Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 September 12

< September 11	September 13 >

September 12

Image:KAET logo since 2006.png

Image:KAET logo since 2006.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PNG crusade bot (notify | contribs).

New version of logo uploaded Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Without the new version to compare, it is hard to review the situation. -- Suntag (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KeithCarter.jpg

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

Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the book cover is used in the biography of the author and there is nothing in the article to make the book cover significant to the article. Nv8200p talk 01:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Chosen to portray a characteristic example of his work? Note that photo isn't of him, it's by him. Jheald (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Insufficient to meet WP:NFCC#8. Commentary on the significance of this image needs to be an integral part of the article. -Nv8200p talk 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not necessarily. All the article would need to say, even if only in the caption, is that this is a characteristic example of his work. From that it should then be inferred to pass #8, significantly improving the reader's understanding of topic. That's all it would be need. But it's not my article - I didn't write it, and I don't know the subject matter. Jheald (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Determining whether the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic is aided by a source reference's discussion of the image. Without a source reference that the image is "a characteristic example of his work" or some other sourced material information, we seem to be just assuming things based on our subjective opinion rather than based on objective (e.g. source material) evidence. It should not be too hard to find some commentary on one of his images, but that doesn't mean the commentary would be towards this image. -- Suntag (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WA-PSH4.png

Image:WA-PSH4.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wiki890 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Obsolete (Image:WA-PSH4.svg) Bigr Tex 02:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incorrectly licensed duplicate of Image:WA-PSH4.svg. -- Suntag (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Go ahead. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 23:56, 13 September 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 discussion was: Speedied - Author requested. ~ Bigr Tex 03:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TNBarnstar.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ravichandar84 (notify | contribs).

This barnstar hasn't so far been used anywhere. I don't think there is any use in keeping it. Hence, being the author of this work I request the removal of this image myself. Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 03:09, 12 September 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:SiphonSeltzerAnchorBW001.jpg

Image:SiphonSeltzerAnchorBW001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HeyYallYo (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (watermarked), Obsolete (Image:SiphonSeltzerAnchorBWks001.jpg does not contain the watermarking) Bigr Tex 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The watermark is just irritating and distracting. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:First Class Muzik in 2008.jpg

Image:First Class Muzik in 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Firstclassmuzik (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image, unencyclopedic, WP:SPA uploader. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Riva prema jugu.jpg

Image:Riva prema jugu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Domatrios (notify | contribs).

Although the image has been tagged as PD and as uploaded with permission after the uploader was asked to do so,[1] it's not at all clear whether this permission was given for the usage solely in Wikipedia or in general (see also #Image:Девојка и Columbus.jpg). The image has also a credit, which hampers its free use. It could easily be replaced with a better one. While I've notified the uploader, I don't expect him to answer here as he has been inactive since 2005. Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FittingShoulderPads.jpg

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

Unencyclopedic; Suspected copyvio Ian¹³ /t 09:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Девојка и Columbus.jpg

Image:Девојка и Columbus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Domatrios (notify | contribs).

Unfree image as its usage seems to have been allowed only for Wikipedia. It has been uploaded with the following summary: "Photo: Toni Perinic, with his permission for wiki". It could easily be replaced. While I've notified the uploader, I don't expect him to answer here as he has been inactive since 2005. Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ann_Packer_©_Elena_Seibert.jpg

Image:Ann_Packer_©_Elena_Seibert.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kimsheu (notify | contribs).

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as this is a fair use image of a living person. Nv8200p talk 15:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:N591UA.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. IfD is not a vote, so this goes by strength of policy-based argument, not by headcount. Elcobbola's argument is clear and conclusive. Suntag's argument boils down to mere emotion: yes, it "gives us chills", but that's it; beyond the emotional impact there is no actual visual information that this image imparts which would be crucial for the article. Nanameggie's arguments don't address the issue at all and contain nothing I can see that would help a policy-based decision. Beyond the arguments made in the debate, there may be a very real NFCC#2 issue, as both the source website and the photographer may well have commercial interests in the photograph (exactly because of its emotional value) that our use might affect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:N591UA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dream out loud (notify | contribs).

