Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 March 11



Jonathan krohn at cpac.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 ⚡  08:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Jonathan krohn at cpac.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Hunter Kahn ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Subject is alive. A free alternative obviously exists.  Go snap a photo of him.  Fails NFCC 1. Protonk (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, but recommend the nominator use the faster {{subst:rfu}} for future similar images. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 11 March 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.

Dmitrimarkinewedding2.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 ⚡  08:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Dmitrimarkinewedding2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Dmitri1999 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * States 'commercial use of this image is strictly prohibited', which is not permitted. &mdash; neuro (talk) 16:04, 11 March 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.

Texasburger.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 ⚡  08:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Texasburger.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Crohakon ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Invalid license. Clearly a copyrighted image for which copyright hasn't expired. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:47, 11 March 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.

Turk yerlesim.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, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Turk yerlesim.jpg ‎ ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by maverick16 ( [ notify] | contribs).

delete per nom. These maps are designed to hide Kurdish areas of the region. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * unencyclopedic, wrong map, with no sources, obsolete, Look how it shows Iranic-speaking areas such as northern Iraq, northern Syria, southwestern Anatolia and northeastern Iran as Turkic, while those areas are actually Kurdish-speaking. Ellipi (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Ellipi. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, provided that source declaration and description of the scope and editorial principles of the map are improved. Nothing inherently wrong about showing the whole of Turkey as an area where Turkish is spoken – because, obviously, it is. That other languages are also spoken there, perhaps as regional majority languages, is immaterial to the scope of this map, as it is apparently intended to show merely where Turkic is spoken, not where Turkic is spoken exclusively (which would be near-impossible to map anyway.) Ditto for other "disputed" areas. Same vote for the other versions of the map listed below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: So the Kurdish language spoken in Northern Iraq, northern Syria and northeastern Iran is not an Indo-Iranian language but part of Turkic languages?! Ellipi (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the Kurdish language is outside the scope of this map. If there are several languages spoken in an area, and one of them is a Turkic language, then that language is part of the scope of this map and can be shown; the other isn't. This map differs in scope from a map that might be entitled "languages of northern iraq", where all languages of all families would be shown, with precedence for the local majority languages. – If, of course, you want to argue that the map shows areas where Turkic isn't spoken at all, then do so, but that would still not be grounds for deletion but for correction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Looking at some other data, I'll grant you that the minority areas seem exaggerated though. Same thing with those shown in the Balkans. What's shown in Greece, for instance, might be valid for the 19th century, but certainly not for the present. So, I agree there is some need for corrections. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment; by your argument whole of Anatolia is in the scope of the map for Iranic languages, since Iranic languages are spoken in every region of Anatolia. Ellipi (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's probably true only if you include recent internal migration, which is normally kept separate in maps of this sort. We are talking about autochthonous settlement areas, primarily. On that account, Kurdish would probably be restricted to the southeast. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is no doubt that Turkic is the last linguistic group spoken in Anatolia. Iranian languages predate Turkish by thousands of years. Ellipi (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. The criterion for these kinds of demographic maps is whether there have been stable, local language communities, i.e. significant numbers of settlements that have been traditionally X-speaking (for more than a couple generations). Kurdish in SE Turkey and (presumably) Turkoman in Iraq would count as such, while individual migration into urban centers within the last one or two generations, such as Kurds in western Anatolia or Turks in western Europe, doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Kurdish and other Iranian language have been spoken in western Anatolia for more than two generations. Ellipi (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By individual migrants, sure, but by whole settled stable village communities? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are for example significant Kurdish communities in Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir. Ellipi (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and those are recent, as far as I know. With the bulk of internal migration only in the 1980s. How many were there before that? There is something usually described as the traditional settlement area of Kurds in Turkey, Turkish Kurdistan, and that is somewhere else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The map does not even respect the traditional Kurdish area in eastern, southeastern, southern and central-eastern Anatolia, let alone in western areas. Ellipi (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Didn't I just explain to you that this map isn't about the Kurdish areas at all? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By your argument this map [File:Moderniranianlanguagesmap.jpg] too, should be altered, as whole of Iran lies in the scope of Iranian languages, (Persian). Ellipi (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In principle, showing Persian as the national language as the whole country would be legitimate, yes. Only, in this case it would hide important other information, because (unlike in the Turkish example) the map needs to show several different Iranian languages within that territory. That's why that map is more informative the way it is now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What are your talking about? which map is informative? Ellipi (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Iranian one, with its representation of several related Iranian languages within the territory of Iran. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally which one is your conclussion: A) to add Persian to other non-Iranic speaking areas in Iran B) or to remove Turkish from east and southeastern Anatolia, northern Iraq/Syria, and northeastern Iran? Ellipi (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusion is to judge each map in its own rights, according to its individual needs and scope They are both okay as they are (with minor factual reservations about the Turkish one, as explained above.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. There is already, two maps, one for Turkic languages where they are official:, and the other for Turkic inhabited areas: . Hence I think there is no need for the three maps created by user maverick 16, which confuses both. Ellipi (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That, at last, is a sensible argument. But that still doesn't mean we'd need to delete it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of obsolete and wrong maps for Turkic languages/inhabited areas on wiki. I believe all must be deleted. Ellipi (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Kurkish-Zaza parts in Turkey are missing. Northern Iraq is wrong. Northeastern Iran along the border with Turkmenistan, Kurdish and Persian are spoken. Southern Russia west of Caspian sea is wrong. This map is more accurate Caucasus-ethnic_en.svg Qashqaei parts in Iran are big and spread the whole area. In those areas Persian (Lori) speaking people live side by side Turkic speaking. --Raayen (talk) 13:13, 13 March 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.

