Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

February 20

Image:Ugs assembly.JPG

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ugs assembly.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Infestor (notify | contribs).

Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. BJBot (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2008 (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: Hayez02.jpg

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 debate was Keep (it's on commons). (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hayez02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Act (notify | contribs).

Image probably false. seems like it was traced over photograph, not a hand drawing, doesnt seems to fit the style of the time and it has no sources. No proof that hayez had explicit imagery such as this. And there are far better illustrations of the subject (ora sex) on the cunnilingus gallery to choose from Alexandre Van de Sande (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image is on the Commons, not here. —Bkell (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2008 (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:Dave111.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dave111.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alccccc (notify | contribs).

One-time unencyclopedic image used to vandalize. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2008 (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:DennisKucinich signature.JPG

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DennisKucinich signature.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ufolover08 (notify | contribs).

While interesting, I can't imagine it being encyclopedic at all. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it adds to the article in the same way that a photograph adds to it: it tells the reader something about the person that text alone cannot convey. Also, the "signature" option is available on a wide range of infoboxes for holders of political office, and is used regularly, e.g. on the article pages of all the US presidents, British Prime Ministers, etc. etc. -- Hux (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that it's potentially interesting, but the provenance of the image is not convincing. How do we know it's even his correct signature? EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2008 (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:CameronMcCasland.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:COI, Orphaned after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron McCasland Core desat 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much use for this given that the article has been deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2008 (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:PennyValentini.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned, possibly Unencyclopedic, low resolution Core desat 05:55, 20 February 2008 (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:Christinagray1.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Christinagray1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jimador (notify | contribs).

Orphaned by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Gray (second nomination), low resolution Core desat 06:14, 20 February 2008 (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:Jody_de_Ruiter_2005.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jody_de_Ruiter_2005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Geoffreyderuiter (notify | contribs).

Orphaned by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody de Ruiter, fails WP:COI Core desat 06:19, 20 February 2008 (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:21KWh_pack.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:21KWh_pack.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ElectricOne (notify | contribs).

Orphaned after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LionEV, fails WP:COI Core desat 06:21, 20 February 2008 (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:Ranger_Engine.JPG

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LionEV, fails WP:COI Core desat 06:22, 20 February 2008 (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:Lesser.JPG

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Portrait of the author, no foreseeable use. --Eliyak T·C 06:30, 20 February 2008 (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:Elesser.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Portrait of the author, no foreseeable use. --Eliyak T·C 06:30, 20 February 2008 (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:Siann Falleti.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Siann Falleti.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sianny (notify | contribs).

Orphaned absentee uploader, unencyclopedic image Ricky81682 (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2008 (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:Baknamy12.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baknamy12.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Xscorpionz (notify | contribs).

Unused, GFDL claim likely invalid ("copyright square-enix"). —Bkell (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2008 (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:Llyud.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, GFDL claim likely invalid ("copyright square-enix"). —Bkell (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2008 (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:Bangaa.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, GFDL claim likely invalid ("copyright square-enix"). —Bkell (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2008 (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:Garif.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, GFDL claim likely invalid ("copyright square-enix", rpgsite.net watermark). —Bkell (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2008 (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:Secunderabad MMTS Tariffs.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Secunderabad MMTS Tariffs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vsriharsha (notify | contribs).

Unused table in JPEG format. This information (train fares) is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia, and anyway should be presented in a real table instead of an image. —Bkell (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2008 (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:Secunderabad MMTS 1.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Secunderabad MMTS 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vsriharsha (notify | contribs).

Unused table in JPEG format. This information (a railway timetable) is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia, and anyway should be presented in a real table instead of an image. —Bkell (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2008 (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:Secunderabad MMTS 2.jpg

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Secunderabad MMTS 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vsriharsha (notify | contribs).

