Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 June 18

< June 17	June 19 >

June 18

File:MikeStefanik cts -90.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the image is low-quality, I didn't see any other images of him on the Commons or Wikipedia. I added the image to the article, and until a better image is found, this one works. Leo 01:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Dhm9025detail.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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted, used in Attack on Derryard checkpoint but doesn't convey any information about the article topic. Fails WP:NFCC criteria 8 and also criteria 1 (e.g., a picture of the checkpoint location today would serve the same purpose). Prezbo (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or replace it by a low resolution pic of the original painting.

First of all, this painting is not replaceable for a picture of the site today, since the checkpoint was taken down in 1991 (It would have been dismantled anyway after the GFA). I have recently came upon some photographs of the place, and what remains is no more than a vacant lot in the middle of the countryside, thus its informative value is dubious, to say the least.

I somehow agree regarding criterion 8: it is just a small segment of the original canvas print. But instead of removing the sample it can be replaced by the whole thing. In fact, we can upload a low resolution of Rowlan's painting to have much more detail. Try here. According to the painter, he not only made his sketchs in situ just days after the attack, but he also reenacted the soldiers position during the action for the painting, therefore this picture certainly have a lot of information about the PIRA's ambush. Let me add that the soldiers posing for Rowlan were the same who took part in the real engagement. I ask to the administrator who will decide to carefully read this proposal and give his/her opinion.--Darius (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the full picture "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic," I don't know. I have a hard time seeing how this does. If you agree that it doesn't meet criterion 8 your vote should be "delete," not "keep,"; whether the full painting would meet that criterion is a separate issue.Prezbo (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if your argument for keeping this is based on the circumstances in which it was painted, then those should be described in the image caption/and or the image description page. Otherwise how would anyone know?Prezbo (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is for keeping the cropped image because it shows the actual member of the KOBS who led the reaction against the PIRA unit, adding substantial info to the article. On the other hand, I somewhat (not outright) agree with the removal on the basis of criterion 8 since we have the possibility of uploading the whole painting, which is by far more informative to the readers than the current sample. Once again, I ask the administrator who would eventually decide on the pic to analyse carefully this alternative. --Darius (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:King's Cross Fire.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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image of very poor quality, utterly fails WP:NFCC #8; I cannot see the difference between this image and a fire drill. Jimbo W junior (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep firedrills do not usually have smoke billowing out of a tube station. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep image portrays a historic event which cannot be replicated and the even is notable enough to have its own article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Largo Town Center Metro.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, poorly framed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to commons if they haven't extended COM:FOP to the US (yet), then delete the whole bunch here. Note: unused is sufficient for deletion, isn't it? "Poor framing" was not called for, even if the subject is your own turf. This is not an art school, nor a featured pic contest. Your image standards may be quite high, but your own pics of the subject aren't perfect either (flare, blown highlights, chroma banding, poor lens resolution, geometric distortion...). Perhaps instead of templating User:Jshgoodwin he'd better be advised to upload to commons? It's a real shame to see flamewars over something as mundane as a photo of a D.C. rail station. East of Borschov (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Cheverly Metro.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality (dirty lens). SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Addison Road-Seat Pleasant.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 Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality (dirty lens). SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Morgan Boulevard Metro.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality (dirty lens). SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Dmurroni.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic Projekt (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:6d96.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic Projekt (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Bill Ayers mug shot.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is a free image of him and WP:NFCC#8 as there is no indication that what he looked like in his younger years is in any way encyclopedic, let alone for this particular image as it is from prior to his notable Weatherman days. I also feel that there are BLP issues as it paints him in a disparaging light while merely being interesting but not encyclopedic. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : NFCC#1 is "no free equivalent". It's vanishingly unlikely that there's a free copy of Ayers booking photo extant. It's an interesting historical artifact, and affords a visual comparison of Ayers as student radical then, vs. respected university professor now -- thus clearly passing NFCC#8. Note that this photo has been a stable part of the Ayers article since 2008. Also see the discussion at Talk:Bill_Ayers#Mug_shot_of_Ayers. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NFCC#8, as there is no discussion of the image itself and the use is decorative. 67.85.125.17 (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I moved the mugshot to Bill_Ayers#Radical_history, to put it into better historical context.

NFCC#8 says nonfree images may be used to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In my opinion, this photo clearly meets those requirements -- it visually demonstrates Ayer's 1968 arrest, and shows the reader Ayers' appearance at the time he "rose to national prominence as an SDS leader in 1968 and 1969" (quote from Bill_Ayers#Radical_history).

The original uploader stated that "Mug shots in the United States are generally released to the public domain, however the uploader does not known if this is the case with regard to mug shots taken by the Chicago P.D., so the uploader is documenting its license under fair use...." Does anyone know if Chicago Police mugshots are considered public domain? --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of demonstrating Ayer's '68 arrest when it's only mentioned in the caption itself? I also think it would be more accurate to say that some mug shots are released into the public domain (although they all breeze past WP:NFCC#2), as far as I can tell from working my way through mug shots it depends on the particular city/county/state/sheriff v. police, but like the uploader I have no idea about the Chicago PD's mugshot status in particular, which is why we assume it's copyrighted until there's evidence to the contrary. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the uploader misses the point of NFCC#8. If the image was absent, the reader would have no trouble understanding that Ayers was once arrested. And any discussion about Ayers' physical appearance seems (which doesn't exist right now) seems to be original reasearch. 67.85.125.17 (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet NFCC8. Seeing what he looked like at the time is not so contextually that we need an FU image. Understanding of what he did and the circumstances would not be damaged at all if this image were removed. ÷seresin 09:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This court ruling strongly suggests that Chicago PD mugshots are indeed PD: "Under both federal court rules and the First Amendment, the trial judge noted, there is a presumption that pretrial discovery materials are open to the public for inspection because the public pays for the courts and, as a result, has an interest in what goes on there. Only if "compelling reasons exist" will access be denied."

So this RfD appears to be moot. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly accessible does not mean public domain. That ruling had nothing to do with copyright. ÷seresin 03:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:NEW PSEimage.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, obsoleted by vector version. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Teru Minilik Teaching.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally strange picture: Who is Minilik? (if not user: Minilik) Is it a photo or a painting? Is it relevant for the wikipedia without a real description? The existantance of the flag in the background is disputed , look here Antemister (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Tigray Flag.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no source, existance of flag and symbol is disputed, look here, the same problem by by a similar flag uploaded by the same user Antemister (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.