Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 October 11

< October 10	October 12 >

October 11

File:Nqwebasaurus.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nqwebasaurus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Taken from website with no free use criteria http://www.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/nature-online/dino-directory/detail.dsml?Genus=Nqwebasaurus MMartyniuk (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:SoccerMatrix.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SoccerMatrix.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No proof that this image was released by the company into the public domain. –MuZemike 04:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this image is now an orphan, as the article it was attached to just got AfD deleted. Sven Manguard _Talk 17:28, 12 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Debit card.JPG

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Debit card.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Claimed source as created-by-uploader, but almost certainly just his scan of a copyrighted original. Uploader therefore cannot release as CC or other free license and no evidence bank releases it freely. DMacks (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Rahimi.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rahimi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

It is unlikely that the uploader has personal access to the VP of Iran to be able to take a photo of him. It is more likely that he simply copied the image from fa-wiki - of course that is not at all the same as saying that the uploader created the image by himself, as the licensing tag claims. Moreover, this appears to be related to a long-term cross-wiki sockpuppeteer with a long history of false copyright claims, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. It is fairly likely that the same user uploaded the image to fa-wiki after finding it somewhere on the wb - that does not make the image free. Nsk92 (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Daneshjoo.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daneshjoo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

It is unlikely that the uploader has personal access to a high-ranking Iranian politician to be able to take a photo of him. It is more likely that he simply copied the image from fa-wiki - of course that is not at all the same as saying that the uploader created the image by himself, as the licensing tag claims. Moreover, this appears to be related to a long-term cross-wiki sockpuppeteer with a long history of false copyright claims, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. It is fairly likely that the same user uploaded the image to fa-wiki after finding it somewhere on the wb - that does not make the image free. Nsk92 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Mctunes.JPG

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mctunes.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Created by banned user TrapShooterPageCreator, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RealDanMan14/Archive for background. Licensed as "own work" but I just don't buy it. He may have created the image, but there's no evidence at all that he took the photograph it's based on. Hairhorn (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Spandauballet12.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spandauballet12.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

TinyEye and Google search indicate it is an image used on the cover of the album Best of Spandau Ballet - unlikely to be the work of the uploader MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Spandauballet2009.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spandauballet2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Image was taken at a media event at HMS Belfast in March 2009 - unlikely to be the work of the uploader MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:1 Para Bn Beret.JPG

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Keep: Now tagged as non-free. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 Para Bn Beret.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Picture of a beret, claimed self cc-by though I'm not sure if copyright issues apply to the cap badge. Acather96 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Flashboard 1a.JPG

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Keep: Now tagged as non-free. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flashboard 1a.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Army badges/emblems, doubt uploader is the copyright holder Acather96 (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've updated the image tag to what seems to be the appropriate fair use tag. This was uploaded by a new editor who's learning the ropes (see User talk:Smikect) Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:13, 20 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Beret 44.JPG

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Keep: Now tagged as non-free. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beret 44.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

See above Acather96 (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Flashboard 2a.JPG

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Keep: Now tagged as non-free. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flashboard 2a.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

See above Acather96 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've updated the image tag to what seems to be the appropriate fair use tag. This was uploaded by a new editor who's learning the ropes (see User talk:Smikect) Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:13, 20 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:44 Beret Badges.JPG

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Keep: Now tagged as non-free. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:44 Beret Badges.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

See above Acather96 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Dukeimprov.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dukeimprov.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This appears to a be a promotional photo or an photo of a promotional image. Copyright is probably held by the school not uploader. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:41, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Bowin-logo.gif

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Keep: Now tagged as non-free. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bowin-logo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

Logo of a company, so possible copyright. Doubt the uploader is, or represents said company. Call me! ^{My master!} 21:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Company logo, used in an article on that company and so would be acceptable under fair-use.

It also appears likely that the uploader is indeed the residual rights holder to the assets of this defunct company. I'd advise them to upload it under fair-use rather than CC-by-sa just to protect these rights, but in neither case is there reason to delete this logo from WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not for certain and without doubt that the uploader holds the copyright, then it is eligible for deletion. Not only that, the file looks purely promotional. See ARTEST4ECHO's comments above. Call me! ^{My master!} 13:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I'm involved here?--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:54, 22 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:GE tut14.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: delete as an unused file containing proprietary software in the screenshot. The nominator's identity is otherwise irrelevant. A reupload is acceptable only under a crop or fair use rationale. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GE tut14.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Unencyclopedic and not used anywhere; possibly copyright violation for having a screenshot of Paint; lacking source description and copyright status information. Call me! ^{My master!} 21:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator needs to clarify what "having a screenshot of Paint" means (it isn't even Paint). This illustrates another of this nominator's recent flurry of deletions where they have used a single editor's (Ashleyjoyce (talk · contribs)) contribution history as a list for deletion, rather than any policy-based reason on each image. A rubber stamp nomination of "Unencyclopedic" is just not good enough, and when applied en masse to a single editor looks badly like bias.

There are also sockpuppet issues in this editor's behaviour, where the deletion is carried out by one account TCNSV (talk · contribs), but links to the main account TeleComNasSprVen (talk · contribs), so as to present an untraceable contribution history under that account.

Whilst this screenshot might have fair-use issues, those are not insoluble. It was clearly intended as a tutorial for Google SketchUp and screenshots of such are acceptableto the project. It was uploaded at a time when our annotation was not as clear as it is today, but such issues are fixable without deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong; if something lacks source description and copyright status, it is eligible for deletion. Furthermore, a huge yellow welcome sign with no relevance to anything has no intrinsic educational value in this encyclopedia; you are better off finding higher quality examples of such signs elsewhere. Furthermore, your arguments are bordering on WP:ADHOM See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#Glossary for a list of proper deletion reasons. Call me! ^{My master!} 13:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, your hastiness to delete something (anything! just to find a reason to exist) has overtaken any analysis of the item itself. It is incumbent on the nominator of an item for deletion to put forward an appropriate argument for doing so. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't good enough, nor is WP:IDONTLIKEYOU or WP:IDONTLIKEYOURCONTRIBUTIONS.

This is not MS Paint. Nor is this a Welcome sign. It's actually part of a tutorial for Google SketchUp (the fact it's a drawing of a welcome sign is unimportant. It has to draw something). Descriptions of SketchUp are encyclopedic, we need images to illustrate them. Do we need this one? Or have we, in the intervening years, acquired better images? Quite possibly. I'm happy to see it deleted because we have something better and no longer need it, but that's not at all the same thing as accusing an editor of uploding copyvios (You still haven't explained why your sockpuppet tagged this editor's whole contribution history for deletion).

Is the licence appropriate? maybe not. It's a screenshot that involves proprietary software. In some jurisdictions that has to fall under fair use. However that's a clear WP:SOFIXIT WP:BEFORE and no excuse for deletion. It would incidentally apply equally to other SketchUp images. The uploader has PD'ed their own creative input to the image.

Once again, I won't weep for the loss of this image as it seems we've now got others. However your reason for seeking deletion here is still as inappropriate as ever. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:THE WATERING PLACE.jpeg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:THE WATERING PLACE.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Image of a cover. Eeekster (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Orphans-first production.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: File does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orphans-first production.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Probably scanned from an old newspaper. Eeekster (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.