Unused table in JPEG format. This information (a railway timetable) is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia, and anyway should be presented in a real table instead of an image. —Bkell (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2008 (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:BilboTBaggins.jpg

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 debate was

Keep (User:Wisdom89) —BradV 18:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of one Halo 3 video game character squatting on a dead character in an act known as "teabagging." The uploader claims that it is fair use in teabagging but, as a screen cap of a video game, it would only be fair use in the article on Halo, Halo 3, or the character in question, thereby rendering that arguement invalid and I would doubt that the image would be a good fit in any of those articles and would therefore be unencyclopedic. y'amer'can (wtf?) 14:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image is used as the primary means of visual identification in the article teabagging. The validity of fair-use of this image on teabagging has been discussed before and was deemed appropriate as long as it had non-free fair use rationale - which it does. Please see current discussion here: Article/Talk:Image for more information.--Papajohnin (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I do not believe that the rationale is valid for the teabagging article. It would only be FU in an article on Halo or something of the sort. Also, where has it been discussed? You keep bringing it up, but you don't cite the location of any discussion, just your elaboration of a invalid fair-use claim. y'american (wtf?) 13:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would not need the fair-use rationale if it was used on an article about Halo 3 - which is why I took the time to fill it out. The discussion that I am referring to was on the previous image used on the article here. No FU info was given on that one. Wikipedia has a fair-use policy for things like this, why not use it?--Papajohnin (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You need a fair-use rationale everytime you use a non-free image, and the "discussion" that you cite was of an image which was deleted for a bad fair use rationale. y'am'can (wtf?) 14:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination -- Y not be working? 14:49, 25 February 2008 (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:The_Homosexual_transsexual.jpg

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

Image is a synthesis of several copyrighted photos. Per WP:NOR, we have no way to determine if the people in the image are homosexual or even transsexual. Since no person has ever publicly identified as a "homosexual transsexual," the people incorporated into the montage would probably object to inclusion individually. Image is only used on a talk page, but even then raises issues about the subjective nature of photos used in the image. Uploading editor wishes to legitimize the term with an image, but it is unclear what would be accomplished with comparative montages in terms of elucidating the article. Appears to be a clear case of physiognomy, the pseudoscience of inferring behavior based on facial characteristics. Jokestress (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These images have served their purpose which was to get people in a discussion over illustrating an article to think about the possibilities morphing opens up. Like the possibility of using a morphed composite of many images to illustrate an article about a category of people. Such an image would represent an average member of the category w/o any bias. I would argue that these images should be kept so as to provide context to the discussion in which they were used. The most important arguement to refute is on the copyright of such photomorphs. See "Complete Copyright: An Everyday Guide For Librarians By Carrie Russell" (you'll have to search the book for "copyright photo morphing law"). Which basically says that opinion is split and cites one court case in which morphed images were ruled to not be a violation of copyrights. As for inferring behavior from looking at a picture and talk of pseudo science... I did not do that. All of those images were taken from various websites where the biographies of the people used were written, as well as a couple images of people I know personally. Jokestress would have to be psychic to know who's image was used, or how they would react. The last thing I want to refute is the idea that this is original research. Basically if creating this picture is original research then so would be going out and taking a picture of someone, finding out of they self identify, finding out if someone else would ID them as such etc. etc. It's a classic slippery slope. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both photos are textbook examples of WP:SYN. Jokestress (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hey what is this? We get to throw up arguments until one sticks? If this was so clear why was it not in your first comment? --Hfarmer (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the first sentence of my first comment, taking time to note the word "synthesis." I do not plan on getting into a back and forth with you on this. Policy is quite clear, and WP:NOR has been explained many, many times to you. Jokestress (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on the utility of this photo. However, these two have been ~~bickering~~ talking for a long time now about these "prototype" images. As I understand the issues, Jokestress, a prominent TS activist who passionately believes that the ideas represented in this cluster of articles is hurtful to all transsexual people, is strongly opposed to any including any photo. Hfarmer wants a photo of a person who represents the characteristics that are ascribed to this category of people, even if the individual people involved might not self-identify with this particular label. Personally, I just want any admin who is reading this to go to Talk:Homosexual transsexual (don't forget the archive) and to look over the entire long discussion before making a decision. I think it will help you form your own opinions about the applicability of the various policies and issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XW14.jpg

Image:XW14.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hfarmer (notify | contribs).

