Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 May 21

< May 20	May 22 >

May 21

Image:Undersun.jpg

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

Orphaned, appears to be a derivative work. Kelly ^hi! 00:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NEW DAFT TV LOGO2.jpg

Image:NEW DAFT TV LOGO2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DAFT TV2 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 05:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goodbye Radar Red.jpg

Image:Goodbye Radar Red.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Erikluebs (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 05:21, 21 May 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 G7 deleted

Alex Muller 22:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WA 53 475.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Drboisclair (notify | contribs).

Entire series of images are from an unnamed book, orphaned, and of little encyclopedic value (sidenote, all are incorrectly licensed as "self") SkierRMH (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Included with this are: Image:WA 53 444.jpg Image:WA 53 446.jpg Image:WA 53 445.jpg Image:WA 53 447.jpg Image:WA 53 448.jpg Image:WA 53 449.jpg Image:WA 53 450.jpg Image:WA 53 451.jpg Image:WA 53 459.jpg Image:WA 53 452.jpg Image:WA 53 453.jpg Image:WA 53 458.jpg Image:WA 53 454.jpg Image:WA 53 455.jpg Image:WA 53 457.jpg Image:WA 53 456.jpg Image:WA 53 474.jpg Image:WA 53 460.jpg Image:WA 53 461.jpg Image:WA 53 466.jpg Image:WA 53 464.jpg Image:WA 53 462.jpg Image:WA 53 463.jpg Image:WA 53 465.jpg Image:WA 53 467.jpg Image:WA 53 473.jpg Image:WA 53 468.jpg Image:WA 53 472.jpg Image:WA 53 471.jpg Image:WA 53 469.jpg Image:WA 53 470.jpg

Second set: Image:WA 53 438.jpg Image:WA 53 439.jpg Image:WA 53 440.jpg Image:WA 53 441.jpg Image:WA 53 442.jpg Image:WA 53 437.jpg Image:WA 53 436.jpg Image:WA 53 435.jpg Image:WA 53 434.jpg Image:WA 53 433.jpg Image:WA 53 432.jpg Image:WA 53 431.jpg Image:WA 53 429.jpg Image:WA 53 430.jpg Image:WA 53 430.jpg Image:WA 53 428.jpg Image:WA 53 427.jpg Image:WA 53 425.jpg Image:WA 53 424.jpg Image:WA 53 423.jpg Image:WA 53 422.jpg Image:WA 53 421.jpg Image:WA 53 420.jpg Image:WA 53 419.jpg Image:WA 53 418.jpg Image:WA 53 417.jpg Image:WA 53 416.jpg Image:WA 53 415.jpg Image:WA 53 414.jpg Image:WA 53 413.jpg Image:WA 53 412.jpg SkierRMH (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of theses images has requested that they be deleted. Pastordavid (talk) 18:26, 21 May 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:2008repsprimarycaucus.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 debate was G7 deleted

Alex Muller 22:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Image:2008repsprimarycaucus.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

- I uploaded this, but request that it be deleted by virtue of another already existing, [1]. I probably should have checked before. ~Rangeley (talk) 12:03, 21 May 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.

Incorrect licensing, image is copyrighted from the back cover of the Star Wars Dark Side Sourcebook; no release for the image is available - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :As well, the image appears to be of a higher dpi, and can be reproduced, infringing on the copyright of the original artist and the game company. As far as I know, there are four Sith total noted int he films, and a few listed in some f the murkier-sourced books. Is there a reason why any one of these images cannot be used instead? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, it's up for deletion because the license tag was wrong? I just changed it to {{Non-free book cover}}. (shame on me for not noticing that, but still, it strikes me as more effort to list it for deletion than to just correct the tag in the first place) Not very hard at all.
As for the image itself, it depicts three of the most important Sith characters in the Star Wars franchise, so I think it's a good image for Sith, which, since Star Wars is entirely fictional, is exceedingly unlikely to get any free-use images any time soon. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it is an artist rendering of what he thinks three of the "most important Sith characters" look like. None of them are Vader, Dooku, Sidious or Maul - and they are the more noted of the Sith characters in the series which begin and end with the films. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a rendering (meaning an "interpretation" in this sense); that is what the characters looked like (Naga, Bane, and Sidious). As I mentioned on my talk page, I like this image because it's a single, over-arching image that covers more than just the movies, just as the article itself does. There is more to Star Wars than just the films, though I do readily admit that for most people, that's all there is. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see no reason why this should be deleted; if the licsensing tag was wrong that's one thing (and that's been corrected), but as EVula states, the three characters in the picture are all very important to the history of the Sith; there is no viable reason as to why this should even be considered for deletion now. There is more to Star Wars than the films, and if you consider the EU, these have to be the three most important Sith; then again, even if they wern't, that wouldn't be an argumant for deleting the picture - Wikipedia has unlimited space ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps this usage of "very important" and "most significant" being applied to these characters is a pretty non-neutral observation. It is an artist's rendering of another artist's rendering (in the case of Palpatine, the image has the old fellow with Maori/Darth Maul-style face tats - which is what makes it an interpretation). We would be better off using actual images from the film. We can find images combining two of the the Sith or one of the more popular Sith, like Sidious, Vader or one of the ubiquitous Darth Maul images. This particular image isn't very encyclopedic. Maybe it's okay for Wookiepedia (and oh, look - it is in fact there), but it isn't up to our standards for inclusion. This is not Wookieepedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I realise that, but where exactly is the problem with including the picture? All three characters somehow did something that greatly effected the Sith Order - so they are at least "very important", if not "the most important", as they have all done significant things. We can include pictures from the films, as you say, but where is the harm in including this as well? Does it infringe on the non-free criteria of images? ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I like this image is that, in covering three different characters, it reduces our need for more non-free imagery, which is always a good thing. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the economic reason for wanting to use it, EVula, and were it not an image culled from the back cover of an RPG and a rendering of yet another artist's interpretation of the character, I would have less trouble with it. I think that the average reader isn't going to know (or care) about the impact that these three had on the Sith "order". It seems...well, crufty. I think we are on better footing to use images that we know are easily recognizable parts of the franchise, and that means images of those Sith from the film. They have the greatest impact in the franchise, anyway. To add this image suggests a synthesis that they are the "most important" to the Sith, and I think that its a slippery slope.

