with relation to field map navigation, an important aspect of the game that constitutes the majority of its progression
 * 3) The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the game
 * 4) The image is a small, web-resolution image
 * 5) The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like
 * 6) The image's only purpose is to aid in the description of the fictional world of Wild Arms, and for no other purpose
 * 7) The image does not limit Sony Computer Entertainment's ability to sell the game
 * The guideline perhaps implies that it is better that non-free images at least be used to illustrate commentary, but I'm not sure there is a set bar that states that this commentary must show a uniqueness of the game. This does a fine job illustrating the subject.  If a better shot comes along, it can be replaced; but that doesn't mean this one must be removed at this time.  The article doesn't have an unreasonable number of non-free images.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (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.