Image is a synthesis of several copyrighted photos. Per WP:NOR, we have no way to determine if the people in the image are "autogynephilic" or even transsexual. Since few people ever publicly identified as an "autogynephilic transsexual," the people incorporated into the montage would probably object to inclusion individually. Image is only used on a talk page, but even then raises issues about the subjective nature of photos used in the image. Uploading editor wishes to legitimize the term with an image, but it is unclear what would be accomplished with comparative montages in terms of elucidating the article. Appears to be a clear case of physiognomy, the pseudoscience of inferring behavior based on facial characteristics. Jokestress (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See what I argued about the image above. Specific to this picture this Image is neither original research, nor physiognomy, or defamatory, or in violation of copyright. Because the membership of the people in the source images was determined from their own biograpical webpages and the definition of the word applied to them. It cannot be defamatory because their is no real way to know who's image was used. Nor is it in violation of copyright law because I have been able to hunt down an actual legal precident where the use of images to create a composite is considered a fair use of the source Images. Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures corp. (137 F, 3d 109 (2d Cir 1998) These images should be kept for the context of the article and this legal decision should be used in the fomulation of official WP policy on the use of composited images such as these. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both photos are textbook examples of WP:SYN. Jokestress (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at the related image, which is listed immediately above this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2008 (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:Portraite.JPG

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 debate was Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

derivative work of copyrighted painting Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (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.

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: keep. This seems to be the de facto logo for Anonymous and is used in an article about the group, which is generally considered appropriate fair use. -Nv8200p talk 13:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg

Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nahum Reduta (notify | contribs).

