Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 17



File:Helping HaitiRevised.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Helping HaitiRevised.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by XLR8TION ( [ notify] | contribs).

This map has been revised and contains every single nation and territory that has pledged or contributed aid to Haiti. I have revised the map and assured all nations mentioned in the article are represented on the map.--XLR8TION (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a file on commons that is constantly updated (Helping Haiti.PNG) and there is no need for this map, especially considering the fact it's full of errors, some of them even look like intentional. Anyhow we don't need it, because there is a version on commons and because it's full of mistakes. Not to mention there is a Spanish version of the map, it's already a mess to update two files on commons, the last thing we need is another one on Wikipedia. Avala (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure you did, that is why you added Montenegro for an example. You probably confused it with Monaco but regardless it just shows what you did, instead of updating you did just that revision. No need for that, just keep updating the existing file on commons please, and accurately if possible.--Avala (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, no reason to have an obviously-free image here when there's a similar one at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 22 January 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:Sleepy Alice Poster.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: Speedily deleted by F5. Shubinator (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Sleepy Alice Poster.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Moviedude346 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non-notable trivia and no valid excuse to use (more) non-free images in an article. — Mike   Allen   03:28, 17 January 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:Petersen police funeral.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Petersen police funeral.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Grsz11 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non-free image sourced to WTAE-TV. The rationale given is "For use in the article to display the funeral ceremony held for the three victims, and to express the crowds gathered to attend" and "I don't know anybody who owns a helicopter." However, there are already two free images in 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings (File:Pittsburgh police funeral cars.jpg and File:Pittsburgh police funeral bikes.jpg) which appear to show substantially the same information, and thus this image fails WP:NFCC. It is difficult even to see what is in this photograph, since it is of such low resolution; it may fail WP:NFCC. See also the sixth example under WP:NFC, which describes as unacceptable "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." —Bkell (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, even if this were a free image, there really wouldn't be reason to use it because it's so poor of quality. Combine that with its nonfree nature and this is an obvious delete.  Nyttend (talk) 05:42, 22 January 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:Heinrichs1947pd.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Heinrichs1947pd.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by K3vin ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Though tagged as, this is apparently a scan from Who's Who in Michigan: A Biographical Dictionary of Leading Men and Women of the Commonwealth, which is cited as a reference in Sunshine (magazine). But it's already cited as a reference—we don't have to show a scanned portion of it too. —Bkell (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, besides what's already stated, this is copyrighted text, so there's no permission for its use and no way that it can pass the nonfree content criteria. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 22 January 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:LateCampaignWesStreeting.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:LateCampaignWesStreeting.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Andymmu ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Not clear that this non-free image meets WP:NFCC in the context of the MMUnion article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:38, 17 January 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:Leo sam harry.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Leo sam harry.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Quentin X ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Originally nominated at Possibly unfree files/2010 January 8 by User:HJ Mitchell with the rationale "Fails NFCC criteria 3, 8 and 9". Moving to here as PUF is the wrong venue. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 17 January 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:Louie and Fontaine Nudimension Publicity 2009.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Louie and Fontaine Nudimension Publicity 2009.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Estragons ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Usually non-free images of defunct musical groups are used to show the group as they appeared when performing. In this case the non-free image shows the former members of Nudimension being interviewed on TV 20 years after the band broke up and has no relationship to their image as a band. Not obvious that this image meets either WP:NFCC #1 or #8 here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:41, 17 January 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:MOT Spec.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:MOT Spec.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by ToonIsALoon ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Serendipity alert: my car is off being subjected to an MOT test just now. This diagram seems like it could be replaced by a free one, or by text, so that it doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

This image is supplied by the DVLA themselves so i doubt it is an issue. I believe it was referenced to them. Needless to say visit the website for clarification.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as clear violation of WP:NFCC, unless it can be definitely established that the copyright holder has released it under a free license. —Bkell (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Where would i find this license? I've supplied the webpage link, however the image itself i require a "where to start." As it's government based and from a gov website hopefully this isn;t too hard to find?