Image does not provide a significant contribution to our understanding of United Airlines Flight 93 (NFCC#8); how does seeing "the exact aircraft" assist the reader's understanding of the topic? This is really nothing more than a Boeing 757 in United Airlines livery; any uniqueness can only be discerned by the barely legible "N591UA". If seeing the type of plane that was hijacked is necessary to facilitate understanding (it did not appear to be when the article was promoted to FA against, among others, a comprehensiveness criterion), why wouldn't a free image of a 757 suffice (NFCC#1)? Эlcobbola _talk 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seeing the exact aircraft three days before the passengers decided to mount an assault against the hijackers and crash the plane gives me chills that help me connect to the extraordinary events detailed in United Airlines Flight 93 event article. The connection gives me better understanding of the topic. The event is extraordinary and any old airplane photo won't do. -- Suntag (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I must agree absolutely in Suntag's comment on retaining this image on file for 9/11 researchers and other historians. There is very little imagery of any kind of the Shanksville crash and what there is, is all post-incidental. No video exists that I'm aware of showing Flight 93's progress to its horrific end. The little information available is through the cockpit recorders, the 'black box' records, and phone calls made to loved ones in the final moments of the flight. Secondly, having the image of the actual airplane itself may possibly help in reconstructing the crash; how this plane was able to crash into the ground yet leave little to no debris at all. General consensus is that the impact was such that the aircraft vaporised when it hit, but it's still a puzzle to me even all these years later. I know that I really was surprised to see this photo here in hte first place, and my second thought was that I was grateful that it was. Lastly, this is only one image, not a huge file needlessly taking up a lot of space, so why not leave it? Once an image is removed, that's it, you no longer have any access to it whatsoever. When it's gone, it is GONE, period. Perhaps to those Wiki readers who see this image as superfluous, they should consider that for the average person of average intelligence, seeing the actual airplane can help put into perspective just how that person may relate to this particular crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanameggie (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 September 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:Enigma-ponytail.png

Image:Enigma-ponytail.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by WCarter (notify | contribs).

No encyclopedic use; does not properly illustrate Cartoon pornography because it is not pornography. Also, it is licenced as CC-BY but with the proviso that the creator's "signature remains on the image", which is equivalent to CC-BY-ND, a licence that is not free enough for our purposes. Sandstein 19:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ann Dunham with father and children.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 - Peripitus (Talk) 10:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ann Dunham with father and children.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justmeherenow (notify | contribs).

Image is a photo of living persons, therefore it violated NFCC#1, #8 on its face and #9 by being used on so many pages. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The point here is to illustrate Barack Obama's mother Ann Dunham and his grandfather, Stanley, neither of whom are living today. There's also encyclopedic value in depicting Obama and his sister, Maya, as children. No free image is available that accomplishes those purposes, and therefore this article meets NFCC 1. It meets NFCC 8 because it accomplishes the encyclopedic goal of illustrating its subjects. Though Ann and Stanley Dunham were private individuals at the time, they became public figures about a decade after their deaths, when Obama became nationally famous at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. So while alive, Ann and Stanley, and the young Barack and Maya, were mainly depicted in private photographs such as this one. And I wouldn't characterize the image's use on three article pages as an NFCC 9 violation. Do you propose a policy change that would limit how many articles a fair use image can be used on? Each use has a rationale specific to that particular use, addressing its encyclopedic value, relevance to each use, etc. szyslak (t) 23:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Szyslak. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Szyslak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.181.237 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Szyslak.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. --RucasHost (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for all the cited reasons above. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for above stated reasons. Oumar Ba —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.166.112 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons listed by Syzslak above. Tempodivalse (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lucid argument expounded by Szyslak. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP under Szyslak's cogent rationale. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 11:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per szyslak. We66er (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no point here of deleting it. The point is to show Barack Obama and some of his family. --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 13:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per szyslak -- Cataclasite —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep again per szyslak. J.H (talk) 03:50, 22 September 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.