Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 18

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 debate was

[edit] Image:One drop rule.jpg

Image:One drop rule.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Muntuwandi (notify | contribs).

• The picture is original research and is being used by Muntuwandi to push an Afrocentrist POV in both the White People article and One drop rule article. There is not one reliable source that compares these three women देसीफ्राल 05:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No agenda, it is just a collage of an African woman, a caucasian woman and a multiracial woman. Nothing else is implied. I believe this is a bad faith nomination Muntuwandi 05:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's difficult to say what the collage depicts. And which woman is caucasian and which is multiracial? Both the lighter women look multiracial to me. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep My first reaction was to delete, as the images seemed stupid. But in the context of the white folk article, the images actually work. No reason to delete. --Knulclunk 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Deleting a picture because one dislikes one possible interpretation of it is not a legitimate motive, as the picture in and of itself isn't objectionable. Possible inclusion of this picture is currently being debated at Talk:White people, so it can't be deleted on the grounds of being orphaned either.--Ramdrake 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (i'm the nom) Angelina Jolie is not 100% white as this picture is purporting and her face has been altered by surgery --Phral 23:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't see anywhere in the picture or in the caption that purports that Angelina Jolie is "100% White" (whatever this might mean) or that surgery might have altered anything of importance here.--Ramdrake 01:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Ramdrake, the purpose of the picture is to show the one drop rule. Having 3 non-whites is not showing it at all, as both Angelina and Mariah aren't white, and what is that black lady? --Phral 01:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: Yes and you can illustrate the one-drop rule by placing side by side somebody who'd be widely acknowledged as black (the lady on the left), somebody who'd be widely acknowledged as white (Angelina Jolie is widely acknowledged as white), and the picture of Mariah Carey in the middle, who would be determined as black according to the one-drop rule in the middle for comparison purposes. The info is all factual, and the reader is free to draw his or her own conclusions.--Ramdrake 01:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm afraid "original research" isn't a valid delete reason for an image. Axem Titanium 18:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:21, 23 August 2007 (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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Light skin colors.jpg

Image:Light skin colors.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Muntuwandi (notify | contribs).

• The image is complete OR and is again being used by Muntuwandi to push his Afrocentric POV. The image has been completely thrown out by editors on Talk:White People. It is unscientific, there is no reliable source that defines light skin by comparing deeply tanned John Kerry with an albino देसीफ्राल 05:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith nomination. The image is compliant with all wikipedia standards. Muntuwandi 05:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was, it is orphaned, as no editor will let it stay in an article. --देसीफ्राल 05:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I was going to abstain from this one but it's just a bad image. Doesn't depict a pale white person and doesn't show a good range of colors. Support deleting because Muntuwandi is not making images to be helpful, just to push an agenda. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep My first reaction was to delete, as the images seemed stupid. But in the context of the white folk article, the images actually work. No reason to delete. --Knulclunk 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Deleting a picture because one dislikes one possible interpretation of it is not a legitimate motive, as the picture in and of itself isn't objectionable. Possible inclusion of this picture is currently being debated at Talk:White people, so it can't be deleted on the grounds of being orphaned either.--Ramdrake 23:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and a copyvio issue on one of the images. --Vonones 22:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Which one of the four images?--Ramdrake 12:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom left quadrant, Image:Thandie Newton.jpg. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC) (Note: removed from collage per G12 deletion ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Kept, no valid reason to delete (now that the copyvio was removed). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:23, 23 August 2007 (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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:HimmlerOberfhr.jpg

Image:HimmlerOberfhr.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Husnock (notify | contribs).

• Conflict on who holds copyright over this image. See discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 July 29/Images. Listed here to get some more input. Garion96 (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The source is very clearly listed on the page as coming from the National Archives and Records Adminsitration in College Park. Someone could probably write them and verify this. (National Archives at College Park, 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, MD 20740-6001). Also, someone should REALLY block the user who made a blatant personal attack on the talk page of the image [1] and followed it up with quasi-legal statements about accusing another user of being a "high priced lawyer" [2]. The user was not blocked in any way. -71.11.149.144 15:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • And yet another personal attack discovered where the same user called an unregistered account "Dear Dickhead" [3]. Someone should really block this person. -71.11.149.144 15:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This one's awfully hard to follow. NARA seems to claim it is in the public domain, but another party sells the image (apparently, all links to this are dead), making some question whether it's actually PD. I can't see any reason to doubt that it's in the public domain. If any new evidence exists, feel free to renominate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:34, 23 August 2007 (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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Cardinal Sean Harvard.jpg

Image:Cardinal Sean Harvard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mvbrewer (notify | contribs).

• no source given, first and only upload by user. Polarlys 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the image is used and there is no reason to belive it is a copyright violation. -Icewedge 21:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept, no evidence of a copyvio. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:41, 23 August 2007 (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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Escriva at Mass.jpg

Image:Escriva at Mass.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Smith2006 (notify | contribs).

