Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 10



File:Djmckee1 Name Title.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 ⚡  07:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Djmckee1 Name Title.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Djmckee1 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * No longer of any encyclopedic use as far as I can tell. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  04:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused image. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unused and pointless ... -- Luka govisky (talk) 01:40, 16 October 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:Ccgc des grosileurs moored at Nanisivik.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 ⚡  07:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Ccgc des grosileurs moored at Nanisivik.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Geo Swan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Original justification for Free Use (NFCC#1) is no longer valid, the image has been replaced by File:20AUG2010.JPG, a free version depicting effectively the same thing. kelapstick (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I uploaded the fair use image 26 months ago. I concur that the new free image should supercede the original.  I don't agree that it effectively depicts the same thing, as the new image focuses on the moored vessel, and does not show the approach to the pier, and how isolated, primitive, and undeveloped the pier is.  But I do not believe that is sufficient to argue for keeping the image.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * link from Geo Swan. --kelapstick (talk) 23:50, 12 October 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:Currency-Symbol Regions of the World circa 2006 cropped.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Currency-Symbol Regions of the World circa 2006 cropped.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Citynoise ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Substantial errors and omissions, as detailed at talk page. If the content of a map is random in its inclusion, and unreliable in its content, it is terminally flawed in terms of its encyclopaedic value Kevin McE (talk) 11:42, 10 October 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.
 * As ways of assisting editors in finding the correct way to do something, that is about as unhelpful as it is possible to be. Kevin McE (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

File:1953renminribao.GIF

 * 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:1953renminribao.GIF ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by John Smith's ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads)

The uploader seems to copy this image directly from some blogs and forums. Some recent editing efforts can also been seen in this image but the uploader haven't given more information about who made him and state whether the author of this image allows to distribute his own work in accordance with GDPL or CC-BY 3.0 License. One of the possible original sources may be this blog or other blogs or forums. Yet I couldn't find out an official archive to confirm the validity of this image. --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As per below, the tag on the article shows why this can be used on Wikipedia. As a scan of a newspaper there is no new copyright generated. Moreover, there is no requirement for it to have come from an "official archive". However, for the record, a copy of the image can be found here. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement for an "official archive" but the image from Blogspot is probably in violation of WP:SPS. Can anyone check it in any possible WP:Reliable source? Also, this image is not only a mere scan of a newspaper, it involves new editing work on it and this is copyrighted. --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not in violation of SPS, it is just displaying an image. Editing does not generate copyright. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also note that the image of the "Japanese" map on the same article would also fall foul of SPS if this newspaper image did. There is also no evidence that the Waseda archieve page is reliable, as we have no verification of who created the website and uploaded the images. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think John Smith confused with WP:SPS and WP:Reliable source. Simply put, Blogspot is where everyone can edit. And the Waseda archive is run by Waseda University, which is one of the most well-known universities in Japan.
 * John, besides the anonymous blog you mentioned, could you look for the scan from other more reliable source? --Winstonlighter (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're talking rubbish. How can I be confusing SPS and reliable sources when you quoted both of them as being a reason to delete the image? If SPS applies to this image it applies to the one on the Waseda website. The only issues, therefore, is reliable sources.
 * It's not for me to find sources you can agree with. Blogspot can be edited by anyone, but this is not an independent invention. This book, for example, refers to the article and the text. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think John has refused to calm down to see the reasons for the request for deletion. By arguing that an image from blogspot is as reliable as an image from prestigious Waseda University of Japan or a book from Google Books and Scholars, it's waste of our time. Again, I've asked - Do you have a reliable source for this image when you upload it? In fact, as an experienced editor, why did you forget to add your blogspot source when you uploaded this image? You probably know the gudieline better than me. --Winstonlighter (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Remin Ribao figure is that strong even. However, as with a lot of pro-Japanese evidence that are put onto the wiki page, there's a strong selective representation of facts. I'd advise you to read that article even if you don't deem it authentic (I believe it is authentic, but that's me). In it, you'd find that the article clearly said Americans occupied the islands and drew distinction between Okinawa and Japan. The full text can be found in Oda Mari's post in this thread. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep I presume that the nominator's lack of comment on the fact this article is referred to in the aforementioned book, of which he has used to cite various passages in the article this image is used in, is due to the fact that he concedes this article is not a fake. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete: The uploader stated that the file comes from an unnamed blogger from blogspots (that information is hided in the description page) but the uploader still fails to point out how the blogger gets the image. It's in violation of WP:SPS and WP:Copyright. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You've nominated it for deletion - why are you saying "delete" here as well? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - The image does not appear to be reliably published by a verifiable source as required by Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Would Winston or STSC like to comment on why this image should be deleted if the existance of the article is supported by an academic reference (one that Winston has cited numerous times in the article by the way)? Is the allegation that this may be a fake reproduction of a real historical source?? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found another article that refers to this Renminribao piece, this time from the Taipei Times a few years ago. So now we have two independent references to the 1953 article existing. Are they both wrong? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:13, 18 October 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:PRCmap-senkakuislands.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: no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:PRCmap-senkakuislands.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by John Smith's ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads)

