Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 8
[edit]
- 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned image Cahk (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. If used again, however, Keep. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SVE-OR2-XA.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Malin Tokyo (notify | contribs).
- It is in "images for cleanup", lacking summary, orphaned, SVG not made properly, and the image purpose is unknown. ZooFari 00:57, 8 January 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SWE-OR2-X1.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Malin Tokyo (notify | contribs).
- It is in "images for cleanup", lacking summary, orphaned, SVG not made properly, and the image purpose is unknown. ZooFari 01:07, 8 January 2009 (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: - Delete - as a replaceable copyright image - Peripitus (Talk) 02:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair use claim invalid: is a non-free photograph, not a poster; photo fails WP:NFCC#1 (many editors can and do take their own photos at concerts and upload them to WP articles under appropriate license) and WP:Non-free content#Images 2 #12. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Photo does not violate any image policies. Editor seems be vindictive over recent edits to article. Wishin' and hopin' that someone somewhere will upload a free image is not adequate reasoning for deletion of image. Alkclark (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've listed photos here that Alkclark didn't upload as well (the Britney one below), so vindictiveness has nothing to do with it. I would love for professional-quality photos to be allowed into our articles. But it was my strong understanding that 'wishing and hoping' is indeed what we have to do; that's why we see all those BLP's with "Does anyone have a free image to go here" graphics in the infobox. WP:Non-free_content#Images_2 clause 12 includes as unacceptable: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Clarkson and McEntire are hardly retired, and a free picture is always possible as people discover this article and upload photos they took at the show this past year (and for example, I recently uploaded a concert photo I took 20 years ago and scanned in). I'm anxious to see what the image experts who close these IfDs have to say about this. If somehow I've misunderstood the rules, I'll gladly make no further challenges, and there are dozens of articles where I'll start grabbing professional photos and uploading them. But I don't think I'm wrong about this. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming that you added another image to be deleted (from which an article I've contributed to many times) is not sufficient reasoning to claim that you are not vindictive. The image does not violate any image use policy. A commentary is defined as "a set of explanatory or critical notes on a text". The article explains the tour, giving details about the show. The image displays the two performers performing during the tour. How is that inappropriate? Your claim is that there is a free picture out there somewhere, so maybe someone will upload it. As listed on the template, "No free image has surfaced since the creation of article" means exactly that phrase. Additionally, these images replace images you have uploaded. Additionally, this image just lists someone's name, not a photo agency thus your claim is even more redundant. Alkclark (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've listed photos here that Alkclark didn't upload as well (the Britney one below), so vindictiveness has nothing to do with it. I would love for professional-quality photos to be allowed into our articles. But it was my strong understanding that 'wishing and hoping' is indeed what we have to do; that's why we see all those BLP's with "Does anyone have a free image to go here" graphics in the infobox. WP:Non-free_content#Images_2 clause 12 includes as unacceptable: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Clarkson and McEntire are hardly retired, and a free picture is always possible as people discover this article and upload photos they took at the show this past year (and for example, I recently uploaded a concert photo I took 20 years ago and scanned in). I'm anxious to see what the image experts who close these IfDs have to say about this. If somehow I've misunderstood the rules, I'll gladly make no further challenges, and there are dozens of articles where I'll start grabbing professional photos and uploading them. But I don't think I'm wrong about this. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - replaceable. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:31, 13 January 2009 (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: - Delete - Peripitus (Talk) 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair use claim invalid: is a non-free Associated Press photograph, not a poster; photo fails WP:NFCC#1 (many editors can and do take their own photos at concerts and upload them to WP articles under appropriate license, indeed there is one such image later in the article, correctly licensed via Flickr) and WP:Non-free content#Images 2 #6 and #12. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and readd to article. This illustrates a tour. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, as we have a free image of the tour. Non-free images from commercial press sources should be used only if the photo itself is somehow significant. J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I highly suggest that Wasted Time R takes the time to fully think out his/her thoughts. The Soul2Soul II Tour is a tour bu both Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, meaning there needs to an image that illustrates both Hill and McGraw and not one or the other. The image that the editor is referring to is here which only display's Hill performing during the tour. Additionally, no images under Flickr that meets Wikipedia's qualifications to upload upon the cite, meaning there is currently no free image unless those Flickr users upload there images to either EN Wiki or Wiki Commons. This appears to be a childish claim as the editor seems to be upset as to think of the article as his personal pet here. As the uploader of the image, I have no problem with its deletion if there is a free image of both artists performing on stage. Until that happens, the image should remain entact. Alkclark (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See response one section above. See also WP:Non-free_content#Images_2 clause 6, which lists as unacceptable "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos." This use of the image is in violation of that rule. