Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 October 21
| < October 20 | October 22 > |
|---|
October 21
editPOV images by User:Arab League
edit
- - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).
I seriously believe these soapboxy images are not the reason why upload link exists. -- Cat chi? 23:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete They're orphaned and unencyclopedic. As it happens, I share the sentiment concerning Palestine, but this is an encyclopedia, not a political site, or a storage area for self-made pics. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- User east718 is making an accusation here that is composed of two full-blown unsupported lies. The truth is:
- 1. The image was used in conjunction with an article that dealt with a Pokémon character, and the plush produced and marketed, and later, recalled. Furthermore, it was never used in conjunction with any vandalism that I am aware of.
- 2. The image license is NOT bad. The image in question was produced by a government run organization that led the recall, and is not copywrited as a result. The CSPS is a US (federal) agency, the license as described applies to this agency.
- Zaphraud 07:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize. With the combination of the image being orphaned, having no source, and the "DONOTWANT" title being part of another 4chan meme, I jumped the gun. Could you please provide a source for the image? In the meantime, I've asked an admin familiar with this for his input. east.718 at 08:57, 10/21/2007
- "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file." Hence orphaned fair use, speedy deletable as it is also only been used for vandalism. It has no reason to be here on ifd. -- Cat chi? 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not touching it (for obvious reasons) but I find it suspect that an image of a Mudkip doll can ever be government-done, since it's companies, not the federal government, who issue toy recalls (and I have every reason to expect this is an image of a recalled toy given that it mentions "needles"). It's speedyable on that basis alone. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The source would have been obvious had I not made a typo in the original filename, then referenced that typo instead of the original site. CPSC, The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The original page at www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04195.html features not one, but two agency produced images of Mudkip plush - the other one is even dead center, right where you can't miss it, last but definitely not least on the bottom of the page. I suspect that the reason for the inclusion of the needles in the first place is that somebody noticed, after the fact, that Mudkip's fin flops over, but that is just a guess based on an observation that another effective way to keep Mudkip's fin erect is to use an external support ring. Also, its not "fair use" if it comes from Uncle Sam, its "public domain", right? As far as being the image of something trademarked, if that even applies... my guess is that this would only cross the boundary back into "fair use" territory if something other than the original, federally produced image were distributed, but I'm not a lawyer, just a law-abiding citizen. Zaphraud 23:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not touching it (for obvious reasons) but I find it suspect that an image of a Mudkip doll can ever be government-done, since it's companies, not the federal government, who issue toy recalls (and I have every reason to expect this is an image of a recalled toy given that it mentions "needles"). It's speedyable on that basis alone. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file." Hence orphaned fair use, speedy deletable as it is also only been used for vandalism. It has no reason to be here on ifd. -- Cat chi? 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize. With the combination of the image being orphaned, having no source, and the "DONOTWANT" title being part of another 4chan meme, I jumped the gun. Could you please provide a source for the image? In the meantime, I've asked an admin familiar with this for his input. east.718 at 08:57, 10/21/2007
- - uploaded by KaseyKahneFan (notify | contribs).
- Image:ScottRiggs.jpg - obsoleted by Image:ScottRiggsPocono2007.jpg KaseyKahneFan 08:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Wolfkeeper (notify | contribs).
- Copyrighted image, obsolete to free File:Skylon.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on commons.- GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Adding File:Skylonv.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to the nomination (Same uploader). Obselete to File:SkylonV.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), also unused. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Strongly contested. Image is licensed for the wikipedia's use, with attribution only conditions- replacement images are copyvio.WolfKeeper 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree that they do look similar to the one that you have so kindly drawn my attention to (which I used as a reference in creating them), I can assure you that I created the two images that I uploaded myself. There are several ways in which I can prove they differ.
- Firstly, the image in the PDF is also found here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/hotol/skylon-schem.gif
It is a raster file (GIF). My images are vector (SVG). While it is possible to convert raster to vector, the process will produce a single object in the file. If you open the SVGs that I have produced using Inkscape, or a similar programme, you will see that they have been drawn from scratch.
