Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 July 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion

[edit] July 7

Image:Mafkham hospital.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Zereshk (notify). Invalid fair use - the image is a picture of a building being used in an article about the city where the building is located. Fails WP:FAIR#Policy #8. Also, the source of the image is not clearly given.- BigDT 00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep, fair use for for educational non-profit purpose on relevant article on topic--Striver 01:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:FAIR. Images are not automatically fair use just because we want to use them. There are two sets of rules - under "Counterexamples" and "Policy". If you go down the list and find a single counterexample that is met or find a single policy that is not met, the image cannot be used. In this case, #8 under policy applies. BigDT 01:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia doesn't allow non-profit or educational use, this is well-established. Randomly shouting "fair use" just doesn't cut it. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep: This image doesnt fall under any of these regulations for deletion because it is leaglly and officially not protected by US copyright law, as stipulated in the United States Copyright office Circuilar 38. The use of fairuse tag was merely arbitrary.--Zereshk 01:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note: Jimbo stated here that we should respect Iranian copyright law, regardless of whether the US has a treaty with them. Thus, any images from Iran should be deleted as a copyright violation unless a valid fair use justification can be given. If interested, see also the horribly segmented discussion on my talk page and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., as well as some vote stacking. BigDT 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep Per Striver. --Kitia 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Abigail Breslin.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by 24ip (notify). CV - Screenshot that is not web resolution, and has no fair use rationale. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Danaya transform.gif (talk | delete)

eh:Uploaded by Fitz (notify). CV - Animated .gif with no fair use rationale. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 00:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Suzuki Iran.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Zereshk (notify). Media photo illustrating the subject of the photo. This is not permitted under WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5.- BigDT 00:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep, fair use for for educational non-profit purpose on relevant article on topic--Striver 01:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:FAIR. Images are not automatically fair use just because we want to use them. There are two sets of rules - under "Counterexamples" and "Policy". If you go down the list and find a single counterexample that is met or find a single policy that is not met, the image cannot be used. In this case, #5 under counterexamples applies. It is almost never appropriate to use a media photo and call it "fair use" and such photos are deleted any time they are discovered. BigDT 01:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Picture 001.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Talskiddy (notify). This image has been through an interesting history, likely due to its bad choice of a name. Its current revision is a vanity photo. One previous revision was a vanity photo. Its original revision was a small statue with no information of what it is/was or where it came from. The only non-vanity version is duplicated by Image:Wceagle.jpg. - BigDT 01:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pdzlimitedcover.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dalpura (notify). Obsoleted by Image:1504-t.jpg ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tookie.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Mr sonicblue (notify). This image has quite a colorful history [1] of edit warring. At any rate, it obviously is a CV - media photos are not fair use images. See WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5.- BigDT 04:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The subject of this photograph is now deceased and meets the criteria set forth by {{HistoricPhotoRationale}} in my opinion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, historic photos are like Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, an image so famous that it becomes iconic. This photo of Stanley Williams does not qualify. howch e ng {chat} 16:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:QSBadge.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Mu5ti (notify). Unencyclopedic and not needed in Wikipedia. also nominating Image:QSBadge2.gif for same reason. bdud e Talk 06:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cha110913-773444.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Hurricane Devon (notify). This image is misleading. It is apparently a comparison between the solar systems of 55 Cancri and Cha 110913-773444 (see its use in articles). However the scale is completely wrong, even if we allow for different scales for object size and orbital radii. The outermost planet of 55 Cancri is around 22 times further from its star than the third planet, yet in this image the 55 Cancri planets are depicted equally spaced. In addition no actual planets have been detected around Cha 110913-773444, though the image seems to suggest they have been - only a protoplanetary disc is known, but this isn't depicted. Chaos syndrome 08:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

keepAs far as the definition of planet article is concerned, since it is Cha110913 that is being referenced, it doesn't really matter whether 55 Cancri is accurately depicted. Serendipodous 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The caption on the definition of planet page says "set to scale against the more typical star system 55 Cancri". This is misleading. If we're going to use it on that page, the caption should be changed. Chaos syndrome 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could just change the caption. My vote is Speedy Keep, as "image not to scale" is not, and will probably never be, a deletion criteria. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 14:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. So, to be accurate we should write something along the lines of "fictitious planetary system around known brown dwarf Cha 110913-773444, compared to incorrectly scaled known planetary system aound 55 Cancri. Brown dwarf and star are at correct relative scales, everything else is incorrect." Chaos syndrome 15:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Yes. The point of the image is to contrast the size of cha 110913 with a normal star, not to accurately display the 55 Cancri system. The caption should be updated so as to make clear that both planetary systems displayed are fictitious, but the image serves a useful purpose of illustrating the size of sub-brown dwarf stars and should not be deleted. LSD 14:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I am currently in the process of creating a new Sun/Cha 110913/Jupiter comparison image (using POV-Ray), which should get around the potentially misleading aspects of the current image. When I'm done I'll upload the result. Chaos syndrome 23:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. In addition, which of the speedy keep criteria applies here? Chaos syndrome 16:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I have created Image:Cha110913.jpg which gets around the issue of the poor orbit scaling. Chaos syndrome 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cowrapowcamp.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Grant65 (notify). This image is copyrighted. Non-commercial, personal use or use within an organisation is allowed. In addition there is a watermark which may not be removed, alterned or deleted. This would indicate that the image may be non free. It is also possible that the copyright "holder" is misrepresenting their position and has no right to restrict the use of a public domain image (Australian government, 50 years elapsed). More detail in this discuission. John Dalton 10:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the understanding of most Australian wikipedians that there are no copyright restrictions on pre 1955 Australian photographs. The AWM and other Australian institutions appear to be asserting copyright claims where none exist. See discussion at Template:PD-Australia which links to ACC Information Sheet G23 (Duration of copyright) (Sep 2005)--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is the consensus, then I suggest that the image be kept and the copyright message modified to something like, "this image is in the public domain (reason given), the Australian War Memorial requests that you leave the tracking number/watermark intact". If the numbe or watermark causes copyright problems (some sort of database copyright) then it should be removed in my opinion. John Dalton 13:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC) I've moved my discussion to the talk page to reduce clutter here.John Dalton 22:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It seems to have been established that the photograph is in the public domain. John Dalton 05:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not deleted. howch e ng {chat} 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Napoleon's theorem.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Rasmus Faber (notify). Superceded by the SVG version, nothing links to it anymore.- Shinobu 12:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Graphrhythmyx.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Mikemikev2000 (notify). unencyclopedic nonsense Amalas =^_^= 14:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

- Speedy Delete G1 BigDT 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Note: the image was speedy deleted [2] BigDT 17:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Graph.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Mikemikev2000 (notify). more nonsense, also dupe of above (Graphrhythmyx.JPG) Amalas =^_^= 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

- Speedy Delete I7 or G1 BigDT 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Note: the image was speedy deleted [3] BigDT 17:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Goat.jpeg.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Mikemikev2000 (notify). while I'm sure the goat could potentially have purpose, I have the feeling User:mikemikev2000 is just adding more nonsense Amalas =^_^= 14:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:PCP poster 1.jpg (talk | delete)