Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 11: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:23, 17 May 2009

< May 10	May 12 >

May 11

DSCN1041.JPG

File:DSCN1041.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zebraq (notify | contribs).

Non-notable dog, blurry, orphan, bad name – Quadell ^(talk) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete File is orphaned, of poor quality, and use of file is not specified. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DSCN0484.JPG

File:DSCN0484.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jbrendan (notify | contribs).

Some guy's hairy butt. Orphan, bad name, not particularly useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the boys.jpg

File:A few of the boys.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Allstarecho (notify | contribs).

No evidence this was published in the United States without copyright notice prior to 1978. Hekerui (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book was published in 1968 and the copy I saw had no copyright notice. Many of these sexual "pulp" type books from the 40s, 50s and 60s had no copyright notice. I mean, aside from mailing the actual book to an admin or WP:OTRS, what evidence do you want? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don't have to provide evidence for your submission. Hekerui (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I didn't ask you to provide evidence. I asked what evidence do you WANT, besides me mailing the actual book to an admin or OTRS. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have this book in your possession? Can you verify that there's no © notice anywhere, for instance on a title page? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I uploaded the image, I had the book in my possession. These are highly collectible books and I have since traded my copy of this book as it wasn't in "Very Good Condition" or "Mint Condition", those being the only conditions I collect. It's important to note that not only did many of these pulp fiction books not have copyright, they were written by ghost writers and even some that were copyrighted, were done so to non-existent authors. Greenleaf Classics, Inc., defunt since the 1980s, was notorious for publishing these books without copyright, as was their case in publishing the book in this image. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also went ahead and added a Fair Use Rationale and a seperate license. Even though there is no copyright notice in the book anywhere, I guess it is plausible that it could be copyrighted although the law is the law when it comes to books published before 1978 without a copyright notice. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, the image is used on userpages and talkpages, etc., and if the image is non-free it can't be used there. Also, since many similar images are not copyrighted, I don't think we can use it in Gay male pulp fiction if it's non-free (since there should exist many free alternatives). Do you have any other books by Greenleaf Classics? Did these others have copyright notices? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have other Greenleaf Classics books, some without any copyright notice anywhere and some that just say "Copyright" and some that just say "A Greenleaf publishing" and some that say "Copyright 19whatever". At any rate, I certainly am not going to argue over a book. I've got a drive-by deletion nomination, and now someone warring with me on the image page itself so I'll just let it go. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It's hard to prove a negative, the absence of a copyright tag - what is the submitter to do, scan in each and every page of the book, and post them? Even if he did that, what would prove that he didn't leave out an unnumbered page with a copyright tag? The submitter has been an editor since 2006, with 18 anti-vandalism barnstars; if someone has any actual evidence the book is copyrighted, that would be one thing, but given the difficulty of proving a negative, his just saying it hasn't should be enough. --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the uploader said "I looked, and this book doesn't have a copyright notice", then I'd believe him. I'm certainly will to assume good faith. But I'm not willing to assume public domain without evidence. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sekritwikicookie.png

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 discussion was: Löschen; deleted as G7 by One (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sekritwikicookie.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by One (notify | contribs).

This is my own image, made for a now-deleted humor page, and I request its deletion. One (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

DSCN1797.JPG

File:DSCN1797.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sarahhandler (notify | contribs).

Non-notable dog, orphan and never used, unlikely to be used – Quadell ^(talk) 18:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete File is orphaned, unencylopedic, and use has not been specified. A search for "Oreo Handler", the supposed name of the dog mentioned in the file description, is non-existent. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DSCN1935_001.jpg

File:DSCN1935_001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jennyco (notify | contribs).

Non-notable, orphan, used once but only as an attack image, bad name – Quadell ^(talk) 18:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold Bros..gif

File:Leopold Bros..gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fladrif (notify | contribs).