• „I created this picture myself (…) It was taken by a Catholic friend of mine (…) who gave permission for public use“ I don’t believe this source (anonymous friend, whenever this thumbnail with web resolution was created by the uploader?) Surely copyvio, a lot of files by this uploader were deleted in the past. Polarlys 15:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not deleted. I don't see any evidence of a copyvio. Yes, this user has had some (not many) images deleted, but those were ones he tagged as "fair use". He seems to understand the difference, and doesn't claim PD on many images. So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless evidence of a violation is found. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:53, 23 August 2007 (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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:John_Cleese.jpg

Image:John_Cleese.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K1Bond007 (notify | contribs).

• Publicity photo being used in two article to show that John Cleese was in a minor role in a single James Bond film. Doesn't tell the reader anything that text or a free image of John Cleese couldn't. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not a minor role. John Cleese as Q (a famous and popular character) is a big deal and it shows the actor in question as the character. Nothing is wrong with this image. There is no better substitute for an image like this. It's being used correctly under fair use and cannot be replaced except by another screenshot from the same movie. K1Bond007 22:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A free image of an actor is not the same as a copyrighted character. Alientraveller 11:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. No real copyright harm being done here, since movie stills are promotional anyway. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - used in Q (James Bond). Q is a fictional character and requires unfree media. Cannot hope to be replaced by free media. WilyD 14:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove from John Cleese, but keep for the article on the character. This is pretty standard for images of actors playing roles. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from the article on the actor. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:57, 23 August 2007 (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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Desmond_llewelyn.jpg

Image:Desmond_llewelyn.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K1Bond007 (notify | contribs).

• Redundant to free image Image:Desmond Llewelyn 01.jpg. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - These are not the same. One is of a screenshot from a movie being used correctly under fair use. The other is more mysterious. Marked as promotional with a source by "self" and while that may be true, it does not show the actor on screen as the character in question. The image is clearly being used to show what the character looked like as played by that actor. There is nothing wrong with this image. K1Bond007 22:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per K1Bond007. Alientraveller 12:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. The free replacement image is used in the article with the caption "Desmond Llewelyn as Q". I think it's fair to say the image depicts Desmond Llewelyn as Q, and thus it would adequately replace the non-free image. Also, I see no evidence that the free image is a copyvio. Thus this is a clear NFCC #1 violation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:45, 23 August 2007 (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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Oneill.jpg

Image:Oneill.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kenosis (notify | contribs).

• Image said to be in PD, but with no certain information on it's author or publication date. It's said that it was published "no later than 1936", but this information is not verifiable. Abu badali ^(talk) 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The information is verified right on the source page that is linked to from the article. The author is listed as "anonymous or pseudonymous". That is, the image was published with no author name and with a copyright 1936 pseudonymously listed as the Nobel Organization, so it's public domain in the EU at minimum. And, a search of the copyright office records does not reflect any copyright renewal as would be required to extend copyright in the US beyond the year 1964, so it's in the public domain in the US. ... Kenosis 04:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry my ignorance, but how can I do a search of the copyright office records for this specific image? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Kenosis. JoshuaZ 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per ken, obviously PD, possible bad faith nom. ornis (t) 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--Filll 22:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Erroneous nomination. The copyright is given directly in the source: Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1936. Silly rabbit 22:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  What makes it non-free. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  Published 1936 + no copyright renewal = teh Public Domain. Cheers, WilyD 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  All we need is verifiable evidence for "Published 1936" and "no copyright renewal". --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a general description of how to search, and here is access to scanned copies of all Copyright renewal records from 1950-1977. A quick-seach method for copyright renewal records for books only 1923-1963 can be found here

• Keep Enough with this nonsense. Learn about copyright law before you nom every damned picture on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)
• Comment: The Nobel Foundation is not anonymous or pseudonymous. They claim copyright on this image, and (since it was taken after 1923) it's very plausible that they still hold the copyright. All they would have had to do is renew it, and the searches above can not comprehensively show that copyright was not renewed. I think we should believe the Nobel Foundation, that they hold the copyright. That said, it seems to me that the use of this image could pass all our NFCC, if a rationale were written. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I will not turn a public domain work into NFC, especially given the vicious opposition that attends to that designation in WP at present. Quoting my statement above: "... a search of the copyright office records does not reflect any copyright renewal as would be required to extend copyright in the US beyond the year 1964, so it's in the public domain in the US." In the EU, a calculation of "p.m.a. plus 70 years" requires a natural person as the author, otherwise it's anonymous or pseudonymous, and the copyright expires after 70 years from first publication. ... Kenosis 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no good evidence that it's PD. (Many renewed copyrights are not listed in the links you give.) If you don't want to tag it as NFC, it will have to be deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, evidently not a free image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:41, 23 August 2007 (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.