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: Commons image. Deletion discussion would need to take place there. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unused image, just a naked girl NJGW (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a Commons image. I don't think IfD has jurisdiction. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:30, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 00:43, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 00:43, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 00:55, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 00:55, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 02:09, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 02:10, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, No proof of GFDL release. Nv8200ptalk 02:43, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 02:44, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 02:49, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was part of some discussion that I can no longer recall the specifics of. It wasn't used for anything after that. I'll delete it as G7. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:32, 27 October 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.
Unfree how; its a screen shot, and it is directly encyclopedic , and it is a comment on google's relationship with the encyclopeda wikipedia. How do you turn, you are everywhere I turn these days. How and why is that? Ceoilsláinte 04:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfree because it's a screenshot of copyrighted software, Internet Explorer. I commented here following a link from your talk page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not just Internet Exlorer, Google search also. Schuym1 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per NFCC. [ roux ] [x] 17:10, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 02:55, 27 October 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: - Delete - not orphaned at the moment but is unencyclopedic Peripitus(Talk) 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 02:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image is now being used in Trespass page as an example of the warning sign. --Da Vynci (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I seriously doubt that this is an image of an official no trespassing sign, considering the wording of the warning. More likely it is either a created image, or something used as a joke. Additionally, the article it was placed into is about the legalities of trespassing, not joke signs, and already has sufficient images to illustrate the subject. This image is serving no useful purpose. Ariel♥Gold 22:59, 27 October 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 02:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Uploader specifically says he created it for his userpage, and says he doesn't want it in any articles. Thus, it is not helpful to the encyclopedic project. Ariel♥Gold 22:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - request by the uploader. I am no longer using this image, unless anyone else wishes to use it, you can go ahead and delete it. Rbpolsen♦☺♦ Talk to me! 04:18, 30 October 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: - Delete - Peripitus(Talk) 00:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am dubious about the copyright status of this image, and feel there are clear personality rights issues too Privatemusings (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply based on the second throwaway account magically appearing to fix the license status to read exactly what it needed to over a year later. Something seems questionable. The original uploader took the time to upload these images, add them to articles and when they were questioned the first time around couldn't find the time to come and talk about them.--Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginal encyclopedic value combined with the issues well stated above.--Kubigula(talk) 05:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have no reason to doubt the copyright status given by the image uploader, and his not contributing other things to the project doesn't make this contribution invalid. It's as encyclopedic as the rest of the article. I don't think we should remove an image that hasn't caused any complaints from copyright holders or people featured in the image in the two or so years it's been visible here. Orpheus (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is it possible that the people involved are unaware of the image's presence on wikipedia, Orph? - and is it reasonable to wonder if this might legitimately be seen to contravene one's Personality Rights? I'm not really sure that it's appropriate to keep the image, even should consensus be clear in that direction... in the nicest possible way, I hope it doesn't come to that though! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that you could say that about every image (and arguably article) on Wikipedia that involves a person, living or with living inheritors. I'm very uncomfortable with using such a wide-ranging rationale to delete an image without some wider community consensus, in the form of policy or guidelines. Orpheus (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern [1], which is exactly why I think this sort of thing may be better handled on a case by case basis rather than through gameable, vague and controversial guidelines - bad facts make bad law. Here we have what looks like a private picture with pretty clearly embarrassing content. The photographer may have the right to the copyright of the picture, but the subjects do retain personality rights and basic human dignity. Deletion here seems consistent with the spirit of BLP and may be an excellent case for WP:IAR.--Kubigula(talk) 04:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indoor photographs of recognizable people require model permission. No OTRS has been filed. This image lacks necessary personality rights. DurovaCharge! 23:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, can you point us to the relevant Wikipedia rule? I'm looking for something a little more concrete than "she's standing there in her underwear, so it's common sense." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Image:Golgotha hill.jpg, for example, falls under the same category. It's an indoor photo of a recognisable person with no model permission. Should we delete that too? Orpheus (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That picture does not have the capacity to shame and destroy someone's life. Can you really not tell the difference? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would a picture of someone in their underwear "shame and destroy" their life? Surely that's a bit excessive. Orpheus (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See personality rights and Commons:Commons:Personality rights. For this type of situation, Commons cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. It would be simple enough to submit an OTRS model consent if the subjects were actually willing to have their likeness appear in an encyclopedia. That has not been done, and there has been plenty of time to submit it if they had been willing. DurovaCharge! 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orpheus, while you personally might not mind, there are people who would, and people who could be significantly harmed by it. Have you considered, for example, if she turns out to be a schoolteacher? "Hey, Mom, guess what we found on the web! It's a picture of our math teacher in her underwear, with a penis strapped to her head!" That's a "career-ending injury" in some parts of the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being seen in a church can be a life-ending injury in some parts of the world. My point is that a policy this broad should be discussed by the wider community, not applied quietly image by image. I would have thought that Durova in particular would be wary of anything that could be perceived as under the radar. Orpheus (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the Commons link above doesn't exist. Orpheus (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that comes across as a bit of a drive-by comment - I should summarise. It seems to me that this is an important issue, regarding personality rights and the level of explicit consent required for an image. It's one that needs a clear policy with wide community agreement, because at the moment some editors are discussing as though such a policy exists. (NB: I realise that sounds quite accusatory, but it's not intended - I just can't think of a better way to word it). I strongly believe that for the good of the project, this should be discussed in a more central, public, widely viewed forum and then whatever consensus we come to there applied to individual images. Orpheus (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here.[2] Orpheus, please explain your concern. Why should I in particular be 'wary', and how does this in any way appear to be 'under the radar'? I am an administrator on Commons and this would be a routine deletion there. If en:wiki is any different in that regard, please point to the appropriate policy page and refrain from personalizing the discussion. DurovaCharge! 20:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixed link. First off, that comment was VERY poorly worded, and I apologise for the personal attack it (unintentionally) turned into. I would strike it through, but I won't because the underlying point was completely intentional. What we as a community should learn from events such as yours, Essjay, and all the others is that Wikipedia *must* be open. It also must be *seen* to be open, ridiculously and hyperbolically open. This particular image isn't all that important, I don't personally care whether it lives or dies. I do, however, care very much that this policy has grown by accretion and by "stealth" - not intentional, deceptive stealth, but simply the kind that creeps in through a lack of openness and public process. I know this page is public, but it is in practice buried and invisible to all but the most dedicated of wikicreatures.
Now, the Commons policy seems like a good starting point, but there is no en.wikipedia policy that I can find on this matter. There should be! It's an important issue. The policy should answer questions like:
1) How identifiable does someone need to be to trigger deletion, on a scale of full face to paper bag?
2) What counts as embarrassing, what cultural norms do we go with, etc?
3) Should we adopt a policy of blurring or obscuring identifiable parts rather than deleting the whole image?
4) What exactly is a private space and how much trust do we put in uploaders to identify whether photography was permitted?
Please - don't answer these questions here! This page isn't the place for this discussion, but it's one that should be conducted and not just under the banner of this single image and not just by the three or four people reading this. Orpheus (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Given the existing tension over image use, I was skeptical that it was a good idea to add another layer of image bureaucracy. However, the Commons policy is quite good - perhaps I underestimate us.--Kubigula(talk) 03:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP and personality rights. What is and isn't private should be clear. What is and isn't identifiable should be clear. What is and isn't capable of negatively impacting someone's life should be clear. Pictures are one in a million. If this one is taken down it is immediately replaceable. However, if that was you on there and your boss happened to see you on wikipedia, you could be fired (not legally in all states, but cause could be drummed up in most cases). It's also non encyclopedic. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we welcome photo contributions from all editors, "some photo I took of some random party" is not what we're looking for. I don't see that this image is useful for our purpose of writing an encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Commons policy, which should also be policy here. This is a private party with a reasonable expectation of privacy. howcheng {chat} 19:07, 3 November 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.
