Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 October 30

< October 29	October 31 >

October 30

Image:411.jpg

Image:411.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thefunmachine (notify | contribs).

This doesn't look like a free image to me - I get the feeling it's a publicity photo of some sort, which would make it non free, and replaceable. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons showing through. -- RG ² 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Witness_Cover_300px.jpg

Image:Witness_Cover_300px.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PennyLane100 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, possible Copyright violation, article deleted in AFD Core desat 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HA-LOGO.jpg

Image:HA-LOGO.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hotairbrand (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Air Brand Core desat 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ron with a broken wand.jpg

Image:Ron with a broken wand.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Prfct angel666 (notify | contribs).

OB image exists Image:Grint.weaseley.jpg Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Broken nomination, the actual filename is Image:Ron with a broken wand.jpg. - Mike Rosoft 11:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed nomination (actually, Mike did ;)). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UE and OR from speedy deleted article ~Matticus ^T_C 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Image:LuzernCheeseFestival.jpg

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

License is incorrect. Source say "Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic" Rette tast 09:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't this still permitted? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 09:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You are fast:-).

I am sorry but that is not a free license that is allowed on wikipedia, because you cant make derivative works. Rette tast 09:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LuzernCheeseFestival2.jpg has the same problem. Rette tast 09:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also are pretty quick. OK how about I contact the owner about the images and ask him to license them under 3.0 like he did to the others? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 09:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Rette tast 09:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Ive left him message. I see he has licensed his lew weightlifting images under Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 for wikipedia. Hopefully he can do the same for the Lucerne images. We'll have to wait and see, Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 09:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Not deleted The author has changed the licensing and the images are now ok. Rette tast 23:14, 30 October 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Wiki_dazzler_aa.jpg

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

Derivative of a copyrighted sketch of John Romita, Jr. Lokal _Profil 10:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MiG-29 3-view.gif

Image:MiG-29 3-view.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Henrickson (notify | contribs).

Collage of unfree images from http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/mig29-2.html (not the original osource). Collaging does not make it free Megapixie 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)‎[reply]

Image:Su-30cockpit.jpg

Image:Su-30cockpit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dickhooker (notify | contribs).

Tagged as fair use critical commentary. Pictures of cockpits of fighter planes still in existence, no critical commentary on the image not fair use. Megapixie 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Davidedgar150.JPG

Image:Davidedgar150.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bababoum (notify | contribs).

incorrect license per source. Source say Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic Rette tast 16:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DvD065.jpg

Image:DvD065.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Khadardeyr (notify | contribs).

Orphaned an unencyclopedic image of a user whose only contributions to article space have been a since-deleted vanity page and one piece of vandalism. —An gr 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anti-gay.jpeg

Image:Anti-gay.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Schyler (notify | contribs).

Advocating discrimination toward a minority, and could be considered a diluted form of hate crime. +mt 18:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; serves no encyclopedic purpose. —An gr 19:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChurchJordan2.jpg

Image:ChurchJordan2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Issagm (notify | contribs).

User-made image with a watermark (which violates policy), and is low-quality. Can hardly make out what it is. —An gr 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arabization_123.jpg

Image:Arabization_123.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Naiseroder (notify | contribs).

This image should be Deleted. It is the personal photoshopped creation of the uploader, and reflects the user's very strong POV. The image, which is actually several images of unclear copyright and origin, is not encyclopedic in nature. The image appears to serve a purpose other than to illustrate a written point within the article, and in fact reflects the uploaders personal biased attitude towards the subject at hand. The purpose and place for this image on Wikipedia is very questionable, and would perhaps be better used on a politcal blog of sorts. Atari400 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the images are what call unclear copyright and origin, however, I don't agree with the "reflects the user's very strong POV". I am talking about the fact of Arabization in Malaysia, it is fact, I did not invent it. What I want is to have a picture showing Arabization in Malaysia. Anyway I have local newspaper as source and many local Malaysian blogs to support Arabization in Malaysia. Now since you point out the Image:Arabization_123.jpg is unclear copyright, I will have to look for original materials and I will upload a new one. Naiseroder 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an instant proof to show to you that Arabization in Malaysia is a fact not my POV. In fact it is the other way round, your very strong POV. Please read this member wrote (below) taken from discussion page Talk:Malaysia:

Indeed no. There are currently issues n Malaysia with the spread of Wahhabi Islam financed by Saudi Arabia, and an attempt to radicalise Malaysian Islam. That might belong under a political/religious topic. But the typical Malaysian dress has been such for a long time, and is merely now more prevalent. What you might have been noticing, if you are new to Malaysia, and had never visited before, is that there are a lot more visitors from Arab countries, who find Malaysia a very pleasant holiday destination. They do, indeed, dress in conservative Wahhabi style - but please bear in mind that such a style is also not inherently "Moslem", rather a style of dress, and is not typically Malaysian. docboat 01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This member's name is docboat and he agreed Arabization of the article on Malaysia is a fact, not POV. Btw the article is Arabization. Naiseroder 04:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Naiseroder have permission to repost and edit a comment originally posted by docboat on the talk page of Malaysia? The original post left by editor docboat, does not seem to agree with the conclusion presented by Naiseroder, being that the image is appropriate or NPOV. Atari400 10:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is called "To find an excuse to delete", I am talking to Atari400. You see, what Atari400 wanted at the beginning was POV POV POV and we undo/revert the article 3 times. (I have local Malaysian newspapers to support this Arabization in Malaysia) After 3 days of 'revert war', suddenly this "unclear copyright and origin" stuff appeared. This is clearly "To find an excuse to delete". If someone think the picture is "unclear copyright and origin", why revert 3 times on POV?

Anyway, I will upload a new "clear origin" image. Naiseroder 05:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: regardless of POV issues, the nominated image has several images of unclear copyright and origin. +mt 04:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Mwtoews. This image could only be {{PD-self}} if the uploader is the photographer of every photograph shown, which is highly unlikely. Non-NPOV and lack of encyclopedic usefulness are additional reasons to delete. —An gr 06:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly unencyclopedic. Pavel Vozenilek 19:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NPOV and original research because it is manipulated. Looks like a propaganda banner.__earth ^(Talk) 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]