Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 April 11



File:JohnFHill.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 ⚡  02:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * File:JohnFHill.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ai.kefu ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

orphan image with poor source information. we just know what some blog says about it. damiens.rf 03:28, 11 April 2014 (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:FrankHarrisHitchcock.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 ⚡  02:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * File:FrankHarrisHitchcock.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ai.kefu ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

orpahn image of a unknown man with a deadlink as a source. damiens.rf 03:28, 11 April 2014 (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:FrankHHitchock.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 ⚡  02:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * File:FrankHHitchock.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ai.kefu ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

orpahn image of a unknown man with a deadlink as a source. damiens.rf 03:29, 11 April 2014 (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:Dead Draw Aerial View looking South, August 1992.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 ⚡  02:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Dead Draw Aerial View looking South, August 1992.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by I am One of Many ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free photograph of a protected historic area in the US, used to show a certain topographical feature (the presence of wagon ruts stemming from the time of an 1870s gold rush). Replaceable with a new photograph. Uploader has argued that new photographs would no longer show the wagon ruts as clearly as on this 1992 photo. However, he has provided no proof of this assertion – the only information we have is that those (apparently few) free photographs he happens to have found (and which were apparently all taken from the ground) did not show them as clearly, not that they have objectively gone and could no longer be photographed. Uploader has admitted that a new aerial photograph might well still show them. There also seems to be no objective grounds for the supposition that they are gone – they survived a hundred years without being protected, so why should they suddently have vanished in the twenty years after measures were taken explicitly to protect them? To demonstrate that this is irreplaceable, we'd need to show proof that somebody at least tried to replace it, i.e. a new comparable photograph taken from a similar angle under similar lighting conditions (this one was evidently taken in the early morning to increase the effects of shadows on the ground).

Replaceable-speedy was declined, so taking it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: It appears the wagon ruts are still visible even on Google Earth, so they are definitely still there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. I was just looking over Deadwood Draw and north of the windmill, the ruts are amazing. Indeed, the area I zoomed in on in Google maps would be better than the 1992 photo. However, the four 1992 arial photos in the NRHP application and the Satellite images from Google maps are all the known images we have of the ruts from above.  I don't think it is reasonable to believe that someone in the future will take some arial photos of Deadwood Draw with the wagon trails and upload them with a free licence (I know I'm not going to hire someone to do it, and that is the only way it would get done I believe--I also live in California, so it's not feasible for me to check the situation out). So, I think that this image falls under the exception that it is not reasonable to expect an equivalent image to become freely available https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy. I am One of Many (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, the threshold for such an exception is much higher. It is not required that something should be effortless or easy or cheap to replace, or that it should be equally easy for anybody no matter where they live. What counts is that it is possible. There are people out in Nebraska, and if it really should be necessary to have an aerial shot, there are still people who have access to recreational gliders, or toy drones, or who can afford renting a half-hour ride in a helicopter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your interpretation of effortless, easy, or cheap. There are a number of people around the US who take photos of places in NRHP at considerable effort and I imagine some expense the themselves (I deeply appreciate their efforts).  But, don't you think that the wording: "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."[my emphasis] implies some non-zero probability that a free file will be uploaded?  If we look at aerial photographs of Nebraska at commons, we see that 22 photos have been uploaded .  None of which are close to the quality needed to show the ruts at Deadwood Draw.  Also, there have been a number of aerial photographs on Nebraska airports uploaded but they also lack the detail necessary .  On the other hand, there are many good-quality pictures of buildings in Nebraska.  So, my argument is this:  while it is reasonable to expect that someone could upload a free file of a building (that still exists) in Nebraska, it is not reasonable to expect that someone will upload a free file of Deadwood Draw because, to the best of my knowledge, no similar aerial free file of any geographical location with the requisite detail has every been uploaded. I am One of Many (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Further Comment @Fut.Perf. I spent a couple of hours going through the archives in Non-free content criteria. FUC #1 has been discussed a lot over the years and especially since  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy. The most recent discussion of substance I could find was here, which attempted to reconcile the language of the Wikimedia Licensing policy with FUC #1.  However, there was clearly no consensus to do so and Wikipedia can adopt its own policy so long as it is not weaker than Wikimedia's.  So, it looks to me as though the phrase "no free equivalent could be created" is interpreted very strictly on Wikipedia.  There are a number of editors on either side of the fence on this, but there has been no consensus to change it (I would be on the side of changing it to "could reasonably"), but I also realize that this is a very complex issue.  Therefore, I believe your interpretation does accurately reflect current policy on a very difficult subject.  I'm going to go ahead an remove the photo from Deadwood Draw, so you can go ahead and delete it. I am One of Many (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2014 (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:Professor Hickey and Jeff Winger.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 ⚡  02:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Professor Hickey and Jeff Winger.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Drywater2k ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Simply shows two characters standing next to each other, no significant contribution to understanding the article, clear NFCC#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even a screenshot, but a promotional photograph that does fail NFCC8 by a mile; doesn't add any understanding to the episode linked outside of 'old guy and younger man with lunch tray' for those who don't watch the show.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:26, 14 April 2014 (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:Old Timey Photo Club 2014.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 ⚡  02:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Old Timey Photo Club 2014.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Drywater2k ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. The topic this ostensibly illustrates (the "photo club") is not even mentioned anywhere else in the article and has no relation to the rest of the plot that I can identify, while two analytical claims made about it in the caption (that it somehow references The Shining, and that it features some of the show's creators) are also not linked to the rest of the article, and moreover appear to be unsourced and possibly OR. It is also not clear how and why these points would be in need of visible illustration to be understood, even if they could be linked to legitimately sourced material in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless a fan of the show understands it from the start, it's just an oddball sepia-toned false old-style photograph to most. As someone who doesn't watch the show I'd look at this and wonder why it was in the article; text explains much better than the image in this place, which is also a promotional photo, not even a screencap from the episode, so there's that COPYVIO buzzsaw we're running into also.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:25, 14 April 2014 (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:KekePalmer1.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 ⚡  02:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * File:KekePalmer1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by 25stash ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused image, personal photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Judging from uploader's other uploads, Keke Palmer didn't come here to upload it. This has all the makings of a picture ripped from her Instagram, and we have free-use pictures of the subject already.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:28, 14 April 2014 (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.