ToonIsALoon (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt the image has been released under a free license. The source page given says "© Crown copyright" at the bottom, which leads to a copyright page  explaining, among other things, that reusers of the material, including images, must not "re-use the information for promotion or advertising purposes." Wikipedia requires all free content to be free for any use, even commercial use, so this is not free enough. Unless you can find something that shows that this particular image is not subject to the copyright protection described on that page, we cannot consider it to be a free image. —Bkell (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. The image has been deleted from the MOT test page.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 09:17, 20 January 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:MSP430 part number large.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: The result of the debate was: Keep; file is tagged with pd-ineligible. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:MSP430 part number large.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Amf548 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * It is likely that this non-free image can be replaced by free content which serves the same encyclopedic purpose, whether that's text, as seems probably, or a free image. Doesn't obviously meet WP:NFCC #1 or #8 in this context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Observation: It may be simple enough that applies, in which case it should be kept as a free image. —Bkell (talk) 20:29, 18 January 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:MSP430 chipshot.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 ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:MSP430 chipshot.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Amf548 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Not clear that this non-free picture of a CPU meets WP:NFCC #8 in the context in which it is used. Might not meet #1 either although there is a visible trademarked logo at this resolution, but see File:MSP430-experimenter boards.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems replaceable to me. The presence of a trademarked logo may not affect the copyright status of a user-created image, as long as the logo itself isn't the primary subject of the image. See Image policy: "Some images may contain trademarked logos incidentally (or purposely if the image is either freely licensed, covered under freedom of panorama, or being too simple to be copyrightable). If this is the case, please tag it with trademark." —Bkell (talk) 20:32, 18 January 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:Macquarie University Station Platform Proposed.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Macquarie University Station Platform Proposed.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Damaster98 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Was previously nominated at IFD (Files for deletion/2007 November 12). Was kept, but still doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet WP:NFCC—its use in Macquarie University railway station, Sydney is in an image gallery. (See WP:NFG.) Also fails WP:NFCCb, as it is a high-resolution image. I understand from the article that this railway station is now open to the public, so furthermore this image is easily replaceable and thus fails WP:NFCC. —Bkell (talk) 20:36, 18 January 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:Malice Mizer - Au Revoir 01.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 ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Malice Mizer - Au Revoir 01.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Gothic Mana-Sama ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * A non-free image used to illustrate a fashion in Japanese music at Visual kei. Seems unlikely that no free content-licensed image could be found or be created - think of tribute bands- to replace this. Doesn't obviously meet WP:NFCC Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:12, 17 January 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:Manta Mirage.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Manta Mirage.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Idiotcountry ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Rationale for this non-free image states that "[n]o other original factory images are freely available", but it isn't obvious to me why it is necessary to have a factory image. These vehicles were produced in relatively low volumes, but they are not that rare: editors in New Zealand can buy one here. Should be replaceable so doesn't meet WP:NFCC I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, easily replaceable. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 22 January 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:Manta mirage side.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Manta mirage side.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Idiotcountry ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * [If you have a feeling of déjà vu, that will be because this is a cut and paste nomination.] Rationale for this non-free image states that "[n]o other original factory images are freely available", but it isn't obvious to me why it is necessary to have a factory image. These vehicles were produced in relatively low volumes, but they are not that rare: editors in New Zealand can buy one here. Should be replaceable so doesn't meet WP:NFCC I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:23, 17 January 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:BugsySiegel.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 ⚡  06:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:BugsySiegel.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Joyson Noel ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Already another fairuse image of him in the article on him, this is overused in another article as well and has less established sourcing compared to the other image. Further, this appears to be a promotional image and the other file is a police file, so the issues of infringement are probably greater with this image.  MBisanz  talk 19:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is another FU image in the article, but it is a mugshot. I have never been convinced that mugshots ever satisfy NFCC.8, but that's not what we're discussing. I don't think a free image of him can be created, so a FU image used for identification is justified in my mind. However, MBisanz is correct that the source information is insufficient. So until/unless the source information clears, this should be deleted. ÷seresin 00:36, 25 January 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:GalliGalliSimBush.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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 ⚡  02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:GalliGalliSimBush.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Bwithh ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * No explanation of how this image meets WP:NFCC. Copyright belongs to AFP, so use of image on Wikipedia diminishes commercial opportunities. Mosmof (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't quite see how this harms commercial opportunities, but it doesn't significantly add to the articles. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 22 January 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:JD Salinger.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: de-bigulate (props: Blargh29). And since that's been done we can close this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:JD Salinger.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Daniel Case ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * The image is quite a high resolution (337 x 414px) and at this high resolution is not fair use in my opinions. The image shown in the article is smaller (200 × 246px) than this, so I think that the uploaded image can be smaller in resolution, without too much loss of value. This image was considered for deletion previously, but the size of the image was not considered at that time. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be too hard to take it down to 300px, which seems to be all it needs. You could have just used fair use reduce. Daniel Case (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The original needs to be deleted, and I think that it has been on the wiki at this size for too long already. Snowman (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I could just reduce my copy to 300px and upload over it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Not only is that how we've brought tons of other pictures into FUC compliance, I think the image in the article infobox displays at whatever the user's default size is in preferences since there's no line to specify a size. Mine shows at 300; yours may be at 200. There's no need to delete the image, as I've said.
 * Delete: The original image should be deleted, because its is to big to be available on the wiki as fair use even in the archives. The reduced size image should not be uploaded over the original image, which would make the original image available to anyone in the archives. I also think that the image at a width of 300px is too large and that the original should be no larger than 200px. 99% of people do not set the image size so most people would see it at 200px. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If, when the reduced image is uploaded, the non-free reduced is added, this will ensure that the unused, oversized files are deleted and will then be visible only to administrators. This is all quite routine and really doesn't need a discussion here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information about the use of the non-free reduced which I have not heard of before. I have uploaded a smaller version. I am hoping that the underlying larger image will be deleted as soon as possible. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Salinger is a well-known recluse. Obtaining a free replacement is almost impossible. Concerns about the size can be easily solved with a de-bigulator. --Blargh29 (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, this image has been used as an example of a significant exception to the no-nonfree-images-of-living-people standard; since the size is the only issue here, there's no reason to delete the new, properly-sized image. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 22 January 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.