Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 11



File:OndaVaselina-1997ET.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 ⚡  05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:OndaVaselina-1997ET.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Afrmx ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * File:OndaVaselina-1995Hoy.jpg File:OndaVaselina-1993LBR.jpg File:OndaVaselina-1992DPT.jpg File:OndaVaselina-1991LOV2.jpg File:OndaVaselina-1990STUR.jpg File:OV7-CD00 cover.jpg File:OV7-2001EDR.jpg File:OV7-2001SieteLatidos.jpg File:OV7-2003Punto.jpg

Also the following files, for the same reason, uploaded by the same user:
 * File:OndaVaselina-1998VMA.jpg
 * File:OV-1989LOV.jpg

JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All of these are used in a mere discography (OV7) and do not fulfill the non-free rationale-critera claimed according to WP:NFCI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NFCI is quite unambiguous: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." In this case we have merely a listing, with no commentary at all, critical or otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, delete them. I believe they serve the same purpose of identification to the reader, as it would on a free-standing article. Supposedly an encyclopedic article should be based on facts and not personal opinions, and to me a critical commentary is based on personal opinions. This makes every single cover art artwork fail to meet the guidelines since we are not supposed to be filling articles based con "critical commentaries". afrmx (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (MTC)
 * 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:Mistemp.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: Speedy delete per author request. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Mistemp.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Twinsday ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * This image has no recognition outside of the context of a TV show. It refers to a particular TV show and is not representative of the subject of the article. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2010 (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:Lick.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Lick.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Tonyandclaire ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * I should also like to add the following files, uploaded by the same user, for exactly the same reasons:
 * File:Ntbk.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * File:Gp.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])


 * Unused personal photo. No context provided for encyclopedic use. Wikipedia is not MySpace. —Bkell (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Files were uploaded by user whose only activity was to use Wikipedia as a personal web host, and who has not edited since February 2009. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't see how they would be useful. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2010 (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:Tacnyc.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 ⚡  05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Tacnyc.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Tonyandclaire ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Unused personal photo. No context provided for encyclopedic use. Wikipedia is not MySpace. —Bkell (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete File was uploaded by user whose only activity was to use Wikipedia as a personal web host, and who has not edited since February 2009. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't see how this would be useful. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, This photo doesn't even have meta data to proven it was actually taken by camera. And it's not being used in any article either. Naval  C  04:28, 17 February 2010 (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:GAZ5903V Vetluga.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 ⚡  05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:GAZ5903V Vetluga.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Boki13 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * PD not verifiable. Source is no longer available, and archived version says nothing about their images being in the Public Domain. See also its deletion request over at Commons. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2010 (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:Arrest of Falung Gong Practitioners in China.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Arrest of Falung Gong Practitioners in China.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by WikiLaurent ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * The activities depicted in the photo have not been independently verified as they are described in the caption. Minghui.org is directly affiliated with the Falun Gong, and there is no other corroborating sources Ouyuecheng (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2010 (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:Execution in China.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 - Note that I have pasted in below discussions from and File talk:Execution in China.jpg as discussion about this image has occurred in numerous places. There is unresolved dispute about the actual source of the image, unresolved dispute about the person-reason-date depicted and a consensus on the review page that the image does not meet the non-free content policy anyway - Peripitus (Talk) 03:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Execution in China.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Dynaflow ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Delete Whilst the photo does appear to show an execution, there is no reliable corroborating evidence on the circumstances. The source listed is a manga article posted by a single user (please also take note of the surrounding pictures of nude buttocks and breasts). Ouyuecheng (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this file doesn't reflect the situation in China today. YellowPops (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no reason to believe this picture is a fake. Some executions in China are carried out by rifle, by the People's Armed Police, which is exactly what this picture is showing. Moreover the picture also appears in reliable sources such as the Laogai Research Foundation. Laurent (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * from Non-free_content_review

This image is being used in the articles Human rights in the People's Republic of China and Capital punishment in the People's Republic of China. Some people seem to be unhappy about this image being present on Wikipedia (check the article histories if you're interested...). Recently, the file has been tagged first db-nopermission (which I removed; for "fair use" images we don't need permission, but we need a rationale), then both db-nopermission and db-f6 ("no rationale", despite the file having rationales&mdash;though I won't comment on their quality&mdash;for both articles it's used in: removed again), and then di-replaceable fair use ("is not irreplaceable").

I've removed all these speedy tags in favor of this nomination here. I don't think this is a speedy deletion case, and this repeated tagging without discussion is counterproductive. I do not see any discussion on the talk pages of the two articles that use the image about whether the image should be used at all; the only related discussion about that topic that I could find is at Talk:People's Republic of China, where it was deemed inappropriate.

As to the sourcing: see the talk page of the file.

What are your thoughts about this image and its uses? "Fair use" applicable or not for the uses in the two articles? Lupo 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This image is used without any permission from the japanese website.Polylepsis (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Polylepsis, please read on fair use and Wikipedia's policy on it. Permission is not needed under a "fair use" usage. Killiondude (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it fails our non-free content criteria because it doesn't convey any information beyond what the text of the articles it's used in do. --Carnildo (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree.Polylepsis (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So should we delete this file ? Polylepsis (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat unhappy about the sourcing of this image (both external links given don't lead anywhere), and apparently there are differing interpretations about what the photo shows: the shooting of a political dissident, or of a double murderer?
 * from File talk:Execution in China.jpg
 * The execution of a Chinese citizen. Record keeping in PRC isn't known for its accuracy.--122.106.250.0 (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Laogai website uses the image here, but doesn't discuss it. Here it is sourced to ABC News via Laogai; and estimated to be from about 1990. The image exists in smaller size, but still with the "abc_execution3_080215" name, at.