I'll even find and upload images of all four from the films (and in the case of Vader and Sidious, I can get one that has them both). The main point is that this image is untidily rife with synthesis and artistic interpretational issues that seem to be replacing the main sith the average user will know about. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you feel that the picture may make some NPOV implications, it's easy enough to add caption to it which simply states "Three Dark Lord of the Sith, Naga Sadow, Darth Bane and Darth Sidious", or whatever - it doesn't even have to be at the top of the article (as in my humble opinion, pictures at the top seem to imply more "seniority" over other pictures, if you get me), it can just be included later on in the article - the point is that it doesn't need to actually be deleted for this reason. But again, it's not the artists interpretation of the characters - there are loads of pictures across the EU portraying these characters. Both Bane and Sadow first appeared in comics, and so they were completely visually portrayed like this; Bane's character has been so popular, in fact, that there have been two novels released which again portray him as this bald character on the front cover, and as a description within the book itself. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your point, HauntedAngel; its position at the top was also bugging me. I think we would be better off with using the comic book images of these Sith - despite the economy of having all three in one image, they are a little too far interpretively removed from the original source for comfort. I think we would find that by finding the original source for these images (be they comic book or novel cover images), we would be on better footing, reliability-wise.

Is there some reticence to import the images of Maul, Sidious, Vader or Dooku into the article? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course, we can still include the pictures of the Sith from the films; but I can't see how the characters in the picture in question are interpretively removed from the original source? They all look the same as how they have done in the beginning - I really can't see the need in deleting a picture that isn't really doing any harm to the Sith article - again, Wikipedia has unlimited space, and the picture does no harm, as the liscencing doesn't seem to be an issue here. It's relevant, the liscencing is in order - where exactly is the problem now? ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are interpretively removed in that the image of Palpatine (Darth Sidious) has face tattoos (not age lines) reminiscent of Darth Maul. Far as I can see, that seems to be an interpretation, as nowhere in the films does the senator from Naboo display such ink. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does he have tattoos? I can hardly see any Maul-like ink beneath his cowl in that picture ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any tattoos at all; those are just wrinkles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, those don't look anything like age lines, EVula. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, we are all looking at the picture nominated for deletion, right? Because I honestly can't see anything that even comes close to being tattoos on Sidious' face... ≈ The Haunted Angel 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree with THA on this; just like you don't think they look anything like age lines, I don't think they look anything like tattoos. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFCC #2, the image is from a guidebook, considered an encyclopedia. Non-free images from non-free encyclopedias are not allowed per thst (I remember when we were removing images from comic book guides due to this). ViperSnake151 11:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, item #2 is "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." I fail to see how that is relevant here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I think he was referring to the usage of copywritten sourcebook (which is in fact a encyclopedic in itself) and the artist's original artwork. We already have images from the films, and we can get the ones offered by the Star Wars website, and they have the virtue of being the original interpretations of the fictional characters, and not a re-imagining of them. We have images of these fellows from fairly well-defined sources; these are artistic interpretations (and w/artistic variation, what one person sees as age lines, others see as face tattoos) of those images, and are thusly more removed from the original incarnation. I think it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia to try and remain as close to the source material as we can. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see the original source as being anything close to an encyclopedia, which is why I contested the NFCC#2 reference. The rest of the argument I don't see as particularly compelling, but we're not getting much feedback here... I think we need a relisting of this deletion request (and restore the image to Sith with a deletion notification in the caption so we can get a few more eyes on this request). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind it being relisted, but I don't think it should return to the article until we know what is to be done about it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By not having it displayed in the article itself, we're not getting much attention being paid. I think Wikipedia can deal with a single image being left in place for a few days without coming to a grinding halt. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carly 33.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 Deleted. Non admin housekeeping closure.

--WilliamH (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carly 33.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Santros57Q (notify | contribs).

Orphaned unfree image which should be replaceable. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've removed this several times from the same article. Should be deleted since its clearly replaceable and cannot be used on any article under WP:FU. Gwernol 22:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the following images should also be considered for the same reasons: Image:Jarly 3445 2008 May 2.jpg‎, Image:Breakdown.jpg‎, Image:Carly Benson Corinthos 2000.jpg‎ and Image:Jarly 3445 2008 May 2.jpg. Gwernol 23:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you there. They fail WP:FU. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:55, 22 May 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:Scary clown.jpg

Image:Scary clown.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gee01 (notify | contribs).

Redundant to Commons version. Kelly ^hi! 23:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 00:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]