Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 November 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 6 November 8 >

Contents

[edit] November 7

[edit] Image:Aghinans_logo.jpg

Image:Aghinans_logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ProfessorTet (notify | contribs).
  • Changed mind. Do not want image in public domain. Not being linked to any article on Wikipedia. Please remove ProfessorTet 01:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shakshoka.jpg

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

[edit] Image:Rxchxxl_july_2007.png

Image:Rxchxxl_july_2007.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rxchxxl (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader blanked the page. Unsure if the previous self-made claim was true, Jusjih 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mitch-on_set-A.jpg

Image:Mitch-on_set-A.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mitchradio (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader changed licenses several times. Unsure which is true. Jusjih 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Spice smoking mix eigth.jpg

Image:Spice smoking mix eigth.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emiloz (notify | contribs).
  • Orphan TJRC 05:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Adore me.JPG

Image:Adore me.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dont mess wit me(Tay) (notify | contribs).
  • Hardly any reason to keep it at all, I'm somewhat convinced that the user uploaded this image solely for her user page – not that this is a reason by itself, however, the image will probably never be used in any articles, and aren't images supposed to be uploaded for use in articles? There are some exceptions to this, but I really think this one should go. ~ Sebi 08:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

oh lord. if it bothers u that much. just delete it. ii LUV MY MYSPACE FAM!! MiiZ SPECTAC(hii!) 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LewisBledsoe.jpg

Image:LewisBledsoe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Michigan10 (notify | contribs).
  • Not used, out of focus, blured and generaly very low quality only partialy showing the subject from behind. Yes we want free licensed photos, but in this case I think we are actualy better off with no photo and wait for a better one to come along. Sherool (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Meaid.jpg

Image:Meaid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Treasurevault (notify | contribs).
  • Not used, not enough info to determine any ensyclopedic use. The uploader created an article with the persons name but it only contained the word "Author" and as not suppricingly speedy deleted. Sherool (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IAFMiG.JPG

Image:IAFMiG.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deepak (notify | contribs).
  • I originally nominated the image for deletion as replaceable fair use. An admin seems to think that this is an irreplaceable image (despite the fact that we have many free pictures of the same aircraft (see MiG-29), and the fact that it still exists and we could potentially make a free near identical replacement image at an airshow.) Not fair use by law (no critical commentary), not fair use by policy - no per article rationale, probably sourced via a third party with no attribution of the creator. Fair-use abuse of the worst kind. If this isn't replaceable fair use I don't know what is.- Megapixie 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:S300.jpg

Image:S300.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moosh88 (notify | contribs).
  • Image has not been released as no rights reserved (despite that retagging by an admin). Image is not fair use, since it is clearly replaceable, we already have many other images of the system (see S-300) we don't appear to have a clear source for the image. Delete as random unfree image uploaded from the internet.- Megapixie 14:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:800px-Flavio.jpg

Image:800px-Flavio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flavio.brandani (notify | contribs).

[edit] Image:Image-PA103bombsuitcase.jpg

Image:Image-PA103bombsuitcase.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GeeJo (notify | contribs).
  • This unfree image is not, as stated, of lower resolution than the original - it is the same as far as I can tell. It's also not clear what the rationale would be for copying an unfree image of something hypothesised to look like the supposed subject. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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 Snowball speedy keep. IceKarmaॐ 03:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jokela-school-shooter.jpg