At, somebody pointed to this link at sankakucomplex.com, where it is claimed the woman was a murderer. No source given, article from March 2009.

Another place where this series of images can be found is http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350794/posts, where it is claimed that the images showed the execution of Tibetan prisoners. A comment made there says the sign around the woman's neck says she was a murderer and showed her name. The images are hosted on a Korean blog, though the link given at the top of the page is dysfunctional. Whole entry from February 2005, with a date for the Korean blog of end of January 2005 given.

Both rather unsatisfactory sources that don't seem overly reliable.

Interestingly the UCLA uses this image, too, in an announcement of a talk about capital punishment in China. The talk took place in November 2006. Now that looks more reputable, but unfortunately, they don't discuss the image at all.

At an apparently defunct blog (archived link; blog post from April 2005) the images are sourced to www.dailychina.net, an apparently Korean newspaper/broadcasting institution. (www.dailychina.net redirects to www.soundofhope.kr nowadays). At www.infowars.com/articles/ps/china_total_dehumanization_images.htm infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used (doesn't look too reliable either; entry from September 2005), the images are also sourced to dailychina.net.

There are some other sites using this image, variously claiming the people executed were dissidents, drug dealers, or murderers. Some claim the executions were public, others say they took place in a re-education camp.

In the two articles the image is used, it is captioned saying it was an execution of a female double murderer in the 1980s. Unfortunately, we have no reliable source for her having been a double murderer, and none for the date, either. (Of course, we can assume that the photos are not recent but about 20 years old; clothing my also give a clue.)

Even if it's possible that this is perfectly true: can we track down the story behind this image better? I see two avenues: asking ABC about it (did they have an article or broadcast on 2008-02-15 where they used it?), and asking the UCLA. Lupo 13:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.97.107 (talk • contribs) 21:42, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

I have difficulty with your comments. The source for the photo is www.sankakucomplex.com. This source contains other photographs of the same execution and text explaining why the woman was executed.

It would appear from what you say that this image have been used for anti-PRC propaganda purposes on on various sites. The reason the file was re-uploaded, giving the source (www.sankakucomplex.com) was to stop people using it for anti-PRC propaganda on Wikipedia, by labelling the photograph correctly.

The most likely reason why ABC and UCLA used the photo was that they wanted a 'stock photo' meeting their requirements.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in finding out what the image really shows. Time and circumstances. Right now, there are different contradicting accounts. Why should the sankakucomplex version be right? it could be, for all I know, but ideally we'd have some independent confirmation. Evidently sankakucomplex has taken the images from elsewhere. After all, they existed on the internet at least four years earlier. The usage at UCLA and at ABC also predate the sankakucomplex site. An independent account from a reliable source would be best. Lupo 23:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The ABC "source" referenced in the first rationale refers to the images that once were linked in this article, which still exists, but which is not directly related to these images. So asking ABC or the author of that article about these images seems futile. (The image itself also still exists at ABC here.)


 * Having re-read the Sakakucomplex account, the dating of this image to the 1980s (as is done in the image captions at the two places it is used) is clearly wrong. If the account is correct, the image must be from the late 1990s/early 2000s: they state the first murder occurred 1995, then she was sent to a labor camp, where the second murder occurred, after which she was sentenced to death.


 * My asking the UCLA about this image has not given any useful results. However, asking the speaker of that talk (apparently an eminent specialist on the subject of capital punishment in China) at least seems to confirm the sakakucomplex version: while she said she didn't choose that image, she also dates it to the late 1990s/early 2000s based on the uniforms of the policemen. She also said that because the convicted was a woman, the reason would in general have been murder, or drug or child trafficking. Which also aligns with the sakakucomplex account, and with the comment mentioned above that the sign she wore said she was a murderer. Lupo 13:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This Japanese site dates (if I can trust Google translate) the image to 2004-12-13 and says (on 2006-12-02) that it'll be soon the anniversary of her death. They do have her name correct, but I'm not sure about the date. In any case the whole series was also posted on 2004-12-03 here (link at the bottom). Lupo 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It gives me more confidence in the reliability of the site if they show the whole series of photos. The zonaeuropa.com article was useful.  Pity the same humane methods are not used all over Europe.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (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:SEADEVILCRUISE6.15.05JCUV411.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 ⚡  05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:SEADEVILCRUISE6.15.05JCUV411.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Sergiodlarosa ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Orphan, watermarked, three better images of the same skyline on Jersey City, New Jersey. — Bility (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no point in keeping a very inferior image. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2010 (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:Rinolupleop.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 ⚡  05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Rinolupleop.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Uv411 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Orphan, watermarked, original research (photoshop montage). — Bility (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, can't imagine how this would be useful; also note that the creator doesn't want significant changes to this image, so this is bordering on a no-derivatives license. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, yes this is not useful. It's an oprhan (meaning not in an article) and Wikipedia doesn't accept photoshopped photos. Naval  C  04:33, 17 February 2010 (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.