While the image may be in public domain, the image was scanned, reproduced and probably retouched and edited by Washington Times. The current tag indicates that it's the work of People's Republic of China however it also contains copyrighted work from Washington times. Please decide if it is fair use or delete it. --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Washington Times cannot copyright the work because it is in the public domain, per the tag used on the article. There is no other copyrighted work in the image belonging to the Washington Times. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep-POV nom did not even tag the image.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nothing in that picture is copyrightable to the Times. It's an exact copy of the original map, as far as I can tell.  Wikipedia has held before that organizations cannot acquire copyright on a public domain work simply by making a copy themselves in a copyrighted location.  While they can copyright unique features (say, if they added an overlay of English information, that English info itself may be copyrightable), but in this picture the did not.  I have to say, it's very hard to AGF when the nominator is so explicitly nominating only one POV of pictures, especially under a rationale that is at best specious. There is no reason to assume that the Times either retouched or edited the picture in any way that grants them a copyright. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did a brief search and all other sources that talk about this map refer back to the Washington times article. While the article claims that it is a classified map created by the PRC, there's nothing that really backs the claim. At the same time, nothing indicates that PRC considered those islands as part of Japan even though the article mentioned some dividing line that cannot be seen in the picture. In fact, the figure itself doesn't seem to say anything other than the fact that the PRC used Japanese versions of island names in that map if that was even a classified map created by the PRC. Not a good or reliable figure, if you ask me. I'd say a better way to do it is to simply say Washington Times claimed this and that based on their alleged acquisition of a classified PRC map. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Immediate Deletion: The original map (before it was obtained by Washington Times) does not appear to be reliably published by a verifiable source as required by Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Deletion: (1) Credibility of Washington time. (2) If Washington Time is right, this picture is copyrighted and will cause potential problem for wiki. There is no proof that this is in public domain, especially as a result of the Washington Time comment itself. The fact that WT stole it does not mean it is in public domain.(3) A more credible map should be the full map showing the date and publisher, this is a crop which could come from anywhere. Having said that, I have no problem with wiki linking to the Wahington Time report, it just should not be uploaded to wiki. San9663 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be in the public domain - fair usage would apply even if it wasn't exempt from copyright. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The nominator's rationale is a nonsense. And do you detect a hint of canvassing? Me too. Having said that, it is hardly self-evident that a "classified map" falls into any of the PD-PRC-exempt categories. That being so, this seems to be non-free. If so it is obviously replaceable and fails WP:NFCC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it replaceable? I think you're missing the significance of the image. It's not that it's a map of the islands, it's that according to the Washington Times it's a Chinese map adopting their Japanese names and suggesting Japanese jurisdiction/sovereignty. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's replaceable because anyone could write a description of what this map purports to show, and where it was published, and convey every last bit of information that this image does. Indeed, the caption to the image already comes fairly close to doing just this, and even links to the article which is the source for the claim, just like Verifiability says to do. It's also replaceable because anyone with the right tools could create a map that conveyed the same information and label it in Chinese and English. But that wouldn't be so good as replacing it by text. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But if you delete the image then people are going to say "well, where is this image?" It's not enough to say it exists, people will want to see it. If someone created another version of it they would be making a version that could easily be criticised as a fake - after all it would admit to being a fabrication. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are these people who will be confused? Any reader (or editor) can click on the footnote and then on the link to the Washington Times. This is always what we do. We don't make exception just because some people think the source is wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First, what happens if or when the Times article is archived and taken off line - it will be too late to upload the picture then. Second, that the image can be found someone else is not a prohibition on it being used here in this case. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There will still be copies of the newspaper in major libraries, or lurking behind paywalls. Mere convenience is not a reason for using non-free content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case I'm not sure how it would ever be possible to use non-free content on Wikipedia, given that one of the requirements is for it to have been published somewhere else first. But in any event, it merely being available somewhere else in theory doesn't mean that it fails the first criteria. That's about a free image, not a theoretically accessible version of what's to be deleted on Wikipedia. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You tell me - you are a reputable editor. But in case you don't know, you can always reference a non-free source and then summarize its contents. As for images, there are tonnes of images available worldwide... especially in free newspaper articles. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of that to my above point or indeed the discussion as to whether the image should be deleted or not? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. If the image does not fall under PD-PRC exempt it would not be replaceable in the slightest. The image itself is shown as having significance due to the text used, which supposedly adds weight to Japan's argument that before 1969 China saw the islands as Japanese. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per Angus McLellan. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the nominator who originally called for the image's deletion. I don't understand why he has left this message as well. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: It appears I am not the only one who feels that this image seems to be an instance of canvassing. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * keep There is no evidence provided by the nominator that the Washington Times retouched the image. If some editors' suspicion become the evidence, all the image currently in Wikipedia will be deleted. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:56, 16 October 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:Letter of thanks from ROC consul to Ishigakijima in 1920.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 discussion has been moved to Wiki Commons by Winstonlighter. --Winstonlighter (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The low resolution image comes from a personal page of geocities which is probably in violation of WP:SPS. It is unknown about who scanned, retouched, reproduced this image and whether he allowed, if the source is authentic, the reproduction of this image. All meta data are lost and fail to give any clues on it. The copyright and the real source of this image is vague. --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I suspect Winstonlighter's nominations of being POV. He is selecting all the images that can be argued to support Japan's claim to the Senkaku Islands, an article that he has edit-warred over and been ordered by an admin to stop edit-warring over. He now appears to be turning his hand to nominating all of these supporting images for deletion on dubious grounds. He not nominated the "Japanese" map that has been used to support the PRC/ROC's claims, despite that that too comes from a website where the details about the uploader cannot be verified.
 * This is not self-published material, it is posting an image that has been scanned. The copyright is clearly expired. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Final observation, it's a commons image, so can't be dealt with here. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If John is trying to assume bad faiths all the time, it will only lead us into nowhere. Please be respectful. I was actually on the way to propose to delete all unreliable images in the article but some images are in the Commons and I still figure out how to do it. Anyway, I am in the same position as you to want to keep the article with more images, but Wikipedia has becomes a source of many media and mistakes in Wikipedia can be spreaded so easily. When an uploader copied images from bloggers, personal homepages, forums and failed to mention these kinds of WP:SPS source in some files, I think it's justified to ask if it's in accordance with WP:SPS, WP:Reliable and WP:Copyright. --Winstonlighter (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Winston, you don't nominate an article for deletion unless you want it deleted. If you're merely not sure about an image, you can ask on the various project pages and notify those of us working on the article talk page. Of course I am ready to assume good faith, so why don't you withdraw all of your nominations and seek assistance/comments from others instead? That would be more productive.
 * As I pointed out above, this is also a commons image - so why did you nominate it for deletion? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The images have been uploaded for many weeks. As a well-read invovled participants on this topic, I was looking for a reliable source for those images in the past two weeks, but I couldn't find any of them. Sorry. As an uploader, you should be responsible for uploading material in accordance with WP:SPS. Please don't upload whatever you can grab from blogs or forums and then ask everyone to look for a WP:reliable source for you. Please be more responsible.  --Winstonlighter (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So, as I said, you're not innocently seeking advice, you're actively seeking these images' deletion. Once again this image is on commons, so why haven't you nominated the other commons images for deletion here too? Are you going to waste an admin's time in looking this over before saying you'll have to list the image for deletion there? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First, assume bad faith. Second, trying to defame a user and blame his request for deletion on malicious intention. Anyway, I've just learned how to file a deletion request in Commons and it's done now.
 * However, if you still speak in this unproductive tone and constanly assume bad faith and border yourself on WP:PA, I would have no choices but to ignore you. --Winstonlighter (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not defaming you by pointing out your actions. If you're acting in a POV, bad-faith fashion by making selective nominations that needs to be highlighted. I can see that you've added a nomination for this on commons. I presume you're going to make those other nominations on commons too? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is closed already? wtf? Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This file is in Commons so I moved the discussion to here. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And I moved it to commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Letter of thanks from ROC consul to Ishigakijima in 1920.jpg. Deletion requests get their own pages. Please read the instructions on Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:08, 15 October 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:Pheneus2.gif

 * 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 ⚡  21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Pheneus2.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ellygrace88 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Unused map, tagged but pretty clearly scanned from some other source. —Bkell (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused file. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:41, 10 October 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:Pheneus.gif

 * 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 ⚡  21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Pheneus.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ellygrace88 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Unused map, tagged but pretty clearly scanned from some other source. —Bkell (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused file. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:42, 10 October 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:Mycalessus.gif

 * 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 ⚡  21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Mycalessus.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ellygrace88 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Unused map, tagged but pretty clearly scanned from some other source. —Bkell (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused file. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:42, 10 October 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:Mycalessus2.gif

 * 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 ⚡  21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Mycalessus2.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ellygrace88 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Unused map, tagged but pretty clearly scanned from some other source. —Bkell (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused file. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:42, 10 October 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.