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a pretty clear violation of WP:NFCC #1, #2, #8, and possibly #10c, and Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 #6 and #12. "We need to have an image of this" is not a sufficient justification to take an image from the Internet and use it on Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. —Bkell (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as replaceable per J Milburn. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:31, 13 January 2009 (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: Delete as failing your choice of NFCC 1, 10a, and 10b. Rationales for keeping are decidedly weak and have been substantially refuted. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair use claim invalid: is a non-free photograph, not a poster; photo fails WP:NFCC#1 (many editors can and do take their own photos at concerts and upload them to WP articles under appropriate license) and WP:Non-free content#Images 2 #12. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Photo does not violate any image policies. Editor seems be vindictive over recent edits to article. There are no free images available at this stand as the event happened over nine years ago and no free images have surfaced on any cite since the article's creation. Alkclark (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response two entries above. I believe the time lag isn't an issue unless possibly the act is retired. I recently uploaded a scanned-in 20-year-old photo to a tour article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Alkclark. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Incorrect licence (it is not a poster), though it is sourced to a blog the real origin is unknown as is the copyright holder. It appears replaceable with a free alternate, either from this many-sited tour or any of the subsequent ones...there appear to be numerous flickr images—ask them to release a free image?. Fails WP:NFCC#10a, WP:NFCC#10b and WP:NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 06:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A quick check proves that this is indeed a poster created for and by The Mandalay Bay Casino LV, its purpose was promotional therefore its fair use on this article is acceptable. It is in context with and significantly adds to the understanding of the article. That the article itself needs improving is not a reason for deletion. This is a historical event therefore free image could not easily be created. Archivey (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a link to where you found this promotional poster information about it? All I've found is this Pollstar site, whose copyright footer seems to suggest the photos belong to them unless otherwise credited (which this one isn't). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, unidentified subject. The original version has been transwikied as File:CerakNovember.jpg. Kelly hi! 01:58, 8 January 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Houseofbluesbritney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Enanoj1111 (notify | contribs).
- Fair use claim invalid: is supposedly a newspaper photograph, but source is not identified and article is not about any newspaper; photo fails WP:NFCC#1 (many editors can and do take their own photos at concerts and upload them to WP articles under appropriate license) and WP:Non-free content#Images 2 #12. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sfc 1153399804 Sarmiento&Claus&Cranie landsca.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legod (notify | contribs).
- orphaned, possibly intended for Marcelo Sarmiento, otherwise no encyc. use Skier Dude (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- orphaned, specific target article or encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- orphaned screenshot, target article/encyc. use not clear Skier Dude (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2009 (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: Transwiki to Commons. I have tagged the image accordingly. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Shang Dynasty - Greatest Extent.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).
- orphaned historical map, specific article/ encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's orphaned PD, should it not be being transferred to Commons? Jheald (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- orhpaned, absent uploader, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Shear Convention.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bmattas2 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned, possibly intended for shear force, otherwise no encyc. use Skier Dude (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sheet Harbour 017.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shcap (notify | contribs).
- orhpaned, badly cropped, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- orphaned graph used in RfA Skier Dude (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2009 (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: - Delete as failing NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternate) - Peripitus (Talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vatican Nativity Scene 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ReverendLogos (notify | contribs).
- Image is not useful in illustrating anything in particular, and could easily be replaced by an image from next year, or one from a previous year (they are hardly exclusive events). J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. Image illustrates commentary in article about 2008 Vatican nativity display and gives the viewer an idea of the magnitude of the nativity scene. While I agree that pics from other years might serve the same purpose, I'm not sure why this one should be deleted. A pic I found dated 2005 does not give the viewer an idea of the size of the scene since it is a "close up" of the nativity. I would rather not see this image deleted. Check out Bouncer (doorman) if you want to target images "not useful in illustrating anything in particular". I've been trying to get those things removed and need some support. Thanks! ReverendLogos (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the image could be replaced by a freely licensed photo someone takes of the next nativity display. So the use of this image fails WP:NFCC #1. —Bkell (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - very easily replaceable. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:33, 13 January 2009 (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.