Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
< May 5 May 7 >

May 6

[edit]

1984-09-10Season1Set1.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1984-09-10Season1Set1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robert K S (notify | contribs).
Image:1987-04-21Jeopardy!Set1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
Image:1992-05-18Jeopardy!Season8Set1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
Image:2002-06-21Jeopardy!Set1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
Image:2006-07-28Season22Set1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
Image:2006-11-07Season23Set1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

I am nominating all the above images for deletion as they are used in a fair use image gallery (violating WP:NFCC#3a) and for decoration only rather than contributing to readers' understanding of the subject (violating WP:NFCC#8). Stifle (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How can these possibly be mere decoration when Jeopardy!_Set_Evolution clearly discusses the subject in detail? - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: an article on the evolution of sets on Jeopardy could well include three non-free photos of sets that are no longer in use... but the Jeopardy! Set Evolution article is in terrible shape, using the images only in galleries, with a bad title and broken image links throughout. I'm not even sure the article would survive an afd challenge. As currently used, in galleries, I'd say these don't pass NFCC#8. Someone could improve the article enough to pass NFCC#8 for these images, but I'm not sure it'd be worth the effort, since the article might not survive anyway. – Quadell (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination doesn't take into account the evolution of the content. The now-deleted Jeopardy! set evolution was formed of content split off from Jeopardy! when the latter article got too big. When Jeopardy! set evolution was deleted, a small amount of the content from the deleted article deemed to most well-sourced was merged back into Jeopardy!. Most of the images were similarly deleted at the same time, but a small number of them--one from each set era--were merged back into Jeopardy!. This was the reasonable compromise upon which the deletion of the larger article was in part based. The images are not merely "decorative" as alleged by the nominator, but rather are the bare minimum necessary to illustrate the section subject. (Actually, for a number of reasons, I think they are less than the minimum, but I will not argue that point here.) In contrast to the allegation of the nominator, the images are necessary to an understanding of the article text in that section. According to the policy, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." These images qualify. The article text makes reference to a number of structural features of the set, including the game board, the podiums (or lecterns), the backdrop walls, sliding doors, etc., none of which would be comprehensible without some minimum illustration. I respectfully request that the administrator who evaluates this deletion read carefully the text of the section in question and see if it is comprehensible, any part of it or the sum of it, without the proper illustration provided by these images. Robert K S (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You mention that the images qualify under NFCC#8; even if true, that condition is necessary but not sufficient. It is also necessary to establish that all six images are necessary, not just one or two (WP:NFCC#3a). Stifle (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Non sequitur. The images do not illustrate the same thing, and one can hardly be called upon to simply imagine the set changes by reading the text. The entire point here is that the images are illustrative of a set evolution, which is reflective of the show's history (read: age) and advancements in technology (e.g. pulled cards to small CRT screens to large CRTs to semi-seamless video wall to bank of OLED monitors). Would the nominator be better satisfied if the images were presented, in slideshow fashion, as an animated GIF? I hardly think that would better serve the article. The thumbnails as they are presented on the article already must be individually inspected (enlarged) to give the reader any resolvable detail. Even then the images are really not sufficient to show all aspects of the set, but, again, I am willing to compromise. Apparently, for the nominator, there can be no compromise--all images must be deleted. This is a nonsensical position, as it does not improve the encyclopedia and is not grounded in policy. Robert K S (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging into a single image or slide show does not count under that rule. Its 6 images no matter how you slice it. ViperSnake151  Talk  11:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems a sensible rule (is it in writing somewhere?) and in any case note that I found merging the images into one to be an unsatisfactory solution. The images need to be large enough, or capable of being enlarged, in order to view the structural features being talked about with sufficient detail. This section of article text would be incomprehensible to the reader without illustration. Robert K S (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-free content gallery. Not one of the images corresponds to a specific part of the article requiring