Image:Jokela-school-shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DBAlex (notify | contribs).
  • This image has been used in the Jokela school shooting article, but I don't think it's encyclopedic. What's the purpose of the image? To show a gun? A T-shirt? A screenshot of a YouTube video? Is the article about a YouTube video? YouTube took the video (that the screenshot was supposedly taken from) down because it violated their terms of use. Does that automatically make an image encyclopedic? No. I don't see what this image adds to the Jokela school shooting article. It's a non-free image and the purpose of use listed is "A picture to illustrate the perpetrator of the attack, 18-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen, in the context of one of the videos he released prior to the shooting. The article contains information about the videos themselves." I'm sure there are other images of Auvinen available, if the article requires them. The image can be replaced by a different one that has the same effect. I see no need to put Jokela-school-shooter.jpg in the main infobox. The article is Jokela school shooting, not Pekka-Eric Auvinen. I don't think the image significantly increases readers understanding of the shooting. The guideline on fringe theories says "An appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is." And since YouTube took the video down, I question if the image can truly be considered fair use. Pixelface 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep YouTube didn't give any explanation of this terms of use violation, so vague "questioning" about why they removed it is an improper basis to delete the screenshot. Auvinen died this evening, so the image is completely irreplaceable; it will probably now be impossible to find even a free headshot of him. "The image can be replaced by a different one that has the same effect." What free alternative could possibly have the same effect as this image? It portrays him holding a gun in an article about a shooting, wearing a t-shirt that says "Humanity is overrated" while the articles says he "hates humanity" and CNN says he called himself a "anti-human humanist". Auvinen didn't release any screenshots like this under the GFDL before the shooting, so we're stuck with fair use. Finally, this isn't a fringe theory issue; the videos are being widely covered in mainstream news sources and this still in particular is widely used, by CNN, for example [1]. And speedy keep because the article is linked from the main page and the reasoning to delete the image is poor.--chaser - t 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand the argument about it not being fair use. It was published by the supposed owner of the image, it is not infringing on any commercial opportunities of the owner, etc. --- RockMFR 00:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly fair use in my humble opinion. 132.241.163.248 00:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not a great expert on these matters, but I would think that the shooter released at least some rights when he put the video on the youtube. I don't think youtube took it down because of copyright problems, but for something else. Is this the case? So, are youtube videos freely usable in elsewhere, or not? Moreover, can we deduce shooter's intent on future distribution of the media, seeing on how he distributed it himself? Santtus 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see a problem with it. it could be considered encyclopedic due to the fact that it is an image of the shooter himself, an encyclopedic depiction. do we not have images of jim jones? lee harvey oswald? we do have a depiction of them as well as others. Icarus999 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep: Wikipedia and Youtube do not have the same goal or similar term of use. Wiki informs, Youtube would avoid any controversy at all cost. IMHO the gun is a bit much, but his T-Shirt is his creed, as mentioned in conclusion at the end of his manifesto all in upper case. Image # 10 from MediaPack should be used, t-shirt but no gun. These pictures where placed on a Web server by him for all to get and see; exception perhaps for the ‘black/white collar shirt’ that looks like a school pictures (copyright?), we should be careful with these two. Finally I think that ideally the image would be better on a page for the killer not the event, but being a current event the redirection of the name to the event article is fine for the next few weeks.YegLi 00:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Chaser and RockMFR. This is as fair as fair use gets. It makes no difference if YouTube deleted the video where the screenshot is from. The copyright still belongs to Auvinen and his videos are now being hosted in several other sources, such as Helsingin Sanomat. Prolog 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly fair use, the fact that YouTube has taken it down is irrelevant, that the killer posted a video to YouTube before committing the act is notable, no free image exists etc etc... Karldoh 01:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As mentioned above, the image is priceless in the way that it summarizes what the killer appeared to believe and the way he used new media to make his intentions more or less obvious by posing like this. I insist that the fact that the image is grainy youtube screendump is highly relevant in the context of the whole incident. Also, youtube seems to have a nasty, unprofessional way of removing as much stuff of historical notability they possibly could justify. This certainly shouldn't be used as a model for anything. apecat 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I would like to point out that both of the Finnish main evening magazines, Iltasanomat ("Evening News") and Iltalehti ("Evening Post") are using these same images on their front pages and on their websites. These images are seen by millions of people. The policies of YouTube are not to be taken into consideration in this case (Wikipedia is not YouTube anyway), and the use of the image is "as fair as fair use gets", as Prolog said. Jillord 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep why is this even listed?? --Thankyoubaby 02:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I cannot believe I am saying this but I cannot stop a chill down my spine when I see this picture. It makes me wonder if we are promoting violence with the image? (Remember how CNN was criticized for its handling of the Virginia Tech shooting.) However, this is not a delete vote. It is just a comment. --Kushalt 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Chaser, RockMFR and apecat. Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia does not make judgements of material unless it's an office matter. This is clearly not an office matter. Image could not qualify for legitimate fair use any more. This should be snowballed KEEP.Nobody of consequence 02:52, 8 November 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.