Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 5[edit]

Uploaded by BCV (notify). NS Some editors claims the image is from a now defunct NBC url. What do we do in these cases? Besides, I have tried {{nsd}} 2 times, but it got reverted.- Abu Badali 01:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, promotional headshots of each character were released by NBC during the run of the show. The source is NBC.com; there is simply no longer a functional URL link because the show has ended and NBC removed all The West Wing references/information. This shouldn't be a reason to delete the image. If anything, it should be an argument to keep the image, as Wikipedia is one of only a few places storing all of these promotional images. — Scm83x hook 'em 01:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to disagree. Wikipedia should not be(come) the primary source for such things. --Abu Badali 04:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - on that, I 100% agree with you. We need to keep in mind what "fair use" is. Fair use is not blanket permission to make a digital archive of anything we want - it is an ability to use the image for a particular purpose. The law specifies, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research". Using the photo in an article about the person obviously qualifies. Storing the photo for purposes of making a digital archive would not seem to. BigDT 05:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:AGF - if they say that it was an NBC promotional photo and there is no reason to doubt that word, assume good faith and leave it be. FWIW, I googled "Allison Janney" on google images and found three sites with obviously derivative images, including [1]. If Lifetime is using a derivative of the image, I'd say that's a pretty good sign that the image is actually a promo photo. BigDT 02:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This may open a very dangerous precendent. I do not doubt the uploader's word. I just believe we're going be opening the Pandora's box of fair use abuse the day we start accepting "url is gone" as a source for {{promotional}}s images. The {{promotional}} tag is already one of the most abused fair use image tags. --Abu Badali 04:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it is dangerous, it is a risk we live with. Wikipedia is in large part based on assuming good faith. That doesn't mean that you take someone's word when it obviously isn't true ... but in a case like this where there is no reason not to believe the explanation, I would say AGF applies. BigDT 05:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source is NBC, fair use rationale is as stated on page. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will admit that I am learning more about the procedures to use an image by the day. At the time the picture was available at NBC.com I did think to include the actual url, clearly that novice mistake as caused this incident. I do fail to see the rationale for it's deletion. It is a promotional photo and it is tagged appropriately with a source which I interpret to mean the organization releasing the image. BCV 13:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The rationale is that we need a verifiable source for defining an image as promotional. If we start allowing images tagged {{promotional}} without a verifiable source, we're going to see a storm of files being uploaded from directly Google Image Search to Wikipedia with under the same claim. How do we tell the difference of a promotional shot from an image from some stock photo agency (that's intended for being licensed under some fee)? We use the source, that's how. --Abu Badali 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cries of AGF seem misplaced here. AGF is largely about not attributing malice and generally being civil and trying to reach consensus, rather than labelling other editors as trolls or POV-pushers or "the opposition" unnecessarily. If you make controversial article edits unsupported by referencing, AGF says "don't immediately assume it's a troll" but not "don't assume they had a source at the time so it's alright". Personally I do not doubt that these images were uploaded in good faith. But we are certainly not here to make a collection of copyrighted images that are unavailable elsewhere (I imagine this is at least partly why WP image pages are not sorted and categorized in the same way as Commons ones are) and in fact is unlikely to qualify as "fair use". With a full albeit expired URL and timestamp from the original upload it is at least possible to make the claim "well, that was my exact source - that website and that time" - and if in real luck it will be on an internet archive. The problem with "promotional" images is that it takes a bit of effort to work out whether an image was genuinely "promotional" in character so a more exact source would be helpful. If it came from a "promotional" section of the official website, that's a good sign, but if it came from a fansite it's a very bad one. Even an expired URL would have helped with clearing that up, though (so long as it is accurate, which can't readily be checked) the information that has been provided certainly points towards a promotional character. Another key point is establishing the copyright holder - that's much clearer (presumably it's not the hosting website!) and doesn't seem to be affected by the URL expiration. TheGrappler 03:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with about 15 minutes