Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 December 18
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
December 18[edit]
Canary Murder Case.jpg[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: keep. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Canary Murder Case.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adrianwagstaff (notify | contribs).
- Delete 1) The photo does not “significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic” (WP:NFCC #8).
2) No minimal usage per WP:NFCC#3a. - Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Britneysaints (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep - The claim that an image of the star of the film, in costume, does not significantly add to the reader's understanding of the film seems pretty unreasonable. Also, it should be noted that the only other image in the article is a poster, so it's not like the article is swimming in images making this one redundant and unnecessary. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - An image of the second billed star as the title character of a film, on an article about the actual film, used to illustrate where the film gets its name, doesn't contribute to the reader's understanding of the article? This reasoning makes me fear for all images on all film pages. It makes no sense. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per the comments of User:Ed Fitzgerald and User:Wildhartlivie - I believe it complies with all points regarding the use of unfree images. This is the only image being used from the film itself. The film poster is not particularly representative of the film itself, rather its marketing, so this image conveys something distinct and unique from it. It seems to me that it is being used in an appropriate manner equal to the use of many other images in many other articles. Rossrs (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but remove from Louise Brooks as failing NFCC1. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 18 December 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.
BrazilianEmpire locator.GIF[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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BrazilianEmpire locator.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ulises Heureaux (notify | contribs).
- Not used Damiens.rf 11:50, 18 December 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.
Brazilianempiremap.JPG[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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Brazilianempiremap.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ulises Heureaux (notify | contribs).
- Not used Damiens.rf 11:50, 18 December 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.
Frei pagina-1-.jpg[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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Frei pagina-1-.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ulises Heureaux (notify | contribs).
- Copyrighted painting of a guy tied to a post used to illustrate the event in question (and not the work in question). Damiens.rf 11:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of fair use rationale. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 18 December 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.
560175.jpg[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 as I7 by Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image of a prisoner transport plane used in Rendition aircraft to illustrate the general idea of airplanes that transport prisoners. Replaceable. WilyD 14:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, replaceable. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 18 December 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.
Dolly-get-to-livin-video.jpg[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: keep. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Dolly-get-to-livin-video.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kaldari (notify | contribs).
- I feel that this image is used in contravention of WP:NFCC#8. Specifically, it does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This image is used in the section of the article Better Get to Livin' that discusses the music video for the song. It contributes to the readers' understanding of the video in several ways. First it gives the reader a better idea of the style and character of the video, specifically, that it uses a diverse range of actors to represent a cross-section of everyday women - housewives, grandmothers, teenagers, etc. - showing that Dolly is speaking to all women. This correlates to the text in the article which discusses the feminist undertones of the song as well as the text describing Dolly's interaction with the women in the video. Secondly, the image gives the reader a better understanding of Dolly's appearance and presentation in the video. Her ringmaster outfit is part of the carnival motif mentioned in the article text. It also fits with the description of the video as an "over-the-top colorful piece" as given by a reviewer in the article. Although the image is not critical to the article, I do think that deleting it would be detrimental to the reader's full understanding of the topic. Kaldari (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I was asked to return to this discussion, I would say that nothing in the image cannot be described by the text already there. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there are at least a few pieces of information that are conveyed by the image, but not conveyed by the existing text - the composition of the audience Dolly is addressing and her outfit to name two. Sure, you could add 1,000 words to describe all the nuances conveyed in the image, but isn't the purpose of using images in articles so that you don't have to do that? The criteria for including fair-use images is that they contribute significantly to the reader's understanding, not that it would be impossible to make the reader understand through text alone. Otherwise, I don't see why we would be using any fair use images. Kaldari (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I was asked to return to this discussion, I would say that nothing in the image cannot be described by the text already there. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kaldari, relevant as it's in a section discussing the content of the video. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:31, 18 December 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.
Easy Paula De~vidcap.jpg[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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Easy Paula De~vidcap.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LilJonnie (notify | contribs).
- I feel that this image is used in contravention of WP:NFCC#8. Specifically, it does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely unnecessary as it is nothing more than a image of the singer - effectively it tells the reader nothing about the video. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:45, 21 December 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.
Turaga_lhikan.jpg[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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 December 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.
RobinHoodDvd.jpg[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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image was replaced by the real film poster. There is no need for two covers in one film article. Garion96 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 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.
SivertHoyem.jpg[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 as I8 by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No longer used since I replaced it's use in the article with File:Madrugada mpantsonfire1.jpg, a much higher resolution version of the same image from Commons. Sherool (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but I believe you can speedy it instead. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gone. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 19 December 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.
Taiko Akihabara.JPG[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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Taiko Akihabara.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Torsodog (notify | contribs).
- Okay...I'm not citing any issues with licensing...but then again you can't even see what this picture is trying to depict, except for a crowd being wowed by some game...that doesn't even get in the shot. ViperSnake151 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't contribute anything to the article it's used in, can't see any possible use for it in the future either. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:11, 18 December 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.
Amsterdamvallongun.jpg[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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Amsterdamvallongun.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick19thind (notify | contribs).
- Fair use image that doesn't convey any meaningful information and is too unclear to see anything anyway, in an article that already has too many images. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:54, 18 December 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.
Breckin blackcat.jpg[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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Breckin blackcat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emodeluxe (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic B (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete orphaned, uninformative, can't even see the subject clearly. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:10, 18 December 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.