Turkic language map3.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: - Deleted as a bit-for-bit copy of the image in the below discussion - Peripitus (Talk) 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Turkic language map3.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Maverick16 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * unencyclopedic, wrong map, with no sources, obsolete, Look how it shows Iranic-speaking areas such as northern Iraq, northern Syria, southwestern Anatolia and northeastern Iran as Turkic, while those areas are actually Kurdish-speaking. Ellipi (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in diyarbakir.. Maverick16 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

delete per nom. Unacademic map. These maps are designed to hide Kurdish areas of the region. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Ellipi. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep There is nobody to hide on those lands Maverick16 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kurkish-Zaza parts in Turkey are missing. Northern Iraq is wrong. Northeastern Iran along the border with Turkmenistan, Kurdish and Persian are spoken. Southern Russia west of Caspian sea is wrong. This map is more accurate Caucasus-ethnic_en.svg Qashqaei parts in Iran are big and spread the whole area. In those areas Persian (Lori) speaking people live side by side Turkic speaking. --Raayen (talk) 13:13, 13 March 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.

Turkic language speaking.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: - No Consensus, and noted that as of now the image is used. The accuracy or use of this image is an editorial issue that must be sorted out at Talk:Turkic_peoples - Peripitus (Talk) 06:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Turkic language speaking.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Maverick16 ( [ notify] | contribs).

delete per nom. Unacademic map. These maps are designed to hide Kurdish areas of the region. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * unencyclopedic, wrong map, with no sources, obsolete, Look how it shows Iranic-speaking areas such as northern Iraq, northern Syria, southwestern Anatolia and northeastern Iran as Turkic, while those areas are actually Kurdish-speaking. Ellipi (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am living in Ergani DiyarbakirMaverick16 (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Ellipi. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

KeepHave you ever been on those lands.. there are big ammount of people speaking Turkish in iran and northern iraq.Maverick16 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: Yes. I've been. But what about Iranian Azarbaijan? There are a lot of Persians and others there. Ellipi (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: I have been too. And there are big numbers of turkish on those lands. Persian, Arabic and Kurdish are speaking but Turkish also speaking by turkomans. And this map shows the truth where Turkic language is speaking. It has to be kept.Maverick16 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

keep per Maverick16 Oguzhan620 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kurkish-Zaza parts in Turkey are missing. Northern Iraq is wrong. Northeastern Iran along the border with Turkmenistan, Kurdish and Persian are spoken. Southern Russia west of Caspian sea is wrong. This map is more accurate Caucasus-ethnic_en.svg Qashqaei parts in Iran are big and spread the whole area. In those areas Persian (Lori) speaking people live side by side Turkic speaking. --Raayen (talk) 13:13, 13 March 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.

Prominent.Kallars.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 as G12 by AnomieBOT ⚡  07:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Prominent.Kallars.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Tamilvendan ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image inaccurately depicts people from different communities as belonging to the Kallar_(caste). User has expressed his personal opinion that the various people in the collage belong to Kallar_(caste) without any sources. ShivNarayanan (talk) 18:58, 11 March 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.

