Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 31 September 2 >

September 1[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:

Image:Bjlata1.jpg[edit]

Image:Bjlata1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Susanlesch (notify | contribs).

Notice to all Strange and confused friends, I am the closer of the DRV, and the undeleter of the article. I undeleted conditional to the relisting here at IfD. In close cases at DRV, this is standard procedure to resolve disputes firmly, because DRV is not envisioned as a "court of final appeal", and IfD retains ultimate authority over the image. If the complainers below would rather, I could reverse my DRV closure, and summarily delete the image. The IfD closer is urged to ignore all the confused commenters below. Xoloz 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Please ignore the extremely rude comment above. Badagnani 20:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was originally deleted at an IfD closed on 19 August 2007. DRV overturned, as the IfD closer had participated substantively in the debate. Still, delete for insufficient fair use rationale. Xoloz 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and temporary block of nominator for unreasonable, WP:POINT abuse of our system in renominating this article just minutes after clear consensus to keep. I can only assume s/he renominated in hopes that the voters who participated in the "keep" consensus won't notice that this has been renominated. This poor behavior has been seen many times in the past and must not continue. Badagnani 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the original uploader of this image and a significant contributor to the article in question, I was not aware that a deletion review had taken place until this evening, nor that a second nomination for deletion had occured.
  • I still stand at Keep per my fair-use rationale and arguments at the Original debate - that the image is of an irreplaceable, non-repeatable, historically significant appearance of a famous individual; showing Bradley Joseph as a featured instrumentalist during the recorded version of Yanni Live at the Acropolis (1993). However, I will respect the decision of those more knowledgeable of fair-use guidelines because, as much as I would like to see the image kept in the article, compliance is my ultimate goal. ♫ Cricket02 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment From recent Wikimedia licensing policy, Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events..., and such is part of the rationale provided. Therefore, in my quest for a comprehensive biography, I repeat my argument that this image is, indeed, of a historically significant event in the life of this composer, and is not replaceable. ♫ Cricket02 19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Don't worry, the fair use rationale given at the image page is quite well written and covers all the bases. Nominator does not explain how it is "insufficient," thus his/her opinion is without basis. Badagnani 02:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep per Badagnani. Nominated four minutes after undelete.--SuperElephant 02:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep on procedural grounds... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk •

contribs) 17:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I forgot to sign. BTW, by procedural grounds I do not mean the the procedure was violated, but that the procedure is broken. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The text does an adequate job of explaining Bradley Joseph's performance at the Acropolis, and a non-free image is not needed. --Iamunknown 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not needed in article per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Also, block nominator, deadmin him while you're at at it and...oh wait. Garion96 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As original uploader, and with all due respect to all of the above, I don't disagree that the image should have been brought back here, because, by my understanding, the previous Ifd was overturned due to possible controversial closure, and not specifically because the image was determined to abide by fair-use. Therefore, and again, with all due respect, I prefer this discussion be kept to the matter at hand, whether the image meets fair-use in the article in question according to guidelines. ♫ Cricket02 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete according to WP:NFCC#8. Does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". As Iamunknown says, the text does an adequate job. No justification for using a non-free image. Our policy is stricter than the law, as we're trying to build an encyclopaedia which everyone can re-use, copy, modify, sell, etc. ElinorD (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: NFCC #8 is too subjective to be of any value. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. ♫ Cricket02 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think (and some others, like quadell, abu and others) you have right to decide what images can be used according to WP:NFCC#8? Consensus is required to decide whether the image can be used according to WP:NFCC#8.––SuperElephant 21:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we—you, me and others participating in this deletion discussion—are generating consensus as to whether or not this image passes the non-free content criteria, including #8. First we openly express our opinions. Then we discuss. ElinorD saying, "Delete according to WP:NFCC#8", is neither extraordinary nor indicative of superiority ... it is merely part of generating consensus. --Iamunknown 03:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it doesn't belong here. But some deletionist realy say that policy is somehow above consensus.--SuperElephant 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: " we—you, me and others". Hi, Iamunknown, if you don't know the example acceptable images are a pregnant female movie star on a magazine cover (see below), and a baseball card (Image:Ripkenffcard.jpg for Bill Ripken used in Billy Ripken, I would guess that you are new to the deletion review process? I don't mean to put you on the spot but it sort of struck me as unusual. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. I understand this is confusing because the acceptable images are given in the rules under Unacceptable images. -Susanlesch 23:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the deletion process and the non-free content policy (though I am apparently not intimately familiar with the latter, as I missed the examples of acceptable use). --Iamunknown 23:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why does "female movie star age nnn, nnn months pregnant on the cover of a popular United States magazine" not qualify for text replacement, but "male keyboardist age nnn, all dressed up for the occasion, in Greece in the middle of a popular music video" replaces this image? I ask because the earlier deletion review was deleted before anyone answered my question about that. -Susanlesch 06:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Susan, are you referring to a specific example in your "female movie star ... popular U.S. magazine" statement? (Sorry, I'm a bit confused by your question.) --Iamunknown 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm guessing she's referring to the Demi Moore example noted on WP:NONFREE. And if so, she's ignoring the rest of the two paragraphs discussing the image, parodies of it, and a resulting lawsuit. 17Drew 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The image does not contain any significant information that could not be replaced by text (fails WP:NFCC #8). – Ilse@ 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I realy can't figure out what significant information it contains.--SuperElephant 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing anything in the text that's better understood because of the image. 17Drew 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Oh really Drew?! Now you know you don't have much room to talk when you're fighting just the same for this one: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_25#Image:Gwenharlow.jpg This one is not any different. ♫ Cricket02 23:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket, your argument is an ad hominem tu quoque logical fallacy (particularly example #2). Because someone has changed opinions from a past opinion does not make their current opinion false (incidentally, nor does a logical fallacy make an argument necessarily false). My question is: Why are you mentioning this? To me it appears to be an attempt to discredit Drew's argument. Then again, I may be wrong. --Iamunknown 23:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed opinions? No. His opinion is not a "past opinion", he is in a "current" deletion debate of one of his own images with the same rationale/arguments in that his image is depicting a musician in a film acting role with nothing in the text that's better understood because of the image, and this one is depicting a musician's role in a concert film with nothing in the text that's better understood because of the image, and he has the audacity to come here and comment on this one. I don't care if he is discredited, just letting it be known that I don't like hippocrites. He is entitled to his opinion, and I will discuss this no further. ♫ Cricket02 00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to discuss further, that's your prerogative. But acting as a character is very different from performing in a concert. That article discusses the character being portrayed; this article, however, contains no discussion of Joseph's role as...himself. Knowing how he looked at the concert doesn't give the reader any better of an understanding of what he did during the concert. Also, you may want to avoid giving up credibility by making overzealous ad hominem arguments against hippocrites [sic] in the future.17Drew 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bull. I've shown the utmost respect for everyone throughout this process, until now, but I don't care. The fact remains that yours was brought up for NFC#8 also, and you had no right to comment here and you know it. ♫ Cricket02 02:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia is a wiki. With a few exceptions, each user can edit any page. !Voting keep for one image does not mean that I cannot !vote to delete another, much less comment at all. If you cannot maintain a civil discussion, then I recommend cooling down and considering taking a break. 