Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 9

< January 8	January 10 >

January 9

File:Camp 7, Guantanamo, via google -a.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I uploaded this image; (2) Another contributor placed a {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag on the image ; (3) I placed a {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} tag; (4) An administrator placed a {{Rk}} -- and, in their edit summary, they suggested initiating a discussion here was the appropriate next step; (6) However, a minute later that administrator placed a {{di-no license}} on the image.

I continue to believe that this is an important and useful image that qualifies for fair use here. I think the administrator was correct to turn down the original tagger's claim the image was replaceable. I believe I initially used the {{Non-free image data}} and {{Non-free image rationale}} templates correctly, and that the administrator was correct to suggest a discussion here was the correct next step for the challenger. I have doubts that their subsequent tagging was correct.

The location of this camp is so secret that the "high value detainees" held there are blindfolded, and driven on confusing circuitous routes, any time they are taken to any other facility on the Naval Base, so they won't know the camp's actual location. In 2008 the military officers assigned to defend Osama bin Laden's chauffeur Salim Ahmed Hamdan, at his Guantanamo military commission, wanted to interview the senior suspects the DoD held in this secret camp, to ask them if they thought their client actually knew anything about terrorism, or merely knew he was driving around a rich guy. They were told that, even though they were military officers, with high security clearances, it would be a breach of security for them to be taken to the camp. Those responsible for this camp told them they would not bring the senior suspects to a place where Hamdan's attorneys could interview them, and that they could not be brought to the camp, as that would expose its location. Those officers offered to be blindfolded, and driven along confusing circuitous routes, just like the captives, so they too would not be able to guess at this camp's location. Geo Swan (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's not at all hard to go to Google Maps and get a superior image of the spot, which is at 19°54′50″N 75°07′20″W / 19.9140°N 75.1221°W / 19.9140; -75.1221. I'm not really convinced that this is the correct building anyway but I don't see why we need a screenshot. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification please, are you arguing that this nonfree image from google should be deleted -- and then replaced with an esthetically superior crop from google?

As to whether this is the correct building -- the opinion of wikipedia contributors like you and I isn't relevant. What is relevant is that Jason Leopold, the author of the article that this image was originally published with, thought it was the correct building. Leopold has a record of publishing knowledgeable articles on Guantanamo, so is a verifiable, authoritative WP:Reliable source. No offense, but if you are arguing the image should be deleted, because you doubt it is the correct building, when an authoritative RS is on record that it is the correct building, your argument does not comply with our policy on WP:No original research.

As to why the image is necessary, we have a formerly secret camp, with a formerly secret location. Even after the existence of the camp was acknowledged its location was kept secret. So, when an RS publishes an image of the camp of course we should publish it.

You wrote above that the camp was at 19°54′50″N 75°07′20″W / 19.9140°N 75.1221°W. Couldn't we replace the image with a text description, one that includes the latitude and longitude you supplied? Forgive me, but if the latitude and longitude you supplied is based on your analysis of the image, then wouldn't that be original research on your part?

Similarly deleting this previously published image, derived from google, in order to replace it with an esthetically superior image derived from google, which has not been previously published, would not be consistent with WP:OR. Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit to having worked out the coordinates by inspection, but reference to the original image shows that it gives coordinates which are within a few feet of the ones I supplied (that is, 19°54′50″N 75°07′19″W / 19.9138°N 75.1219°W). And those coordinates are all that need to be added to the article; we do not need to add an image when (a) the coordinates are more informative, and (b) Google produces a better image now anyway. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please -- I think you are either (1) agreeing that you determined the latitude and longitude by original research -- but you think it is original research that is allowed within the wording of the policy; or (2) you are disagreeing that figuring out the latitude and longitude is original research at all. Have I got that right? Geo Swan (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct, non-"when did you stop beating your wife" answer is "I did my own research first, but then discovered that it was there in the referenced source all along." I did run the coordinates in the image through the FCC coordinate converter, but we've always accepted units translation as not constituting research. The point you appear to be trying to dodge is that the source gives coordinates, which we could simply put in the article and allow people to pull up on Google themselves. We do not need a non-free image for this, and we especially do not need that non-free image for this. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The latitude and longitude are in the original source? Hmmm. I don't see them. Thinking you might have meant that the latitude and longitude are hidden in the html I examined that -- and couldn't find it. The Exif addon only supplies a single field to me for this image "CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 90", so the coordinates aren't in there either.

I'd appreciate you being more specific as to where you found these coordinates.

I don't know what the FCC coordinate converter is. Could you please explain your use of this term?

Did you mean to imply that I am somehow trying to trap you, or trick you? I am not trying to trick you or trap you.

As to whether it is convenient to click on a coordinate link and get a map -- well this doesn't work for me. When I do this my browser tells me I need something to open .kml files. Maybe this doesn't work for me because I have various things turned off, for security. Maybe I am just not as smart as you. Since this doesn't work for me I wonder what percentage of other readers it doesn't work for? Was there a discussions somewhere, where a consensus was reached, as to when latitude and longitude coordinates are adequate substitutes for an actual map? If so can you point me towards that discussion?