Coen brothers and Scott Rudin.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 - fails WP:NFCC as replaceable with a free alternative - Peripitus (Talk) 06:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Coen brothers and Scott Rudin.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Wildhartlivie ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non-free image used to show information that can be adequately described with (free) text. We don't need a picture of some one receiving an award to understand the award was won. Jay32183 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Using that logic, there really is no need for any images on Wikipedia. This is a low quality screenshot of these three persons receiving the top award among the nearly 70 wins and nominations this particular grouping of people received. The rationale says it is for identification of program and its contents, which is exactly how the image is used - to illustrate the main people receiving the best film Oscar. The use fits the rationale. There is no free use image that is related to this particular film available. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, using that logic, there is little need for non-free images. The image shows three living people, each of whom could be photographed on the street tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Protonk has it right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 15 March 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.

Ycmiddle.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 ⚡  09:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Ycmiddle.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Chad01 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unfree image of a building which is still in existence; violates fair use criteria. fuzzy510 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 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.

William Spring, 1st Baron Lavenham.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 as G8 by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:William Spring, 1st Baron Lavenham.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by 00vis ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Delete. No such person. Kittybrewster &#9742;  22:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. For more info on the series of hoax articles to which this relates, see the list at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 11, particularly Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. The image had been tagged since 18 january 2009 as lacking any license info, and it still had none. So I speedy deleted it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 12 March 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.

Asperger kl2.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 - fails WP:NFCC - Peripitus (Talk) 06:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Asperger kl2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Perl ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * What Hans Asperger looked like is not important to the subject of the articles. A single image is useful in his biography, a different image is used. This one is not needed for any reason. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: it's not really hurting anything and it does make the article look better. It is conceivable that there may be another use for the image in the future.  Even if his image is removed from both Autism and Asperger syndrome I would not be in favor of deleting the image itself. <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in that argument seems to be based on policy. The fact it does no harm is extremely subjective and irrelevent- if the copyright holder is happy for it to be used on Wikipedia, why has it not been released under a free license? Further, we keep non-free images only because they are used in articles- if they are not used, they should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove -- While I don't have an opinion about the picture itself, as it could be relevant elsewhere, I agree that the picture seems superfluous in the Autism and Asperger's Syndrome articles. As it's currently used, it lacks a direct and illustrative relevancy to the content it accompanies.
 * Keep. Asperger's photo is important to put a face on the history of autism and of Asperger syndrome. He is the primary discoverer of autism (along with Kanner), and Asperger syndrome is named after him; both articles easily justify the use of his image. Eubulides (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, as what the guy looked like doesn't matter. What's the image actually telling anyone that they need to know? J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By this argument, hardly any such image should be used in Wikipedia. For example, what the guy looked like doesn't matter to Hans Asperger either, so why not remove Image:Hans Aspergersmall.jpg from there as well? Lots of similar examples could be cited of fair-use images in Wikipedia even when the articles don't discuss the personal appearance of the people in the images. The standard "what the guy looked like doesn't matter" is not Wikipedia policy, and is a standard that images do not need to meet to satisfy fair-use criteria. Eubulides (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because for a full understanding of a person, it would be very useful to know what they look like. A full understanding of Asperger's syndrome would not include knowing what Asperger looked like. There IS policy- NFFC point 8. Something has to significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic, and so the fact that "what the guy looked like doesn't matter" is actually very significant. If it doesn't matter, we cannot justify the use of a non-free image for purely decorative purposes. If you want this image to be kept, you are going to have to explain how the image helps the reader so much, what it's illustrating, and why that needs to be illustrated. Currently, it's just "here's what the guy looked like". J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, decorative use only without adding to readers' understanding of the article. Contributors are requested to read WP:NFCC, particularly #8. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Knowing what Asperger looked like is irrelevant to understanding Asperger syndrome, though I appreciate that putting a face on a name is a useful technique for making articles memorable. In contrast, a biography article is greatly benefited from having a picture because appearance is a vital aspect of a person. Colin°Talk 09:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't need to "put a face" on a medical condition; it doesn't tell us anything about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - do we know that this image is under copyright, and who the copyright holder is? Fences and windows (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Images are assumed copyrighted until proven otherwise, but the fact that the author isn't even credited is a little concerning. If we are going to use the work of others without permission, the least we can do is credit them. J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 16 March 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.