Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 May 17

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.

Deleted. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that WireImage is going to GFDL their work; that's 100% against their whole business model. Supply me with the OTRS ticket number and I'll restore the image. howcheng {chat} 23:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification -- the WireImage one was uploaded on May 26, 2007, so that can be speedied under G12. But the offer to restore given the OTRS ticket number still stands. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket info has been added and image has been restored. howcheng {chat} 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Patently fails WP:FUC #1: this man is living and a free one can be reasonably created. Permission is irrelevant (and is also undocumented by the OTRS system) hbdragon88 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep REBUTTAL: First of all, how could permission be "irrelevant"?? Permission has been 100% granted by Bitter Films and that should be the end of any debate right there. I don't know how to "document" the permission I received in the "OTRS system" but I'd be happy to oblige if you tell me how. Furthermore, the picture is totally valid and adds to the article. It depicts this artist at work and is not under any danger of falling under any copyright claim. I am not aware of any existing "free use" images of this artist, and a picture you might find of him at a film festival is not nearly as interesting as one of him actually at work. Sleepyjuly 07:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The way to document it in OTRS is detailed at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. ~ BigrTex 21:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks BigrTex! I'm sending in the correspondence right now  :) Sleepyjuly 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have to agree with Sleepyjuly, above. The Hertzfeldt image definitely has a place on Wikipedia. She went through the trouble of getting permission from the copyright holders after Hbdragon bullied her about it and now he's claiming that's irrelevant anyway. What's the problem here? The image absolutely enhances the biography and we are welcome to use it. Maybe this guy just has an axe to grind  :) Sleepy, document your permission (sorry I don't know how) and I think the image should totally stay. Let's not ruin Wiki biographies by splitting hairs over technicalities. 71.102.210.243 12:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• COUNTER REBUTTAL I was not the one who "bullied her," as this anon would lead you to think. Rather, it was A Man In Black who tagged {{replaceable fair use}} without even notifying the uploader [1]. Only when I notified the uploader [2] did the uploader add the permission tag and such. So if I had just let it slide and waited for the five-day requirement to pass, the image would have likely been deleted and we wouldn't even be here today. Not to mention that the rfu template says, Do not remove this tag. After tagging with the {{withpermission}} tag, the uploader removed the tag, in direct contravention of what the tag says.
• Permission is not relevant because "by-permission" and "non-commerical" images were banned nearly two years ago [3]. The {{withpermission}} template, as I understand it, was designed for historical Associated Press images, such as Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. WP:FUC #1 has been applied to remove all unfree images of living people, because of the chance that a free one could be found. If Sleepyjuly can convince the copyright holder to release the iamge under the GFDL or some other free license (see Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission), I'll be happy to drop this issue. hbdragon88 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi dragon, I don't know who the above fellow was taking about, but I didn't feel bullied by anyone  :) But I did submit the copyright holder's official permission as you suggested to OTRS this afternoon so it's in their hands now. I hope I did everything correct and hope to see the image stay. Thanks for your help Sleepyjuly 04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The image clearly fails the criterion. Permission from the copyright holder does not mean that we have permission to ignore Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. A free image can indeed be created, and having the subject illustrating something (which can't be seen in the picture anyway) does not mean that another image would not fulfill "the same encyclopedic purpose". In the future, images like this should be tagged with {{rfu}} rather than brought to IfD since no number of !votes can overrule our policy on nonfree material. ShadowHalo 07:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but the copyright holder has granted Wikipedia full rights to use the image, as forwarded in my confirmation e-mail sent to OTRS. Copyright holder was sent a complete list of GFDL conditions and has given us the thumbs up. Sleepyjuly 09:21, 19 May 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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.