of effort, I was able to verify the source and find a current nbc.com URL [2]. I don't believe "verifiable" should mean "trivially verifiable by clicking on a single link". And if the URLs become invalid for whatever reason, my vote is still "keep" as the source could still be verified by writing to NBC if necessary. We are going to lose a lot of useful material on Wikipedia if we insist on deleting everything that isn't effortlessly verifiable. DHowell 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. howcheng {chat} 16:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Gerald Farinas (notify). AP photo illustrating the subject of the photo. This is forbidden on WP:FAIR under counterexample #5. Further, even if it were permissible to use media photos to illustrate the subject, there is already a photo on Alan Keyes that is from the Keyes campaign itself.- BigDT 02:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Gerald Farinas (notify). AP photo illustrating the subject of the photo. This is forbidden on WP:FAIR under counterexample #5. Further, even if it were permissible to use media photos to illustrate the subject, there is already a photo on Alan Keyes that is from the Keyes campaign itself.- BigDT 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Gerald Farinas (notify). AP photo illustrating the subject of the photo. This is forbidden on WP:FAIR under counterexample #5. Further, even if it were permissible to use media photos to illustrate the subject, there is already a photo on Alan Keyes that is from the Keyes campaign itself.- BigDT 02:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Gerald Farinas (notify). AP photo illustrating the subject of the photo. This is forbidden on WP:FAIR under counterexample #5. Further, even if it were permissible to use media photos to illustrate the subject, there is already a photo on Alan Keyes that is from the Keyes campaign itself.- BigDT 02:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Berserker79 (notify). OR and OB by image:Resorcinol-2D-skeletal.png — Berserker79 09:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Hardouin (notify). OR and OB by Image:始皇帝 (篆文).svg. Silversmith Hewwo 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Comment Image on the Commons is of better quality Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. There's a problem with the new image file. I left a message at User talk:Silversmith. Hardouin 02:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem fixed. I have a local copy of the old JPEG, so it can be deleted. Silversmith Hewwo 05:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following were listed on June 25 but the uploader was not notified per policy. Signatures are of the original nominator. Notification has now been done. I'm not exactly sure what "AU" stands for, though. howcheng {chat} 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by Andromeda (notify). TV screenshot used for identification of person pictured on screen. Improper use of a fair use image. --BrownCow • (how now?) 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Drewk (notify). Tagged as promotional, but no source URL given ({{no source}} removed by uploader once already). --BrownCow • (how now?) 17:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted (how did I miss this one when I was processing these?). Source information now exists. howcheng {chat} 18:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by SnappingTurtle (notify). The name of the television series changed so the old image (which has the old name in it) is no long applicable. Obsoleted by Image:Knights of prosperity.tvseries.jpg No need to notify SnappingTurtle, I'm the one posting this notice. SnappingTurtle 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G7 BigDT 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Geoff archibald (notify). No fair use rationale and none seems likely, dubious source. Absentee uploader since 2004. Punkmorten 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Axel Driken (notify). OR, AB, OB by Image:Hemiacetal.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Axel Driken (notify). OR, AB, OB by Image:Acetal.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Axel Driken (notify). OR, AB, OB by Image:DT chemical structure.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Axel Driken (notify). OR, AB, OB by Image:A chemical structure.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Axel Driken (notify). OR, AB, OB by Image:Thymine chemical structure.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Axel Driken (notify). OR, AB, OB by Image:Guanine chemical structure.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are relisted from June 27 as the uploader was not notified. Notifications are now done. All signatures are from the original nominator. howcheng {chat} 21:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by Damo88 (notify). OR --Alan Frize 15:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by TXNewser (notify). OR --Alan Frize 15:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ronald20 (notify). OR --Alan Frize 15:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Infochannel (notify). OR, AB
Orphaned since November 2005, was only used in Infochannel Software which was deleted as per AfD discussion. No evidence that the photographer or the designer gave their permission to license this picture as GFDL. --88.134.45.204 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_July_5&oldid=1148689897"