Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 July 15

< July 14	July 16 >

July 15

File:Pubic Hair on the crotch.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 Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedia use. Eeekster (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (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:JamesStrauss.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 as G7 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The subject of the image preferred a different image to be used in his article" claimed on media description, meaning this image is unused outside userspace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally added this to the subject's article which at that time had no image. The subject then replaced my image with another. Considering it's a BLP, there's nothing one could do about it. No new development having materialized in the meanwhile, I agree with deletion. Kraxler (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2014 (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:Photo-0017.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal file, marked as not being useful for commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2014 (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:L e6c80b12aab73cd3979e71308e5db8ae.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. TLSuda (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this is claimed as a self(And I don't see any reason to question that), it was disputed on the media description page with the claim "Uncertain copyright status, would need OTRS to clarify first.". Either the self claim is incorrect, or the claim of uncertainty is unwarranted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the disputed bit is baseless without evidence. In other words, there's no apparent reason for someone to dispute the authorship claim. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2014 (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:North-melbourne-railway-station-diagram.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date; superseded by File:North-melbourne-railway-station-diagram-2013.png on Commons. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2014 (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:A table describing licensed oral cholera vaccines.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media is tagged as: "Unreferenced medical info, including date-sensitive material (costs, approval status); should be a wikitext with refs to enable keeping up to date and WP:V/WP:MEDRS policy if it has a use." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2014 (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:MaNov3.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused usertspace file. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2014 (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:Map of a roleplay War.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal file, Wikipedia not for made up stuff, considered out of scope for Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; claimed as personal! Completely useless. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2014 (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:Test for upload.pdf

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 as F10 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, seemingly a test image for a sandbox. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2014 (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:Test file for sandbox upload tatri 2.pdf

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 as F10 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, test or sandbox image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2014 (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:Test for sandbox.pdf tatri 3.pdf

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 as F10 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, test or sandbox image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2014 (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:Practice figure for wikipedia.pdf