- There are also differences in the layout of the 4-view image. The raster image has the plan at the top and the side elevation at the bottom, whereas the vector image has these two the other way around. The same is true for the front and rear elevations.
- There are also no centrelines on my images, as can clearly be seen on the raster file. In short, the images may be similar, but this is only to be expected as they are of the same thing.
- The fact that your images are fair-use, against the free-use SVGs means that it does qualify for deletion. If I was being pedantic, SkylonV.gif qualifys for speedy deletion as it is unused fair use. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Concerns with the SVG have now been resolved. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 06:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Used for vandalism only. User claim of {{GFDL-self}} is a bit suspicious as this appears to be an existing image with a caption added. edg ☺ ★ 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Altered non-free use image that was only uploaded to vandalize the articles on Lolicon and Shotacon. --Farix (Talk) 12:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Replaceable fair use: image acknowledges fair use but gives no rationale, and the picture is being used strictly for identification Nyttend 13:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).
- No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).
- No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).
- No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).
- No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).
- No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).
- No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).
- No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).
- No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- The uploader claims that this is "a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of 17 U.S.C. § 105", however the source page (corrected link: [1] does not say so. High on a tree 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think we can do better than this, even if it is a good faith addition! No offence to the uploader of course! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- The user in question added a pile of useless images made in paint for his own personal use. I'm going through them and marking them all for speedy. --Thespian 04:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Redundant fair use to GFDL'd Image:X-02.png ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Redundant fair use to GFDL'd Image:X-02.png ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- OB. Image is an incorrect illustration of the rank concerned, and has been replaced with a correct version at Image:UKPoliceChiefSuper2.gif. It is the latter version that is now used by all pages requiring this image. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 21:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Copyrighted magazine cover being used for identification of a living person in violation of WP:NFCC#1. Nv8200p talk 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by I am eclipsed (notify | contribs).
- Unlikely to be used in any articles, ever, and was uploaded by an indefblocked sock. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Useless, low quality, orphaned scribble. - Shiftchange 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Useless, low quality, orphaned scribble.
- - uploaded by Babygator23 (notify | contribs).
- Copyrighted book cover being used for identification of a living person in violation of WP:NFCC#1. Nv8200p talk 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by TexasLaw08 (notify | contribs).
- Copyrighted image being used for identification of a living person in violation of WP:NFCC#1. Nv8200p talk 23:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Copyrighted image being used for identification of a living person in violation of WP:NFCC#1. Nv8200p talk 23:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Xemnu_the_Titan (notify | contribs).
- being used simply to show what xenu looks like, could be replaced by a user drawing Calliopejen1 23:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- Not simply being used to illustrate the character "Xenu" in general, but specifically being used to illustrate Xenu, as depicted in the 1998 BBC Panorama documentary "The Road to Total Freedom?". In this sense, the image cannot be replaced by a drawing - as it is encapsulated in an analysis of Xenu as presented in that particular documentary, and its affect on popular culture and understanding of that part of Scientology doctrine. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
- Note that this documentary is not discussed in either of the articles in which the image appears. Calliopejen1 00:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- But in the context of other programs that are discussed, it is appropriate, and further the caption should explain that this is only as depicted in the documentary. But also, thank you Calliopejen1, for pointing this out, the fact is that the documentary should be discussed more in those articles, and I will attempt to find some WP:RS sources to flesh that out, as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
