Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 19

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 Deleted, non-free replaceable, fails WP:NFCC#1. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Melissa_Theuriau.jpg

Image:Melissa_Theuriau.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonjames1986 (notify | contribs).

• Stated rationale that this is a free image is "After much careful searching, I believe I've found a free image of Ms. Theuriau. The image is from http://www.rumors.it. On http://www.rumors.it/staff.htm, they state that their photos are believed to be in the public domain." I see no evidence that the website Rumor.it actually owns copyright on this image (and I see on the same page other images I know are copyrighed elsewhere), hence, I don't think they can make it available as a free-use image. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: unlikely the originating site had held copyright for release, plus that type of statement is boilerplate talk for the exact opposite (i.e. website owner knows that it's not PD but posts it anyways). Kelvinc (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If in fact the image isn't free, I think it can be included under fair use since the style of the photo is one of a promotional shot, which is permissible under fair use. {{Non-free promotional}} I revised my rationale on the image page, please make sure that it's valid and send me a message if not.Jonjames1986 (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • It's from Marie France magazine ([1]). Magazine photoshoots generally aren't promotional. I'm sure M6 releases plenty of press kits for their programmes, but it seems nowadays we're a bit more strict about the fair use stuff so I'm not sure if press kit photos would still pass if they fail general FU. Kelvinc (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd actually be for keeping the image if an adequate fair-use rationale is added, which is not what is on the image page right now. ("Style of photo is one of a promotional shot. So, I think this fair-use rationale applies if the image is copyrighted" really doesn't begin to work as a fair-use rationale.) There's an outline on how to create an adequate fair-use rationale here. Also, I recommend reloading the image with the same image (or one of the others) linked to on this page: http://www.melissa-theuriau.fr/photos-presse.html, so that the image is from a known site that actually holds copyright and can be given as a point of origin in the fair-use rationale. On another note, I personally would not have IfD'd this had it been uploaded as a fair-use image with an adequate rationale given. However, uploading of clearly copyrighted images and then rebranding them with a free license tag on Wikipedia is kind of a pet peeve of mine – using Wikipedia to "launder" images into the free use domain is a very bad practice. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I've further revised the rationale, if it still doesn't qualify, please contact me so I can attempt to revise again. I'm still learning how to do this, and am honestly trying (I just seem to be failing) Jonjames1986 (talk) 17:00, 19 December 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 Deleted. This seems to have been a bad-faith nomination. Regardless, the image still seems to meet the criteria for deletion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:VPApproval.jpg

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

• The image is orphaned and useless. First, the text is almost illegible. It uses a bad color palette that obscures the foreground text. It does not even use straight lines. Further, it was improperly saved as a JPEG, taking up un-necessary space and creating artifacts (those gray smudges).--Gnfgb2 (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Probable bad-faith nom, user was just editwarring with the images uploader, to remove CSD tags, the uploader put on one of the nom's images. This image's information says it's public domain, and, created by Betacommand, therefore, can be orphaned (unlike fair-use images), and, the source (self-made) is clearly stated. No reason to delete, unless there is actual proof that this is a copyvio. SQL^{Query me!} 12:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You just changed the subject. You're comment on my imagined motives and possible policy loopholes has nothing to do with whether the image is doing anything besides taking up space. That's why it should be deleted. Give me one reason why it should be kept.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not nonfree, and, not a copyvio. Under what guideline / policy should it be removed? SQL^{Query me!} 12:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Per WP:DEL#REASON, it is "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia," and an image that is "unused, obsolete, violat[ing] fair-use policy, or [is] unencyclopedic." I tend just to use common sense, but obviously the image violates Wikipedia policy, as well. My guess is that even Betacommand agrees with me, since (to quote Cicero) silence denotes consent.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Template:Orphan image implies that policy encourages deletion of orphaned free images when they are not useful, and moving to commons otherwise. —Random832 17:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• BS I just havent had time to comment, this image is not violating any policies, it is used in relation to VandalProof related discussions. This is yet another pointy pissing match that Gnfgb2 is trying to do again, the same thing happened on Dec 8, and Gnfgb2 was warned about it. Gnfgb2 is just mad that BCBot has tagged yet another improper image that he/she uploaded without following policy. (something that I did in complete, this image is self created and PD) let another bad faith (POINTy) nom. β^_command 13:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So I am the one guilty of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? I cannot think of an image more worthy of deletion on Wikipedia than this one. It's very odd: Even though you spend so much time nominating so many valuable images for deletion, the most eligible of all was right in front of you.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • there is more to wikipedia than the mainspace, you cannot delete every image that is used solely in the userspace. this image does serve a purpose. β^_command —Preceding comment was added at 16:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Where is this image used at all? Regardless of the nomination, I can't see that this is used anywhere. In addition to the lack of file links, Special:whatlinkshere/Image:VPApproval.jpg shows nothing not related to this IFD. I'd like to see the claim "it is used in relation to VandalProof related discussions." substantiated with links to discussions where it is used or referred to. As it stands, the image is unencyclopedic and unused for any purpose. —Random832 17:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Is the image useful to anyone? If so, what's it useful for? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note Gnfgb2 is a sock of hard-banned Primetime (talk · contribs) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused, terrible quality, technically a violation of Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:09, 3 January 2008 (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 The result was: Keep --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Encephalon Cross.svg

Image:Encephalon Cross.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SonicChao (notify | contribs).

• Delete - use of the Red Cross symbol other than as allowed by the Geneva Conventions is an offence in all states that are contracting parties to the conventions Mayalld (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep See this, this and this (PDF). The Red Cross is defined as "five, red, equal-sized squares forming a cross, resting on a white background". The shade of red isn't important. Some exceptions include the St George's cross where the horizontal extends to the edge of the flag; the red cross has a white surround and has equal height/width. This "Encephalon Cross", has a dark blue background and, although medically motivated, is not IMO breaking any international treaties. Colin°^Talk 12:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As Colin said, the Red Cross symbol (and Red Crescent, third protocol emblem...) is characterized by a white ground. I may be wrong, but I don't see how this image is in violation. Image:Cruz Roja.svg could be a concern, though. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Colin and Fv. Very weak case to delete. Tony (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can't see that there's any victim here. Brad Potzenik (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Quick question I don't exactly know what an 'Encephalon Cross' is, but I believe it had something to do with medicine. I remember SVG'ing that in November just so I could try to shorten the backlog at CAT:SVG. In fact, I don't remember it having anything at all to do with the Red Cross. Although, half the time, when I vectorize an image, I don't know what it is. :P --SonicChao ^talk 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "For commendable contributions to medical articles. Introduced and designed by Encephalon." again, nothing to do with the Red Cross, even though it looks like a Red Cross logo.
• Speedy Keep --SonicChao ^talk 01:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Had the image really been violating the Geneva Convention that still would NOT be a delete rationale. Though perhaps it may be better to use the Star of Life which was created over the very problems created by the Geneva Convention. Perhaps a barnstar with star of life engraved in the center? -- Cat ^chi? 23:23, 24 December 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 Kept, now used correctly. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dk-sd-logo.png

Resolved.

Image:Dk-sd-logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Peregrine981 (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image. Only used for decoaration of tables. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Rettetast (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Rm from articles. FUR is no ok.19:01, 1 January 2008 (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 Kept, now used correctly. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dk-krf-logo.png

Resolved.

Image:Dk-krf-logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Peregrine981 (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image. Only used for decoaration of tables. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Rettetast (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Rm from articles. fur is no ok. 19:01, 1 January 2008 (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.