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 unless sandbox is deleted. TLSuda (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, Test or sandbox image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it's being used in context at the uploader's sandbox. I'm not inclined to believe that we should keep the sandbox, but that's a decision for MFD. Perhaps we should close this as "keep, but if the sandbox is deleted, delete the image too". Nyttend (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2014 (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:Profile (2).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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, no identifying data at all.. photo of minor. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2014 (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:Gilberto Concepción de Gracia.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. TLSuda (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have enough information about the copyright status of this image to claim fair use. The source information is just the url of a (now dead) website on free web hosting site tripod. damiens.rf 18:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this has nearly the same image in colour, Tony, are you involved with them at all? This would be a more suitable source for a Fair Use image than tripod site. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Users kelapstick and damiens. You all know how it is sometimes with the original sources. Many of them are no longer in use or dead as the years pass. I am not involved with the enciclopedia pr, however I cited it as a source (new source) since the photo is identical and I believe that the rationale of usage is a sound one. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should upload the colour one as a new version of the black and white one. That way the image matches the source. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, if there is no objections from User:Damiens.rf, the nominator. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and uploaded the colour version so it matches the source data (it would have to be done anyway) and deleted the former black and white revision of the file (which, as a non-free file would have to be done as well). I believe all the issues that Damiens.rf have been addressed now. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a completely new issue now. The new picture was downloaded from the online encyclopedia "Enciclopedia de Puerto Rico" (EPR). By illustrating our online biography of Gilberto Gracia with the photo EPR uses to illustrate their Gilberto Gracia's online biography, we are replacing the original market role of the original copyrighted material.
- We are making their website less valuable by copying their work into ours.
- And they seem to worry about copyright (® Derechos Reservados). --damiens.rf 19:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue you had was the source date was no longer available because the site was down, the image has been replaced with a new file which does have source data available. The fair use tag states where we got the new (colour) image from (EPR). This is the same effect as if someone had uploaded a new image from Encyclopedia PR in parallel with this file, or after this file was deleted as lacking source data. EPR likely does not own that image anyway, as it was the exact same image we had before, with the exception it is colour. Yes it is a new issue, but in my opinion the fair use rational satisfies NFCC, and is properly tagged. The only think I would prefer to know is who the author is. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As you do still have issue, I have reverted back to the version prior to my upload of the colour version, I will leave it as is until the discussion is complete. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll look for some advice on the matter. --damiens.rf 20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Source linkrot is never an acceptable reason for the deletion of an image. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2014 (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:Antonio Broccoli Porto.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: Keep as there is OTRS permission available. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really free. Just an undocumented permission-to-use allowance. damiens.rf 20:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Damiens.rf, the file has a valid release under GFDL (actually signed in pen, which is more than normal) on OTRS. I have just viewed it to verify. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, now that the OTRS link was provided. Good work! --damiens.rf 21:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be fair, the OTRS was already there and I somehow missed it. Blame on me. --damiens.rf 21:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I am not that talented, I am going to close this if there is no objection from you (if there is just revert my closure). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:14, 15 July 2014 (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:Vargas arrest by Ryan Grim via WashPo, 07 15 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC#8. Exclusion of the image would not detract from informing the reader that the subject was arrested. Nor does its inclusion significantly increase the readers' understanding of the event. He was arrested in an uneventful fashion--just like hundreds of others every day. Veggies (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - the photo shows Vargas being handcuffed behind his back. It shows that it was a real arrest in one of those airport lines most of us have stood in, not one of those "show up at the police station with your lawyer" type arrests. It also shows that it was not a case of police brutality (at that instant in any case). So the photo shows the manner of the arrest, which the simple word "arrest" does not do. A picture in this case is worth a thousand words. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fail to see what "thousand words" this picture conveys that the article cannot. You've admitted that the arrest was public and non-brutal and, thus, it's no different than any other arrest that occurs hundreds (if not thousands) of times a day. NFCC is very clear about this: the image should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." You stated what happened very clearly and the image does not add something to it so profound that it merits its preservation. -- Veggies (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that an arrest is just an arrest. Your interpretation of NFCC#8 would disallow any fair use by tightening it from "significantly increase readers' understanding" to "so profound that it merits its preservation," which has nothing to do with WP policy. I won't try to give you a thousand words, but the photo does significantly increase the reader's understanding that almost anybody traveling within the US could be arrested for immigration violations at airports if they are not carrying the proper documents. It shows some of the humiliation that goes with being arrested. It makes it clear what those lines in airports are all about. It helps to make clear why this is different from "any other arrest" and why both the NY Times and the Washington Post carried the story on the same day as the arrest. Please don't try to make NFCC#8 into something that it is not - a prohibition of all fair use photos. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I've read the article and find nothing in it that mentions the intricacies of immigration law, so your point that the picture "shows" something so broad and undefined is false. The image shows no more than what the article says: the man was placed in handcuffs. The other extrapolation you make (that "anybody traveling within the US could be arrested for immigration violations at airports if they are not carrying the proper documents") is free-use replaceable with any other non-copyrighted TSA arrest photo (so, thus, admittedly violation NFCC#1). -- Veggies (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The horrid glare makes it hard to see what's going on, and this specific image conveys nothing that text doesn't, except "the photographer was on the other side of a pane of glass", "Vargas was standing on a floormat", etc. The poor quality of the image actively detracts from the article; this is the kind of image that we remove even if it's undisputedly free. On top of that, I was counting on a keep vote for a historically significant image of the arrest of Getúlio Vargas. The scene pictured here, unlike a scene that I was expecting, has had no historic significance, and including it because it will be historically significant is not permitted. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2014 (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:LPO-first-programme-1932.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. TLSuda (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused mock-up Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working my way through the London orchestras, having got the LSO, BBC SO and RPO up to GA, only the Philharmonia and LPO to go. The image will go in the last of these in due course. Kindly leave unmolested. Tim riley talk 00:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since it will be used. Renominate for deletion if a couple years pass and it's still not used. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2014 (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:Umair Asif.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, claimed non-notable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 July 15

Contents

July 15

File:Pubic Hair on the crotch.jpg

File:JamesStrauss.JPG

File:Photo-0017.jpg

File:L e6c80b12aab73cd3979e71308e5db8ae.jpg

File:North-melbourne-railway-station-diagram.png

File:A table describing licensed oral cholera vaccines.jpg

File:MaNov3.jpg

File:Map of a roleplay War.png

File:Test for upload.pdf

File:Test file for sandbox upload tatri 2.pdf

File:Test for sandbox.pdf tatri 3.pdf

File:Practice figure for wikipedia.pdf

File:Profile (2).jpg

File:Gilberto Concepción de Gracia.jpg

File:Antonio Broccoli Porto.gif

File:Vargas arrest by Ryan Grim via WashPo, 07 15 2014.jpg

File:LPO-first-programme-1932.jpg

File:Umair Asif.jpg

Navigation menu

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 July 15

July 15

Navigation menu

Search