- Until these sources exist and the image is discussed, it should not be used in the top right corner of the Xenu article, because that is the slot where an image goes to show what Xenu looks like. I do not have a pro- or anti-Scientology agenda here, just an pro-policy agenda. If the image does not contribute significantly to an article in a way that a free image cannot, it has to be replaced or deleted. Right now there is no discussion of the documentary, no explanation that this is documentary affected the perception of Xenu, etc etc (and even if it did, the picture should go next to that section, not in the header). Any such statements are currently WP:OR and do not justify keeping a nonfree image that is currently not enhancing readers' understanding about pop culture portrayals of Xenu and their significance (the stated reason for including this image, rather than to show what he looks like). Note that we have two other nonfree images showing other pop culture portrayals of Xenu--what precisely is this one adding that the others haven't already? Calliopejen1 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- But in the context of other programs that are discussed, it is appropriate, and further the caption should explain that this is only as depicted in the documentary. But also, thank you Calliopejen1, for pointing this out, the fact is that the documentary should be discussed more in those articles, and I will attempt to find some WP:RS sources to flesh that out, as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
- Keep Per Curt's comments, there is no reason to delete this image.--Fahrenheit451 01:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Any user drawing would be unsourced and original research. AndroidCat 13:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This pic is unsourced and original research, misleading. And meant to ridicule, it's only purpose. Misou 21:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The pic is sourced and is not original research. That is a false statement, Misou. It is Your opinion that it is only meant to ridicule. I refer you to Wikipedia policy on images.--Fahrenheit451 21:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is original research in that the BBC has no more authority to envision what Xenu looks like than does any Wiki user. Calliopejen1 02:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is not OR as it is a cartoon depiction of a fictional character by a BBC illustrator. That image is quoted here.--Fahrenheit451 00:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The scientologist censorship agenda, especially online, is well-documented enough that almost any objection to scientology related material should be treated as highly suspicious; while every religion may have an Inquisition hidden somewhere in the closet, that of the scientologist regime is quite recent. As such, scientology-related material should probably not be deleted without a court order demanding such action. Zaphraud 06:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a valid keep argument. If the image violates policy, we can't keep it just for the sake of having the largest repository of content related to scientology. If you examine my contributions, you'll see that I'm one of wikipedia's most vigilant image enforcers and have no grudge against scientology images, just all nonfree images. Calliopejen1 02:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with both Zaphraud (talk · contribs) and Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs). Calliopejen1 does not seem to have any sort of Church of Scientology related agenda, merely a Good Faith attempt to respect image policies. However, some of the points Zaphraud brings up are valid, related to concerns of censorship on the internet. Also however, I agree with Calliopejen1, that a discussion related to the image appropriateness itself would be more productive. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
- I don't think WP should have an anti-Scientology tilt in order to counter-balance the Church of Scientology's agenda elsewhere. Nor is it the purpose of WP to serve as a shelter for information against possible censorship; that should be done elsewhere on the Internet. Steve Dufour 14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see a problem with another artist drawing a picture of Xenu and letting it be used in the article. Of course it should be an attempt to make an accurate picture and not to make fun. Steve Dufour 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Steve, that would definitely be original research. We cannot do that.--Fahrenheit451 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would think that some articles have drawings made for them. I know that lots have photos taken especially for them. Of course they are not mostly as controversial as Xenu. I would prefer the BBC picture to be kept, but not if that is against WP policy. (p.s. I am assuming that the purpose of the BBC program was to inform people about Scientology, not to make fun of it like South Park, etc.) Steve Dufour 03:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose one could create a Wikipedia article about the 1998 BBC Panorama documentary "The Road to Total Freedom?" The image would certainly have a fair use case within that article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- No consensus to delete; image kept. -- RG2 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ok, it appears the votes have been tallied, however this is my 2 cents (pence depending on your location). the image is recognised as a depiction of Xenu by most people who are familiar with the topic...pro or con, they know what it represents by looking at it. an origional work would not hold the same value to the public eye. that should be the point of an image on the top of the page, recognition of the topic presented. if the church of scientology had an image they used regularly I would say use that one...however no image exists so we should use the next best thing which is a recognised depiction of Xenu. much like how Jesus is actually a depiction of a man from the middle ages, however everyone recognises him as Jesus, this picture holds the same thing. (crap! forgot to sign)Coffeepusher (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - user uploaded image previously and was deleted due to non-free issues, user has uploaded the same image again under this name and using it in the same article. Being used to identify a living person, replaceable with free use image. Ejfetters 00:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Non-free image replaceable with free use image of living actor. Ejfetters 00:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