This is not a logo, and a free image could easily be taken of the bottles. The image is thus replaceable and lacks a decent rationale, clearly failing the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When User:J Milburn previously tagged this image as a "possibly unfree file". He was told that the objection was improper, as the file is not claimed to be unfree, but to be fair use. The matter was closed at that board with the image kept. He was told, if he still had an objection, to tag with dfu or submit it for discussion at Non-free content review. PFU - Leopold Bros.gif
- Instead of doing either, he's listed it here. Listing here is improper, as his objection is not within the listed reasons for submission on this page. TO the contrary, his objection is among the reasons identified as improper to raise here.
- As for the substance of the objection, the image does in fact show a logo - it shows two, as well as the distinctive bottle shapes of the products involved. Additional fair use rationale could be provided...in the proper forum. This listing should be closed as a keep.216.157.197.218 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this image with the "logo" template when I first uploaded it, because it seemed like the closest fit, and I couldn't find another which fit any better. I've since discovered the "promotional materials" template, which seems more accurate and apt, and replaced it. Fladrif (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about the claim that the image is replaceable? The non-free content criteria state that for non-free material to be used, it has to be irreplaceable- what's to stop someone creating a free image of this? J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is fundamentally a discussion page where other editor's comments should not be edited or deleted. I've restored the deleted comment. As for your spedific question, as I pointed out in the updated fair use rationale on the image page, it would not be possible for anyone else to obtain a free version of the same image, because one could not obtain the medals to include in the photograph. The medals are integral to the content of the image. Fladrif (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a discussion about a specific image, and any offtopic ranting should be removed. If you are concerned about my conduct, raise the issue with me on my talk page. If you have thoughts on the deletion of the image, post here. I do not see why these random medals are needed- would an image of the bottles alone, perhaps with a glass of the stuff alongside it, not be far more educational? The fact that the brand advertises with medals is not of great importance. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're changing ground yet again. A different image, not including the medals, would not convey the same information. The question you posed is whether this image is replaceable by a "free" image. Clearly it is not replaceable. That someone might take a different free image, conveying different information, is irrelavant to this discussion or to whether this image falls within both copyright fair use and Wikipedia standards. It qualfies under both fair use and Wiki standards. This matter should be closed and the image kept. Fladrif (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Why are the medals needed? They're not. The necessary information could be conveyed by a free image- one of just the bottles. Therefore, the image is replaceable, and so, as per the non-free content criteria, should be deleted. I have not changed ground once, I have maintained from the start that the image should be deleted on the grounds that it is replaceable. Even if I have changed grounds, so what? If the image should be deleted, it should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The medals are an integral part of the information being conveyed - not only identifying the product, logo, and distinctive bottle shapes, but also the winning of awards, which is a critical element of notability. Thus, an image absent the awards would not serve "the same encyclopedic purpose", which is the relevant standard here. Whether the information is "necessary" is not a part of the relevant standard. Fladrif (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        An image is not required to show that the brand won awards- simply saying that they did would be fine. All that is needed from this image is to illustrate the subject of the article- the drink itself, so a bottle next to a full glass would be the best illustration, which could easily be freely taken by a user. J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, this argument is advancing a criterion of "necessity" that is not contained in the relevant standards. The relevant standard is whether the proposed substutute free image would convey "the same encyclopedic purpose". An image of the product sans medals would not convey the same information, and thus would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If one were to apply the "necessity" standard being advocated here, no image is "necessary" to any article. All information in every article can be conveyed by text without any image. Thus, by that standard, every single fair use images would be automatically and categoricaly excluded from every single Wikipedia articles. If Wikipedia wants to impose a necessity standard, it is certainly within its rights to do so, but that is not the current standard. This argument is contrary to current Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and provides no valid basis for deletion of this image. It is obviously being conceded here that a substitute image conveying the same information cannot be obtained; that a different image, conveying different information, might be obtained is not a valid objection to use of this image. Fladrif (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic orphan. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low resolution, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not specified. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energetic sphere2.gif

File:Energetic sphere2.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chaimt (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic orphan. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum formation2.jpg

File:Quantum formation2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chaimt (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic orphan. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ::::Yes, I have other Greenleaf Classics books, some without any copyright notice anywhere and some that just say "Copyright" and some that just say "A Greenleaf publishing" and some that say "Copyright 19whatever". At any rate, I certainly am not going to argue over a book. I've got a drive-by deletion nomination, and now someone warring with me on the image page itself so I'll just let it go. Thanks. '''-''' [[User:Allstarecho|'''A'''LLST'''✰'''R]]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">&#09660;</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Allstarecho|wuz here]] @'''</sub> 17:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' per [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]. It's hard to prove a negative, the absence of a copyright tag - what is the submitter to do, scan in each and every page of the book, and post them? Even if he did that, what would prove that he didn't leave out an unnumbered page with a copyright tag? The submitter has been an editor since 2006, with 18 anti-vandalism barnstars; if someone has any actual evidence the book '''is''' copyrighted, that would be one thing, but given the difficulty of proving a negative, his just saying it hasn't should be enough. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 17:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
+** If the uploader said "I looked, and this book doesn't have a copyright notice", then I'd believe him. I'm certainly will to assume good faith. But I'm not willing to assume public domain without evidence. &ndash; [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 ====[[:File:Sekritwikicookie.png|Sekritwikicookie.png]]====