Not deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Image appears to have jpeg compression artifacts and is not a "faithful digitalization" of the original. Needs to be replaced with a version that does not have jpeg compression artifacts and thus is not a degraded version of the original. — Carcharoth 10:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Non-free content so therefore it has to be a low-resolution image. Garion96 (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Low resolution and compression artifacts are different things. Please don't confuse them. It is possible to produce a low-res picture without compression artifacts. Carcharoth 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Faithful digitalization" is in reference to its copyright status. It means that nothing has been done that would alter the image's copyright status. Compression artifacts don't quite meet the threshold of creativity. ShadowHalo 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the "in reference to its copyright status" bit. Can you explain further? In any case, this is not a copyright issue (though the discussion that initially drew my attention to the poor quality of the picture was a free content discussion). My reason for nominating this picture did not mention copyright or GFDL at all. This is an issue of quality alone. I think that this picture is of poor quality (often abbreviated as LQ in IFD discussions), and thus needs to be replaced with a better picture. Carcharoth 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Faithful reproduction" is a term that refers to the copyright status of an image. If an image is not a faithful reproduction, then it means that some creative process has modified the work, and the copyright holder(s) has changed. It has nothing to do with incidental artifacts. If you don't like some of the artifacts, you're more than welcome to find a version of the image at equally low resolution and upload it. That's no reason to delete an image. ShadowHalo 07:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, technically, if I upload a better quality fair-use image, and replace the current one in the articles, then the previous image becomes a fair-use orphan and should be eliminated by a bot sooner or later. Carcharoth 00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or you could upload over the current one. Regardless, there's no reason to delete this image if a better one has not replaced it. ShadowHalo 02:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK. Is there a clean-up tag I can put on the image? I'd like to do that and then withdraw this nomination. Carcharoth 09:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the Pulitzer webpage display image is here. Not sure if that is any better or not. Some of the poor quality may be due to the original photo, as there is a lot of Image noise around the edges of the photo (including the boy's face) and in the background. Carcharoth 13:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's faithful in the sense that it doesn't tries alter what the original picture shows (i.e., it wasn't manipulated to add or remove elements, objects or people nor to alter it's colors). The image must be of lower resolution as not to interfere with the original market role for the original image (i.e., as it's being used only in discussions about the picture itself, it doesn't need to be larger than what's necessary for reader to identify the original by looking to this digitalization). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu badali (talk • contribs)
  • Low resolution and compression artifacts are different things. Please don't confuse them. It is possible to produce a low-res picture without compression artifacts. Having said that, see my comment above, where I'm no longer sure if the poor quality is due to compression artifacts or image noise. I've also just noticed that the source is not clear. The source is just a link to the Wikipedia article on the Associated Press. I think what happened is that someone downloaded a low-res picture and then reduced the resolution still further (an unnecessary step). But I'm hoping the original uploader will clarify things. Carcharoth 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the source information is not clear. When I wrote the fair use rationale, I added a {{fact}} tag nearby the "source info". --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just fixed the source; --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The picture from that website is a .gif. Our image is a .jpg. And you can't be sure that that website was the source. Only the uploader can tell us what the original source was. If you think uploading the .gif image from the Pulitzer website is OK under fair use, please do that, and we can remove this jpg image of unclear origin that may not be an accurate copy. Carcharoth 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you see any inaccuracies in the image? --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who knows how that image has been changed from the original? The only way to know is to ask the original uploader. Do you know where the uploader got it from? I have notified the uploader, but they have not responded here. It would be safest to start again from scratch, as the original uploader did not provide source details. The way it is at the moment, the image page claims that the picture came from the Pulitzer website, but this "source information" was added after the uploading, and so is probably wrong. Carcharoth 22:44, 17 May 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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.

Deleted. In order for magazine covers to be included, the cover itself should be notable. This isn't one of those cases. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Playboy_June_1993.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Postdlf (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover. Rationale says that "there is critical commentary on Anna Nicole's appearance on the cover of this specific issue of the magazine" but the only mention to this magazine issue in the article is the phrase "Smith was chosen to be the 1993 Playmate of the Year". The unfree cover image doesn't adds any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, text CAN replace any image on Wikipedia. Whether it should or not is an entirely different issue. And if Abu doesn't get any noteworthy information from looking at the cover -- for example, that the Anna Nicole Smith of 1993 was much different than the Anna Nicole Smith of 2007 -- perhaps he/she isn't trying hard enough. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 01:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "*In fact, text CAN replace any image on Wikipedia" - I disagree. Articles about modern (i.e., still copyrighted) visual works of art may need images to be fully understood. --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment':But, of course, text CAN replace that. "The painting, a 16 by 20 foot blue canvas, highlighted with streaks of gray-yellow clouds across the top half, and verdant fields of rolling green hills on the bottom half, was widely acknowledged as a breakthrough..." And there are Wikipedians who would argue that we should have NO fair use on Wikipedia, and would prefer text descriptions that don't require a fair use claim. You, apparently, don't want to go that far. You DO want to allow fair use of copyrighted material on Wikipedia... just not this material. Why? You say it's "not notable," but the people who've actually worked on that article disagree. It's been a part of that article for more than two years. That, to me, shows there has been a long established consensus that the image is a valuable part of the article. In this instance, I'll go with the people who've worked on the article as the ones to establish consensus as to whether or not it's notable, not you, Abu, who has no interest other than in adding another image to your list of deletions. (If a person added as much to Wikipedia as you deleted, they'd be celebrated as a super-contributor. Your contributions through subtraction, although sometimes appropriate, are off base here.) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:00, 21 May 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.