Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 11

File:KTX-II South Korean High-Speed Train.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: deleted as speedy obvious copyvio. It is extremely unlikely that the news agency stole the picture from us rather than vice versa; the date is inconclusive (the picture could easily have been published by the agency before it was used on that particular news article), and the fact that the news agency pic shows a larger crop than our version is proof that they can't have taken it from us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:KTX-II South Korean High-Speed Train.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Softjuice ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Copyright violation: courtesy image of "Yonhap News Agency", see here High Contrast (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP - I am not sure there is a copyright violation here. One stone appears gone between the two photos. What is more important is that user High Contrast used a more current source for the image than the time of submission of the image to Wikipedia. The image of the Korean train appears in the society and culture section of a Japanese article that uses an automated current online date (April --, 2011), noting an earlier date of February 11, 2010 (near the print icon in the upper right of that online article). The Wikipedia entry is January 15, 2010, and claimed creation date on Wikipedia by user Softjuice of January 12, 2010. The image in Wikipedia precedes the online article. Softjuice may very well be the creator of the original photograph. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep User:Thor Dockweiler establishes priority. walk victor falktalk 17:16, 14 April 2011 (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:ILikeIkeGirls.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 ⚡  15:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:ILikeIkeGirls.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ai.kefu ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We don't need a non-free pictures of girls supporting a political draft to make the point the political draft was had popular support. Damiens .rf 13:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an absolutely terrific and germane photo for this article, which concerns the movement to draft General Eisenhower for the presidency. The rationale given for using this photo is right on the money. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Important photo relative to the subject. Is there a copyright violation? Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Also, non-renewed photo copyright before 1963. walk victor falktalk 17:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep only if it can be substantiated that it's PD-no-renew; otherwise delete, fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Images adds insufficient to reader's understanding for it to pass NFCC#8 and there is no proof I can find that it is in the public domain. Who owns the copyright or created the image ? without knowing this we can only assume that copyright was renewed - Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (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:Mmchameleons.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 ⚡  13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Mmchameleons.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Pepso ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Being used in the article Music for Chameleons as a secondary book cover, but there is not a single word in the article to address the image or to justify its use. Its use appears to be solely decorative. Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Info on the 2001 Penguin edition has now been added to both body copy and caption. Pepso2 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The section added to the article just mentions the existence of a new edition of the book. Trivial information used to justify the use of decorative non-free content. --Damiens .rf 15:59, 11 April 2011 (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:Lastoneneta.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. Bottom line: We can't verify the source. Therefore we can't use. Sorry. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Lastoneneta.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Legaleagle86 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Article say image is from 1945, so, cant be 100 years old. Source is invalid. Damiens .rf 16:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is from 1945 and thus as Damiens .rf has rightly pointed out it cant be more than 100 years old. Thus it seems that the PD100 would not be the appropriate license. In India photographs have 60 year protection under copyright law, hence this picture would have come under PD in 2005. Hence IMHO we need to change the license and not delete the picture. LegalEagle (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We need a source to be sure the image was really published on India in 1945. Currently, we haven't. --Damiens .rf 18:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is undisputed that the picture was taken on Aug, 1945. However it would be almost impossible to prove that the image was published in India in 1945, the first authentic (undisputed) use of this image that I have managed to find in the library archive is in the annexure to the Shah Nawaz Committee report of 1956. The image in the SNC report is credited to an earlier British intelligence report of 1945-46 (the content of the intelligence report was classified and only few documents were allowed to be inspected by SNC). However I guess that intelligence report should be declassified by now, I would look up in the web archives and if I find it I would let you know. As of now I do not have any source to prove that the image was published in India before 1956. LegalEagle (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also sent a mail to an investigative journalist group whose website also carries this picture and have asked them to provide more info on the publication date of the image. LegalEagle (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If this image originally came from British Intelligence, then it would be Crown Copyright, which would have expired after 50 years, thus placing the image in the PD in 2006 (50 years after publication). Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP - The copyright is effective from the creation date of the photo. Vietnam term would apply, or if actual British Intelligence photo then it is already in the public domain. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep In the public domain (though it has wrong tag) or photo copyright expired. walk victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 17:01, 14 April 2011 (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:Simpsons Love Is a Many Strangled Thing promo.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 ⚡  12:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Simpsons Love Is a Many Strangled Thing promo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Maad Dogg 97 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Used in infobox, not embedded in analytical commentary, apparently random scene, no visible relation to plot summary, purely decorative use. No meaningful FUR. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep What picture would you propose as more appropriate (one non-free image allowed for identification purposes)? The episode is called "many strangled things" and shows Homer being strangled. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 17:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not true that there is a general blanket allowance of one non-free screenshot per episode article. Every screenshot has to meet the strict criteria of contextual relevance individually. A screenshot is only legitimate if it serves to illustrate something that is crucial for the article, and the object of explicit sourced commentary. This is long-standing practice and policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 15 April 2011 (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:SacramentoBeeArticleJuly8,1947.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: Kept as PD-no-renew. To back this up there are clear references in a few places that the Sacramento Bee did NOT renew copyright for their news papers in this period - Peripitus (Talk) 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:SacramentoBeeArticleJuly8,1947.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Brian0918 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We don't need a non-free scan of a newspaper to make the point that a given subject was covered in one of the newspaper's edition. Damiens .rf 19:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, and with all due respect to anybody who might feel otherwise, one picture is worth a thousand words. There is nothing wrong with using a photo of a contemporary news source to stress the extensive coverage that any given event received at the time. Sincerely, yours truly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Iconic image. Poor resolution. Associated Press article item in Sacramento Bee. Does Sacramento Bee or AP have any problem? Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A fac simile of one of the first Roswell reports not historic? Seriously. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 17:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: check if it might be PD-no-renew (which is quite likely); otherwise delete because its presence is not needed. Nothing in there that couldn't be covered by text alone (including judicious use of quotation, from the headlines etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to meet all criteria for PD-no-renew. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:39, 6 May 2011 (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:RoswellDailyRecordJuly8,1947.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: Kept as PD-no-renew. Just a note that I've done the searching that confirms this as almost certain. If it were not for that I would be in a fix as many of the below keep arguments are very weak - Peripitus (Talk) 22:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:RoswellDailyRecordJuly8,1947.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Brian0918 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We don't need a non-free scan of a newspaper to make the point that a given subject was covered in one of the newspaper's edition. Damiens .rf 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, and with all due respect to anybody who might feel otherwise, one picture is worth a thousand words. There is nothing wrong with using a photo of a contemporary news source to stress the extensive coverage that any given event received at the time. Sincerely, yours truly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP - A scanned image of a real source is worth more than any number of easily editable words. Annaphd (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Iconic image. Poor resolution. Does the Roswell Daily Record or AP for the wirephoto have any problem? Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep See above. And if the Roswell Daily Record has one famous front page it is this one. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 17:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Victor Falk. – George Serdechny 07:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: check if it might be PD-no-renew (which is quite likely); otherwise delete because its presence is not needed. Nothing in there that couldn't be covered by text alone (including judicious use of quotation, from the headlines etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep most likely PD-no-renew, but even if it isn't, the article itself is incredibly famous. I think it is definitely worth keeping with a FUR. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the layout of the news story discussed in the article? Don't think so. We don't need a newspaper scan to talk about its stories. --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 19:49, 6 May 2011 (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:Chillerama.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. DMCA takedown notice received. See Office actions. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Chillerama.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Sk8erock ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Courtesy listing for copyright holder who requests removal in 5652258. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it not the official poster? If so, I find it odd they would want it deleted from an article about their film.  There are many posters on film articles and I've never seen the copyright holder want them removed before, is all.  I'm just curious.  It may not be an official cover. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   21:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They assert that it is "copywritten [sic] private test artwork" and that they "did not authorize this nor wish this art to be out there for public consumption." I previously informed them via OTRS that I would not be deleting it as a copyright violation because it was being used under fair use and was previously published on their official website at http://www.newrebel.org/films/chillerama (archive) for a period of at least 3+ months. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, both sides may well be true. It's their copyright, they don't wish it to be used any longer; still, we could use it under fair use, in principle. But then, why would we? If this is not (or no longer) the official cover art, it fails its professed purpose,i.e. to "identify the product, properly convey the meaning and branding intended", which is the central argument for the infobox FUR. We could make a fair use case if we were to write a section about its production history with a critical discussion of how the artwork evolved or something. But of course we don't have that, and it's unlikely to happen. Therefore delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's truth that this is not the final official poster, Delete since it's useless for Wikipedia. --Damiens .rf 13:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other side, since Chilerama is a upcoming movie, it may make sense to use the only temporary poster material released. The fair use claim sounds strong enough to let us ignore the copyright holder request. So, Keep. --Damiens .rf 13:36, 12 April 2011 (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:Battle of Los Angeles LATimes.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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Battle of Los Angeles LATimes.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Panoptik ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We don't need a non-free scan of a newspaper to make the point that a given subject was covered in one of the newspaper's edition. Damiens .rf 19:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, and with all due respect to anybody who might feel otherwise, one picture is worth a thousand words. There is nothing wrong with using a photo of a contemporary news source to stress the extensive coverage that any given event received at the time. Sincerely, yours truly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, Agreed with above said. It also is the only picture for the article and the license it's under on commons seems to satisfy the keep and use on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. 08OceanBeach S.D.  01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - the top-left image, at least, is an iconic photograph. It's been used multiple times to try to prove the existence of UFOs (note where the searchlights converge; conspiracy theorists allege that there is some kind of alien ship caught in the beams). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the article discuss this? --Damiens .rf 16:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Five minutes of research would have been all you needed. Wow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In Five minutes of research I can find a blog confirming any kind of information. In any case, this FFD is not about that photo, but about a newspaper scan. If what that blogger says is truth, there should be better sources discussing that photo, and a file depicting just it could be uploaded and used. --Damiens .rf  01:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you daft? Blogs written by LA Times reporters are reliable, and feel free to find more sources yourself, but a newspaper article that states "A single moment of the incident was preserved in a dramatic photo that ran in the next day’s Los Angeles Times, the image of several searchlight beams converged on a single point in the night sky above Culver City. Over the years that photo became legend among UFO-ologists who maintain the searchlights were trained on an alien spaceship, and that the photo is evidence of an extra-terrestrial visitation." is certainly enough to prove its iconic status. Drop the stick already? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Iconic image. Poor resolution. Fair use. Does LAT have any objection? Very relavant to topic. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You know we don't keep "iconic images" just because they're iconic, don't you? We keep them to use in articles discussing their iconicity. --Damiens .rf 15:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Crop out the AP photo on the bottom left and then upload at full resolution and retag as PD-US-not-renewed. Per this site (which is reliable at least when I have previously double-checked its dates for NYTimes and LATimes) any LATimes published before January 5, 1958 is now public domain, and all of the rest of the images here are credited to "Times photo". VernoWhitney (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per VernoWhitney. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 17:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's one of the most epic photos I can remember, it represents a very interesting piece of history. Keep it. Definitely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.75.28.45 (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2011 (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.