illustration. Jay32183 (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how it's possible to read the section in question and make that statement in good faith. Need I go through and elaborately list, for each image, exactly which statements are being illustrated? Robert K S (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, in fact, you must, WP:NFCC#10. But reading that section shows that the images are not actually necessary. It's just a gallery of non-free images, which is not allowed. Jay32183 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NFCC#10 consists of guidelines for the image description page, which these images already comply with, and is not, as you imply, a requirement for the laborious match-up of text to image that I have performed below. As for your assertion that the images are unnecessary, I already specifically refuted that above ("the images are necessary to an understanding of the article text in that section... The article text makes reference to a number of structural features of the set, including the game board, the podiums (or lecterns), the backdrop walls, sliding doors, etc., none of which would be comprehensible without some minimum illustration") and referred to the more relevant WP:NFCC#8. Even though you persist in the assertion that the images are unnecessary without supporting that assertion, I will support my assertion that they are necessary and quote the relevant sections of the article.
          • "In the syndicated TV show hosted by Alex Trebek, the set included a large 'JEOPARDY!' logo until 2002. The logo was first shown in red neon (illustrated by File:1984-09-10Season1Set1.jpg), then changed to white the following season (no longer illustrated because File:1985Jeopardy!_set2.JPG was deleted), and finally to yellow (illustrated by File:1987-04-21Jeopardy!Set1.jpg), which remained until 1991. From 1991-1996, the 'Jeopardy!' logo alternated colors with flashing red-to-white neon in the Jeopardy! Round with a blue background and flashing blue-to-white neon with a red background for the Double Jeopardy! Round (illustrated by File:1992-05-18Jeopardy!Season8Set1.jpg)."
          • "TV executive Bob Boden received the "J" logo sign from the 1986-1991 version of the set (illustrated by File:1987-04-21Jeopardy!Set1.jpg) after it was retired."
          • "After the final shows of Season 10 were taped on February 15, 1994, the set (illustrated by File:1992-05-18Jeopardy!Season8Set1.jpg) was disassembled and reconstructed at Sony Pictures Studios' Stage 10 on Washington Boulevard in Culver City, California, where the first shows of Season 11 were taped on July 12, 1994."
          • "On the episode aired November 11, 1996, two months after the start of Season 13, Jeopardy! introduced an entirely new set (illustrated by File:2002-06-21Jeopardy!Set1.jpg) by production designer Naomi Slodki, which was also constructed on Stage 10 on the Sony lot. While Slodki intended the set to resemble "the foyer of a very contemporary library", its purple-backlit gridded walls and wooden accents earned it the nickname of the "sushi bar" set amongst fans."
          • "Shortly after the start of Season 19 in 2002, Jeopardy! once again changed its set. After the set was dismantled in 2002, portions of it were placed on eBay..."
          • "Several virtual tours placed on the official Jeopardy! web site in 2003 were based on the 2002–2006 set (illustrated by File:2006-07-28Season22Set1.jpg)."
          • "The 2002 set (illustrated by File:2006-07-28Season22Set1.jpg) received slight modifications (illustrated by File:2006-11-07Season23Set1.jpg) for the 2006-07 season, when Jeopardy! and its sister show Wheel of Fortune became the first game shows to air in high-definition. The Jeopardy! game board, which had appeared as a wall of individual video monitors since 1984 and had not been updated since 1991, was replaced with a nearly seamless projection video wall (used to be illustrated by 2006-11-07Season23Board1.jpg, since deleted) which was used as part of the road show set in 1997 and kept through 2008. New HD-friendly podia (formerly illustrated by 2006-11-07Season23Set4.jpg and 2006-11-07Season23Set5.jpg, since deleted, but File:2006-11-07Season23Set1.jpg at least gives some impression, if not detail) were added, but the basic set was still unchanged (illustrated by comparison between File:2006-07-28Season22Set1.jpg and File:2006-11-07Season23Set1.jpg)."
          • "A new set (as yet unillustrated, but we're due for a new image, especially by September) debuted with the Celebrity Jeopardy! and Tournament of Champions episodes taped in 2009 at the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. This set will be moved to their main set at Sony Pictures Studios and used as the show's primary set beginning in September 2009 (Season 26)."
        • The above only elaborates what should be evident to anyone who reads the section, but having now done the work of making the importance of each illustration explicit, there can no longer be said to be a prima facie case for deletion of these images and the burden is on the deletionist to present argument why these images do not illustrate text and are critical to the understanding of that text. An article about Jeopardy! without images of the show's sets would be like an article about the Pontiac Firebird that lacked images of that automobile's stylistic evolution. Robert K S (talk) 04:01, 11 May 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.

