Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 July 12
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 July 12)
July 12
[edit]
- Reuploaded with better title. This is the old one, delete. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 04:17, 12 July 2008 (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 debate was
Deleted. With none objecting. WilyD 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Adobe Photoshop Elements 6 Welcome Screen Screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Illegal Operation (notify | contribs).
- Copyrighted material. Image not really needed for article. Frap (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom — BQZip01 — talk 05:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It's not needed, and it makes very little difference to the article. Leonard(Bloom) 05:02, 16 July 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 debate was
Deleted. It's unanimous, fails NFCC#8 WilyD 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:DN_as_James_Bond.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tovojolo (notify | contribs).
- The image fails WP:NFCC#8 in the James Bond article. The head shot of Niven is not significant to the understanding of the article. Nv8200p talk 02:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 too, I dont think his normal head is any different from the one shown here Fasach Nua (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This actor never played James Bond, though he was the writer's preference. They chose Sean Connery instead. Anything this image illustrates is misleading. — BQZip01 — talk 05:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A head doesn't add to an article enough to pass NFCC #8. Paragon12321 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 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:Canberra bushfires03.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ATS 500 (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation http://www.flickr.com/photos/dblowfish/267505140/ Bidgee (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Canberra bushfires2003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ATS 500 (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation http://www.gungahlinweather.com/photos/photography.htm Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2008 (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 debate was
Deleted. Copyvio, bad licence, replaceable. Pick two. WilyD 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:VicPolice-unmarked.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ATS 500 (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation http://www.inthejob.com/vic.html Bidgee (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Copyvio that fails WP:NFCC as the image is replaceable. — BQZip01 — talk 05:30, 14 July 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 debate was
Deleted. Copyright violation. WilyD 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Act-fire-truck-canberra-01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ATS 500 (notify | contribs).
- Possible Copyright violation http://www.fire-engine-photos.com/picture/number4071.asp Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the website's notice that the photos are used courtesy of the photographers. No explicit permission beyond this use is given. Ergo, they maintain their copyrights and this image fails WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — talk 05:33, 14 July 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 debate was
'Deleted. Probably licence problem. WilyD 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:ACTFB-bushfire-tanker10.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ATS 500 (notify | contribs).
- Possible Copyright violation http://www.fire-engine-photos.com/picture/number4876.asp Bidgee (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the website's notice that the photos are used courtesy of the photographers. No explicit permission beyond this use is given. Ergo, they maintain their copyrights and this image fails WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — talk 05:33, 14 July 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 debate was
Deleted. Probable bad licence. WilyD 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:MFB-aerial-appliance.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ATS 500 (notify | contribs).
- Possible Copyright violation http://www.fire-engine-photos.com/picture/number6093.asp Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the website's notice that the photos are used courtesy of the photographers. No explicit permission beyond this use is given. Ergo, they maintain their copyrights and this image fails WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — talk 05:34, 14 July 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 debate was
Kept. Agreement exists it meets NFCC#8, nom in apparently early to boot. WilyD 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Forest Of The Dead.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Der lektor (notify | contribs).
- I don't believe that this scene comprises a major part of the plot to qualify under the "critical commentary" part under the plot section, neither does the production or reception sections allude to it. Sceptre (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Image was nominated and Kept less then a month ago. Recommend withdrawl. — Edokter • Talk • 14:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - not even sure what the deletion argument is here, but I am guessing it was all said a month ago. The image falls well within our Fair Use policy; it is informative, useful, and the only non-free image in the article. Furthermore, there is no free equivalent, it doesn't impair the commercial opportunities of the copyright holder, This is the second (?) nom by the same user to remove an image from this article, despite the fact that the image is different. Perhaps it is n;t the image being disagreed with, but any presence within a DW episodic article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. U-Mos (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DRV' The image should be deleted, but process should also be followed Fasach Nua (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - err, you don't mind if we actually finish the process of IfD first do you? Lol. DRV is a venue for discussing inappropriate closures. Jeez. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rationale is sufficient and meets WP:NFCC. Also recommend WP:DRV as the proper venue for this discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 05:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Okay, I will bite; how is DRV the proper venue for a malformed IfD discussion? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per Edokter. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.149.80 (talk) 18:06, 15 July 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 debate was
Deleted. Probably bad licence. WilyD 21:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Freedomtower Jun2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sfdrag (notify | contribs).