17Drew 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting images is disruptive, so I think it should only be done in very clear cases. This isn't one of them.--Jwwalker 21:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I offered in the first deletion review to change my vote to delete but the review was ended before people who could explain this to me replied. So I vote again keep because from what little I know: Only notoriety appears to be the reason the non-free-use guideline example (Image:Vanity Fair August 1991.JPG) is allowed but that notoriety (parody, lawsuit) is not pictured in the image. I would guess the rules for this discussion seem to apply only to living people, and that nobody knows why or at least hasn't said. User:Videmus Omnia who initiated the first deletion review for Image:Bjlata1.jpg seemed to think all things historical can be replaced by text. But for me the question remains whether text replacement is the only criterion for deleting an image. Also, text replacement is a subjective call and I don't know under whose auspices you (other than JWWalker I don't know who any of you are) are making these decisions here. I asked the other day (example) but have not yet received a reply. I regret not studying Wikipedia copyright rules much more closely when I opened my account. I guess the process is interrupting editors and uploaders. -Susanlesch 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for including Image:Vanity Fair August 1991.JPG is not notoriety. It's because including the image shows exactly how the image conveys an "anti-Hollywood, anti-glitz" message and why people interpreted the image in very different ways. This is discussed in the text. Without Image:Bjlata1.jpg, however, it is very easy to understand that Joseph played keyboards for Yanni. Anyone who has a hard time understanding that Joseph played keyboards is beyond help, and the image isn't likely to show much. 17Drew 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Image is orphaned. I didn't disagree with NFC#8 in the first debate, had no involvement with the DRV, and still don't disagree with NFC#8. My only argument all along as been the historical significance of the image, but still, my text explains it just fine. ♫ Cricket02 02:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cricket02, you're welcome to reverse my edit and I won't mind. You've put the work in on the article. Unorphaned because there is no consensus here that I can find. -Susanlesch 04:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just double checking, I count six keep and six delete. -Susanlesch 04:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • number of votes does not constitute the end result, an admin has to review the image and make a judgement based on the information and the policies in question. Several images have had numerous keeps, outweighing the deletes, and because they were indeed in violation, they were removed. This really isnt a place to vote, moreso a place to discuss the reasons. Ejfetters 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense to me Ejfetters, thank you. Does that decision include the reasons and discussion in the first review or would only this second one be considered? -Susanlesch 06:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quadell, thanks for your reply. Also just adding a note here for clarity since no one mentioned it that the first review was for the second upload minus Conscious's (must be an admin) edit to remove Cricket02's original, and that this second review has both versions in the upload history. My involvement here was a mechanical edit to remove a large artifact of blank screen that was accidentally part of the original upload. That put my name on this review twice so I am seeing it through. This comment doesn't change my vote based on what I read here and compared to the examples I found in the guidelines. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 14:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I understand it, the only purpose of the image is to show the artist at a specific, notable concert. I believe this use fails NFCC#8 for two important reasons: (1) There is nothing in the image that makes it clear he is at that concert. As such, it isn't even as informative as text alone. (2) This particular performance is not important enough to be the subject of a major section of the article. If the article (or a major section) were about this particular performance, and if the image clearly showed that he was at this particular performance, then I would say it passed NFCC#8. But as it is, I don't believe it does. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is a complex closure, for sure; there were serious concern expressed by a number of editors over the relisting. However, while their concerns are worrisome, I don't believe they compromised the discussion to an unreasonable extent. The closure by Quadell was viewed as inappropriate, and overturned. The overturning user then relisted the image for this discussion. While it would have been better if there had been a clear consensus to relist, most of the discussion simply expressed that Quadell's closing was inappropriate — not a clear statement that the closing decision was incorrect; in fact, the review tended towards endorsing deletion, but not by the closing admin. As such, I don't see it as totally unreasonable to relist the image, given that no clear statement was ever derived from the discussion. While the relisting, and subsequent discussion here is irregular, it's not inappropriately so — the bad faith generated is thus distressing, to me, given what appears to be a good faith action all around.