WRT your last sentence "...and we especially do not need that non-free image for this..." i continue to think we are not authorized to replace a previously published image with unpublished image, even if it is more esthetically pleasing. Geo Swan (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are on the original image itself, along the bottom; they were cropped out of our copy. If you input those coordinates into google maps, it will locate the same building and show a more recent aerial view. I used the FCC page [1] to convert these from DMS to decimal degrees simply to show that the coordinates I worked out were the same ones from the image; the article on Camp 7 itself I have updated with the coordinates as they are given in the image, without conversion.

I'm not opposed to including a map of the location for clarity. The image in question, however, isn't a map; it's an aerial photograph of a building. The coordinates of that building are superior to that image: not only do they allow one to pull up an image of that building from a variety of sources, but they also allow display of a real map that shows the location of this building in relation to the rest of the complex. Mangoe (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "They are on the original image itself, along the bottom; they were cropped out of our copy. If you input those coordinates into google maps, it will locate the same building and show a more recent aerial view."

That is original research. Any map or aerial photo cropped by a wikipedia contributor is original research. Wikipedia contributors like you and I are not allowed to include original research in article space. We are allowed to include the previously published conclusions of respected WP:RS, like Jason Leopold. Normally, we don't include non-free images -- unless they meet all our WP:NFCC.

You initially asserted this image didn't fulfill the criteria of WP:NFCC because it was replaceable. Are you still claiming this image is replaceable? If you are claiming it is replaceable by the coordinates you determined I request you try to explain how coordinates you chose complies with WP:OR.

Thanks for your explanation of the FCC calculator, which performs a trivial conversion of decimal latitude and longitude to minutes and seconds latitude and longitude. I agree the conversion tool is trivial, and its use is not original research. The last time I looked this calculator wasn't necessary, as we have, or had, coordinate templates that accept either decimal or minutes-seconds latitude and longitude. Using a tool that does a trivial calculation doesn't erase that the original coordinates you fed into it are original research. Geo Swan (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I saw that the article listed coordinates. I wondered how I had overlooked that. I wondered who added them, and when -- because whoever had done so had not provided a reference. Well, when I checked this history User:Mangoe added them -- since this discussion was initiated. I found this misleading and confusing. I don't think they should have been added at all, as it is original research, and doubly shouldn't have been added during the discussion period, without an explanation here. Geo Swan (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research to copy numbers directly from a secondary source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mangoe (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, purely because you can get a better quality image by uploading a screenshot of Google directly. I have no opinion on whether a Google image of this place be appropriate. FYI, there's no need to use a website to change to or from degree-minute-second; it's a routine calculation. Just pull up your calculator and start multiplying or dividing. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand the reasoning here. Are you arguing that we should upload a better quality image to replace this one? WP:NFCC#3b would support us using a low quality image. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 23:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I raised challenger's suggestion that this previously published and thus verifiable fair use image should be replaced by an unpublished and unverifiable image cropped by one of us at WP:RSN#When can information acquired through unverifiable experiments with google satellite comply with WP:OR?. Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I didn't say so explicitly -- keep because challenger's suggestion that this image is replaceable is incorrect, since I believe the crops he or she suggests we make are unverifiable lapses from WP:OR. Similarly, replacing the image with coordinates he or she determined through experimentation would also be an unverifiable lapse from WP:OR. Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This file is sourced to [2] which uses this image. The watermark of the image reads "Imagery Date: 1/24/2010 (icon) 2003 (spaces) 19"54'49.59° N 75"07'18.85° W elev 36 m (spaces) Eye alt 338 m (icon)". I don't think that it is original research to say that "19"54'49.59° N 75"07'18.85° W" indicates the coordinates for the location on the photo. There are free satellite images of the earth, for example images produced by NASA. Guántanamo is very close to the United States (about halfway between Florida and Puerto Rico), so there is not really any reason to believe that this location would be missing from NASA maps. Therefore, this image is replaceable by free satellite images. Additionally, the image currently violates WP:NFCC#10b, but that can be repaired. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2013 (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.

File:Alpha-aminoisobutyric acid.png

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned (was obviously never in use). Leyo 10:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Never used and inaccurate (needs several Hs and an OH group). Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I will take it away because it is never used. 22dragon22burn (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2013 (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.

File:Atazanavir synth.png

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned by the uploader. Leyo 10:44, 9 January 2013 (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.

File:Des Moines Iowa.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost a duplicate of a Commons image with the same name, but not quite, so it doesn't qualify for F8 speedy. While a substantially scaled-down version of the Commons image, it also has some color differences. I don't think these color differences should be a reason to keep the image. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. I thought a larger image on Commons would be superior to a smaller image on Wikipedia, and I did not find the darker Wikipedia version on the NASA site; it was probably made on the uploader's computer. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2013 (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.

File:MVI 9133 (1.00.04.14).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 discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Londonrb (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC) orphan[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.