- Uploader has stated that he is the author and published it using a GNU Free Documentation License, but there is a copyright tag right on the image itself. It seems to be a capture from the webcam at http://www.rebuildgroundzero.org/. Those images are copyrighted, whether or not that web site actually belongs to Sfdrag, which I doubt. Chupper (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have posted a link to this page and a request for clarification on the user's talk page. However, there is no indication that he's involved with the RebuildGroundZero.org website, and the copyright claim suggests that the webcam images aren't being published under an acceptably free license anyway. His talk page is also full of speedy deletion and possibly unfree notices, so my guess is that he makes a practice out of posting non-free images (or doesn't understand the difference). Pending any clarifications from the user himself, I support deletion. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 0:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
- Delete per nom — BQZip01 — talk 05:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When I viewed this image I wondered how an ostensibly unlicensed photo was being allowed here, and then I discovered anon IPs have been edit warring to remove the IfD and other tags on the image page. Likely a sock of the uploader; not sure why anyone else would be interested. Fletcher (talk) 17:02, 16 July 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 debate was
Kept. Nom implies a failure of significance, but the consensus here is otherwise. Removed from Irish immigration to Puerto Rico, where it probably did fail significance (and definitely failed "rationale exists"), but probably needs to be watched for further bad insertions. I'll watch, but I'm just one man. Other eyes'd be good. WilyD 22:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Ada Perkins Flores.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).
- A previous deletion discussion was closed because the nom was withdrawn, but this needs to be looked at again. In my opinion it is a fair use image clearly being used for illustrative purposes only as none of the articles in which it is used actually discuss the image and it is being used in a number of infoboxes. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Your nomination is a little misleading (I'm not saying intentionally, mind you), the image "is" used in an article which discusses the subject of the image, see: Ada Perkins. The image also has a perfect sound rationale for it's use in said article. If you consider that the image is being used as decorative in other article's which are directly or indirectly related to the subject, then all you have to do is remove the image from said articles. However, the image used in the subjects bio is within Wikipedia policy and is revelant to said article. If we remove this image from the subjects article then we must remove all the images of people who are no longer alive from all of the other artilces with a similar rationale for use. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion: The image is revelant to the article about her Ada Perkins. Therefore, I respectfully request that the nomination be canceled, Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My nomination is not misleading. I said specifically that the articles do not discuss the image and that is definitely true. They do discuss the subject of the image, but the fair use rules state clearly (and I know, because I've had historically relevant and irreplaceable images deleted because the articles did not discuss the images themselves or there was no need for the images themselves to be discussed) that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." An example of what is not acceptable given that is anagolous to this is "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war". In this case we have a picture of a woman, used to illustrate an article about the woman, but there is no greater discussion of the image or the context of the image. Whilst it might be nice having an image to show what she looks like, there is no real need for the image. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)r[reply]
Comment You are one of the best image contributors to our project and I admire your work and thank you for that (I have seen your work). I'm not going to create an issue over this, therefore I went and added a description of the image in the article as suggested. I believe that the presence of the image does significantly increase the readers' interest and understanding of the topic, then again that's my humble opinion. Yes, the image illustrates what the subject of the article looked like, however policy has not been violated and if the image were to be deleted on the basis's that it illustrates what the subject looked like, then every single image in every biography and infobox should be deleted on the same ground, because that is exactly what those images do, illustrate the subjects on their articles. Thank you and take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep-The subject of the image died over a quarter century ago, making it difficult to find many other images of her. As a beauty queen, it is appropriate that she be shown as she was at the heyday of her artificially and unfortunately short career, when she served as Miss Puerto Rico. There is no more relevant image of her than that. Is the image "needed", essential, indospensable? But neither is any other image in any other biography. Is it desirable, does it help the reader get a better "feel" as to the subject of the bio? Certainly! If this image were to be removed, then perhaps we should begin removing every image in every other bio? What purpose would that serve? None. Pr4ever (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm not really sure what the nominator was talking when he said an image being used to illustrate a dead person is "decorative", but the image is certainly relevant to Ada Perkins. WP:FU clearly states that: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing" aren't acceptable, however Perkins died in 1980, way before the internet was popular or even practical, making the chances of a public image appearing quite small. If the issues are in the use of the image then the FUR should be extended or a new one should be used, but deleting a image that has practical use in a biography is ridiculous. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Other uses in Wikipedia should be justified or removed ASAP. — BQZip01 — talk 05:38, 14 July 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.