A free-use alternative image could certainly be found instead of this one. An entrepreneurial Wikipedian should just contact a member of Anonymous and get permission for a free-use version of a similar image, or contact someone from Flickr and get them to change a setting to Creative Commons... Cirt (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that image has been cycling around imageboards for ages. It is impossible to prove the origin of the image or even the post it was originally found in. However, I'd be willing to make an SVG image of Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg if that's what you mean by making a free-use alternative. --SyntaxError55 ^talk 02:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on the image's talk page.--Theymos (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep - Unlike a photograph of a living person or place, a piece of graphic art is non-replaceable by definition, so the "replaceable Fair Use" argument for deletion isn't relevant here. However, recreating it in another format and releasing it under a free license would be an infringement of the original creator's copyright, so that won't work either. One might be able to make a Fair Use argument on the basis that this is effectively an official logo for the group concerned. Failing that, if its creator can't be found so as to get it released we'll have to delete the it; "creator unknown" does not provide legal justification for its use here, as far as I know. -- Hux (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - replaceable fair use. People who say "lol anonymous is a concept" are seriously overstating their importance. We can't use fair use images for bands, so why should we use them for a bunch of nineteen year old virgins? Will ^(talk) 10:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Z00r (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-free image that doesn't meaningfully help the reader to understand the article subject. Addhoc (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What i this image illustrating, and why is it important to show this image? Rettetast (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's an illustration of an invisible male figure in a business suit. This, along with a green figure with no facial features, are two cartoons most often used by Anonymous to represent themselves. The green figure tends to be illustrated by artists most often, with people occasionally dressing as the figure (complete with green face covering). The invisible figure tends to be used on more "professional" mediums, such as fliers, flags, and even on youtube videos.--Cast (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image is essentially the anonymous' flag, banner or logo. It is irreplaceable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.155.231 (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)— 128.163.155.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep as Hux said it is essentially a logo and some variation of it is used in just about everything related to anonymous, though i have seen a version of it with out the demotavator boarder but this version is by far the most common when used by itself NekrosKoma (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is the anonymous' flag, banner or logo and another similar would work... but why bother wasting all this effort to delete it and just put one very similar back up... just leave it alone... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.15.53 (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)— 128.193.15.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep it. 86.29.11.160 (talk)— 86.29.11.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 14:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-free, unencyclopedic, and overkill. bCube _{(talk | contribs)} 01:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I should elaborate on "uncyclopedic", as I tend to overuse it. By "unencyclopedic" I meant that the image really does not contribute to the encyclopedia in any way, nor does it further the user's understanding of the article. It's just an image used by a couple of groups across the Internet. There are much better images to use, such as a picture of the Anonymous protests. I should also note I have a bit of a bias against these people, though.bCube _{(talk | contribs)} 01:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the key points of the Anonymous (group) article was to distinguish between chanology's subsegment of Anonymous and Anonymous in general. This image in particular is iconic to the general anonymous group, far moreso than pictures from chanology. It serves as a logo for the group. In terms of fairuse considerations, I would bring up the following similar examples: [1], [2], [3]. Z00r (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of their primary "mottos", an example of the illustrated slogans, it is free, and a strong visual contribution to the page. Feebas_factor 19:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, I really don't understand why this isn't fair use. Feebas_factor 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the image is interesting to show, but fair use is a stretch. The company that seems to have made the poster (and presumably owns it) isn't mentioned in the article, so the article is not about *them*. Other commenters above have mentioned corporate logos like BMW's, but BMW owns their logo, and it is used in the article about BMW. Nobody argues that any of these 'anonymous' groups own the image we are discussing. EdJohnston (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've repeatedly read that this image was made by a company, but I see no evidence of this. Is there any proof that this image was actually made by Demotivator? Couldn't this just as easily have been made on photoshop?--Cast (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, now that I browsed Demotivator's website, doesn't their copyright only refer to their own stock images? Do they have a copyright over images generated on their website, but were created by their D.I.Y. program? If not, they don't have a copyright over this image at all.--Cast (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since Anonymous isn't a "group" in the same sense as a company, it is hard to determine if they could "own" anything. However, the poster was made by a member of Anonymous, possibly with photoshop, or possibly with the demotivator software to add the border and text. Z00r (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Now that I've done a bit of looking into the subject, seems the uploader was a bit misinformed on the proper licensing tag for the image. It is not a published poster. It seems to be just a fair use parody image that can be produced by anyone, and has been reproduced in various forms. Being made with the Demotivator image generator does not make Despair Inc. the copyright owner. This is a non-issue. The uploader could just alter the licensing to place it in the commons.--Cast (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Keep: Ok, good. I was fairly sure this poster fell under fair use, I just couldn't quite explain it (I'm not very good with the policy language). Does this mean the image is ok, at least with respect to copyright/fair use? 24.202.75.210 (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Am I to assume that you were the uploader? I will then. As far as I can tell, yes it is, but you have to give it the proper license attribution. Assuming it was applicable for the creative commons license, you should start up a wikicommons account and precede with the steps necessary to upload it there. It can easily be linked to any appropriate articles from that location. The one point of contention would be that I have to amend by previous statements. I still can't confirm the origin of the clip art used to make this motivational poster. The boarder and text can easily be duplicated by anyone, but no one knows the original creator of the invisible male in the business suit. In the absence of a creator, we could use the image owner as the source, but we know full well that Anonymous does not "own" anything. So now we can safely assume Despair Inc. does not own this image, but the creator remains...anonymous! (dun dun duuum)--Cast (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a representative of Anonymous I would like to say we do not own any copyrights and all of our work we publish online is free and fair use for anybody. We do not believe in unfair copyrights and fair-usage - all of our work is completely free for all uses. Anonymous does not have representatives, either. As they are a group and one person cannot represent all of them. Personally I think this is one of the stupidest deletion requests I've seen on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.237.34 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Watch what you're saying there, "representative" of the unrepresentable. You might send mixed signals. Anyway, that bit about fair use is true. A rule amongst anons is "Reproduce. Reproduce. Reproduce." There are no "intellectual property owners" among Anonymous. But I think wiki will want that in writing. The licensing for the image needs to be changed so it will be recognized as a creative commons image, created by "Anonymous" and released to the public for free use.--Cast (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

In line with what the last unsigned commenter said, why doesn't someone just upload a different free-use image to replace this one, to Wikimedia Commons, and make a note of it, here? That way, we could then have no problem deleting this image and usurping it with a free-use one. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actual format of the poster isn't copyrighted from what I can tell, the quote itself isn't copyrighted, and the image isn't copyrighted. Since this was apparently made by a member of anonymous and has been circulated by them it seems reasonable to say it's public domain. Honestly, if Anonymous didn't want the image here, we'd already know.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]