This incarnation of the character is only discussed for half a line, and there is no discussion of the incarnation's actual appearance. The article also currently uses far too many non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments or more aptly here, general notes... The source product isn't listed for release until mid-November and there may, not likely but may, be additional information at that point to flesh out the section. That would also be notes as to why the character design was altered for the game. That said, a screen cap from the game would be preferable to a digitally watermarked promotional image. - J Greb (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can respect that, but, in the mean time, an image is not required. As you say, when the game is released, an appropriate screenshot can accompany commentary, if necessary. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image is used twice to illustrate a fairly minor appearance of the character. An image is not needed, as what the character looks like is not discussed, and the appearance itself is not really discussed. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue here is that the section in Hal Jordan could, and probably should be folded into Green Lantern in other media. And with that it becomes an issue of hair-splitting, something that also affects the preceding and following images. The "... in other media" articles relating to comics characters tend to use image to shorthand how the character design(s) were altered or handled for the spin off media. Looking at this specific case, Green Lantern, pointing to four of the five relevant character articles isn't a good option since the intent is to convey "the show interpreted the character in this way." That being said, there is a level of consistency with the Stewart and Jordan, the relevant character for this image, across the other media adaptations, the DCU vs MK being the notable exception. With The Batman, the uses of the character are noted and there are better frames that convey the appearance of the full character. But it would boil down to "And this animation studio drew the standard costume this way when compared to the more notable 'DC Animated Universe' standard." - J Greb (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images should not be used like that- if information is worth talking about (discussed by reliable sources) it should be included in the text, with an image added afterwards if it is deemed that is too difficult to understand a specific point in the text without an image. As you say, this one is basically just saying "this is how he looked. We haven't bothered to talk about it it, as it's not much different to any other". As such, it is not needed. J Milburn (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has too many non-free images, and this one does not seem to be particularly needed. The appearance of this version of the character does not seem different to the majority of the others, and it is not really discussed. A mention of the appearance would suffice- an image is not needed. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination. Additionally, the image is not of very good quality, and would not significantly increase a reader's understanding of the subject with all the other images on the page. Ariel♥Gold 22:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This nom contains the major quibble I've got with the set of three. "Article has too many non-free images," is a slight stretch. Too many with tenuous reasoning and/or covering the same ground, yes. Too many period, I'm not so sure considering the general scope of the "<Comics character> in other media" type articles. In the case of this image, there is the potential for an image accompanying text since the character design used was the one used when the character first saw print c. 1960. But as ArielGold points out, this image would be hard pressed to show the variation. - J Greb (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image is not requird- it is used on a list article which has far too many non-free images (and would have more if more "this is what the character looks like" images were thrown in) and the physical appearance of this character is not at all discussed. As such, this use is purely decorative. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appearance of the character is not discussed, article has far too many non-free images. This image is not required, it is purely decorative. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Used only on a list of characters article. The physical appearance of this particular character is not discussed, and so this image is not needed. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Used in a list of characters article. The physical appearance of the character is not discussed, meaning that this is a purely decorative image. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appearance of the character is not discussed, meaning that this image is purely decorative. The characters appearance in this game is mentioned only in passing. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not needed since the character has no significant part in the article the image is in. Does not increase the reader's understanding of the subject. Ariel♥Gold 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appearance of the character is unimportant and not discussed. This image is purely decorative and used on an article that uses too many non-free images anyway. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unusued, apparently absent uploader, no context and apparently unencyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 12:05, 27 October 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.
Image used only for vandalism purposes, as a replacement for totally unrelated legitimate images. Uploader is indef-blocked. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:13, 27 October 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.
There are already two non-free images on this very short article- only one screenshot is required. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic Low quality orphaned personal image. OsamaK 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely small image, barely able to make out what it is, not of sufficient quality to use in any article to illustrate kayaking. Ariel♥Gold 22:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, Orphaned. OsamaK 18:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is no more un-encyclopedic than the other hundreds of icon images. I see no reason it shouldn't be kept, but it should be added to that category. Ariel♥Gold 22:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whaddayaknow, it does appear to be a free image: specifically, there's a larger version available here with a PD claim. Not sure if this one's worth keeping, though; might as well just upload the WPClipart version to Commons and delete this one as a duplicate. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP and personality rights. What is and isn't private should be clear. What is and isn't identifiable should be clear. What is and isn't capable of negatively impacting someone's life should be clear. Pictures are one in a million. If this one is taken down it is immediately replaceable. However, if that was you on there and your boss happened to see you on wikipedia, you could be fired (not legally in all states, but cause could be drummed up in most cases). It's also non encyclopedic. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Not sure how that got there. Protonk (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
,_May_2003,_photo_Filip_Kondovski.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_May_2003,_photo_Filip_Kondovski.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
,_May_2003,_photo_Filip_Kondovski.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_May_2003,_photo_Filip_Kondovski.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
,_December_2001,_photo_Boro_Rudic.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_December_2001,_photo_Boro_Rudic.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
,_December_2001,_photo_Boro_Rudic.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_December_2001,_photo_Boro_Rudic.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
,_December_2001,_photo_Boro_Rudic.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_December_2001,_photo_Boro_Rudic.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
,_December_2001,_photo_Boro_Rudic.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_December_2001,_photo_Boro_Rudic.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=delete){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