With that said, the consensus here appears to be that the image fails WP:NFCC#8; the image does not appear to add anything significant to the article which could not be expressed by text. Hopefully this is the last word on the subject. --Haemo 05:35, 10 September 2007 (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:RPM Background.jpg[edit]

Image:RPM Background.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NinaFreeman (notify | contribs).
  • Orphan (article about group was deleted). Precious Roy 00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rbentivegna3.jpg[edit]

Image:Rbentivegna3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emperorpasta (notify | contribs).
  • UE, OR, AB. Used on now-deleted vanity page. - Calton | Talk 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rbentivegna2.jpg[edit]

Image:Rbentivegna2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emperorpasta (notify | contribs).
  • UE, OR, AB. Used on now-deleted vanity page. - Calton | Talk 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rbentivegna.jpg[edit]

Image:Rbentivegna.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emperorpasta (notify | contribs).
  • UE, OR, AB. Used on now-deleted vanity page. - Calton | Talk 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bentivsitting.JPG[edit]

Image:Bentivsitting.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emperorpasta (notify | contribs).
  • UE, OR, AB. Used on now-deleted vanity page. - Calton | Talk 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coppolabentiv.jpg[edit]

Image:Coppolabentiv.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emperorpasta (notify | contribs).
  • UE, OR, AB. Used on now-deleted vanity page. - Calton | Talk 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sengokuden relations.gif[edit]

Image:Sengokuden relations.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Iron2000 (notify | contribs).

Image:Wiki Glitch.JPG[edit]

Image:Wiki Glitch.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ceres3 (notify | contribs).

Image:Shin Sengokuden relations.gif[edit]

Image:Shin Sengokuden relations.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Iron2000 (notify | contribs).
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:

ER Publicity Images[edit]

Various studio publicity images, no verification they have been released for promotional use, same as discussed in prior listings for other TV publicity shots. Better replaced with screen caps. Ejfetters 06:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I nominated these, but since have found this paragraph from the site which seems to authorize all the material from nbc.com - anything from any other site should be deleted, and replaced with material from nbc.com : "1. By accessing this Site and/or completing the registration process and obtaining a password, User has requested a non-exclusive license to use NBC Universal promotional material consisting of NBC Universal written publicity materials and NBC Universal photographs on the Site (subject to NBC Universal's further approval) (collectively, the "Material") solely as promotional publicity for NBC Universal television shows and/or NBC Universal properties on Licensee's Internet Site ("Licensee's Site") and/or in Licensee's editorial printed materials ("Publications"). NBC Universal hereby grants a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to Licensee to download and use a single copy of the Material in this manner for the term of this Agreement and strictly for these promotional purposes, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. Licensee agrees that the Material will be used only for informational, non-commercial purposes on the Licensee's Site itself and/or in Publications, and for no other purpose and in no other manner, medium or place whatsoever. The Material shall not be sold, redistributed, relicensed or sublicensed by Licensee in any way. Licensee's Site shall consist only of a standard HTML Site viewed by users connected to the Internet in real time. All other uses of the Material, including, but not limited to, those involving advanced technologies, online services, push technology, broadcast, and all other mediums are expressly reserved by NBC Universal. Use of NBC Universal photographs may not be made without seeking prior approval from NBC Universal."

So keep all that are from nbc - if from another site they need to be replaced. Ejfetters 07:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If someone else can review these and agree with my understanding it would be helpful. Ejfetters 08:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether released by just NBC or not, these images are taken for publicity of the show and are clearly meant to promote it and be circulated widely. There's no conflict in keeping these stills.--Gloriamarie 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Saying they are clearly released by NBC, do you have the proof for this? As has been stated for the deletions for Star Trek and Dawson's Creek, we need to have the proof of this, regardless of how obvious it may seem that they are promotional. Without the proof we cannot keep them, we cannot theorize on sources and statuses, we need proof to back them up. Without this they should be deleted and replaced with screencaps of the subjects, as done with the above, and currently being done with CSI as well. Ejfetters 03:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

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:LondonEye 2007.jpg[edit]

Image:LondonEye 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by UKWiki (notify | contribs).
  • Fair use image being used in London Eye article. Image is of 2006/7 new year celebrations and could easily be replaced with a free image from Flickr. New year celebrations are briefly mentioned in the text but not enough to justify the use of this image. Brad 13:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gordon brown.jpg[edit]

Image:Gordon brown.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Basisplan (notify | contribs).
  • Not what title or description claims 03vaseyj 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. ElinorD (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_September_1&oldid=1142599942"