Samanacayflag.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samanacayflag.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flopo1 (notify | contribs).
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.

Samanacaycoa.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samanacaycoa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flopo1 (notify | contribs).
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.

Yurisinger2.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yurisinger2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chepetoño (notify | contribs).
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.

Lucero mijares.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucero mijares.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chepetoño (notify | contribs).
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.

Duffy_-_Warwick_Avenue.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. If there were no other pictures of Duffy available, then this would pass NFCC#8, as it wouldn't be replaceable by text. However, a reader only has to look at Duffy (singer) to see a picture of the artist. The difference between different emotional states is not significant enough to justify use of the non-free image.--Aervanath (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duffy_-_Warwick_Avenue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alecsdaniel (notify | contribs).
  • Tagged for speedy, but that's contested, and I think this is a more appropriate venue. It's another music video screenshot that might or might not pass NFCC#8. I have no opinion on this -- this is a procedural nom. – Quadell (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think it should be deleted, because, although it's just another "mere depiction of the artist", the video doesn't have anything more relevant, since that's the whole video: Duffy in a cab, crying. The video is notable as it was nominated for a VMA at the "Best UK Video" category. The deletion of the image would mean that we'd keep the user away from more information. 62.231.112.198 (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's the whole video - Duffy in a cab. As the video goes on, she starts crying. End of video. Can you find a better screenshot? The video, like said before, is notable, as it was nominated at the biggest music video awards - MTV VMA. Alecsdaniel (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Alecsdaniel said previously, the video is notable because it was nominated at the biggest music video awards - MTV VMA. The video was nominated for its quality and some users would like to see why it received a nom., and someone said "the deletion of the image would mean that we'd keep the user away from more information", which is also true. Lucian C. (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's replaceable by the free text "The video shows Duffy in the back of a black taxi, crying." Stifle (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This way, all video screenshots could be replaced by free text. "The video shows Michael Jackson as a zombie", "The video shows Madonna kissing different men and women", "The video shows Cher in a fishnet body stocking under a very revealing black one-piece bathing suit", etc could all be replaced by free text, because you don't have to see Madonna kissing some girl to imagine that, right? Judging like this, we'd never use screenshots. Except for this video, have you seen Duffy crying? There are sections about videos so we can explain how the video looked, and even show a section of it, so people won't have to go to youtube, etc for the minimun of the information. Alecsdaniel (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The image just shows the artist. There isn't anything in the image that we can't get by combining a free image with some free text, even then the free image is optional. Jay32183 (talk) 04:21, 9 May 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.

Lee Ann Womack - Last Call.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lee Ann Womack - Last Call.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dottiewest1fan (notify | contribs).
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.

1916-11-18_-_Sir_Sam_Hughes_Presents_Colours_to_207th_battalion.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: Kept, free

File:1916-11-18_-_Sir_Sam_Hughes_Presents_Colours_to_207th_battalion.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HistoryofCanada (notify | contribs).
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.

ID-RachidDebbagh-01.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ID-RachidDebbagh-01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rachiddebbagh (notify | contribs).
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 is bip basu.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:This is bip basu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sweeta salaam (notify | contribs).
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_6&oldid=1138516676"