Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
< October 6 October 8 >

October 7

[edit]

File:Japanese cicada stamp.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Japanese cicada stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chzz (notify | contribs).
  • Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp being used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a) Why was I not notified of this discussion? b) Please could you clarify your deletion argument; I don't understand it, specifically the part about "being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp" - I'm not being pointy here, I honestly don't understand that sentence. Thanks!  Chzz  ►  05:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please consider the Non-free use rationale rationale that I provided; "represent the influence of the animal in popular culture, Representation adds encyclopaedic value to the article by demonstrating the importance of imagry of the animal in Japan; this is a unique example".  Chzz  ►  05:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were notified with this edit. There is no verification by a reliable source of your claim the stamp is shown "represent the influence of the animal in popular culture" other than a caption which states it existence. ww2censor (talk) 12:38, 8 October 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.

File:Jeita stamp.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeita stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Elie plus (notify | contribs).
  • Comment It is still a copyright stamp and the fact that it is 40 years old does not justify its use, besides which there is no attempt to provide any reliable source to support the text: "Jeita became a national symbol when Lebanese authorities issued a stamp featuring the lower cavern to promote national tourism". How do we know this? Who said so? Please provide some sourced commentary about the stamp itself, not the place and justify the fair-use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 12:47, 8 October 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.

File:Johan Laidoner stamp.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johan Laidoner stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Karabinier (notify | contribs).
  • Comment: beside which there is no fair-use rationale for this use, even if justification of the purpose was made. The current rationale relates to a different article entirely; for that reason alone it could be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 12:51, 8 October 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.

File:Jerusalem Stamps.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. There are other images in the same section which do not carry the additional copyright baggage of being stamps. kmccoy (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalem Stamps.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs).
  • Keep: Commentary about the stamps and the subject is included in the article in detail and the stamps were issued to illustrate and commemorate the stained glass produced by Marc Chagall. There is no commercial or artistic detriment to the government of Israel by displaying their stamps and stamps are meant to be publicly displayed each time they are used on an envelope. An article about Marc Chagall, the artist who made these windows, would be the most logical and beneficial place to show these images. The images shown on these stamps could not be described by prose alone as stained glass must be seen to be understood. The image shows only small 150px portions of the stamps and can only have the effect of supporting the commentary in the article. While the stamps are not as good as real photos, one could argue that discussing these windows without some illustraton would be detrimental to the subject's understanding.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The stamps are used to decorate a section about stained glass windows, which already has two images of Mr. Chagall's stained glass windows. They are replaceable there by photographs of the said windows. If they were used in a section about the stamps themselves, it would be OK. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the only copyrightable part of the stamps the stained glass images they contain? As far as freeness is concerned then, how are they distinguishable from photographs of the stained glass? Postdlf (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The photographs are copyrightable in and of themselves due to the photographer's choice of angle, lighting, composition, exposure, etc. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those elements would only be copyrightable if the stained glass were 3-D, which it doesn't appear to be based on the stamps. An accurate photograph of a 2-D work of art is not independently copyrightable. Postdlf (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's still a derivative work though, and hence non-free (assuming copyright exists in the original work). Black Kite 06:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • What's still a derivative work? The stamps? Not if they didn't contribute anything copyrightable; they just present images of the stamps with labels. Or do you mean the photographs of the stained glass within the stamps? Not if they are accurate photographs of 2-D art. Then the only copyright at issue is the stained glass itself, in which case using the stamps is no different than using one's own photograph of the copyrighted stained glass. Postdlf (talk) 14:48, 12 October 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.

File:Jose Maria Moncada.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jose Maria Moncada.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jamespeterka (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.

File:Juan Bautista Sacasa.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juan Bautista Sacasa.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jamespeterka (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.

File:Julius kuperjanov stamp.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julius kuperjanov stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Karabinier (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.

File:Kurpie stamp 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurpie stamp 01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikited (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.

File:Kurpie stamp 02.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurpie stamp 02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikited (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.

File:Kurpie stamp 03.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurpie stamp 03.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikited (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.

File:Kurpie stamp 04.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurpie stamp 04.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikited (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.

File:L'Oiseau Blanc stamp.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'Oiseau Blanc stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Elonka (notify | contribs).
  • Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to identify the topic of a stamp and used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. There are other non-free images of the L'Oiseau Blanc that would likely pass WP:NFCC easier than an image of a stamp. ww2censor (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The image of the stamp portrays information which could not be adequately represented by text alone, is clearly discussed in the article, and represents an anniversary event directly related to the subject of the article (the plane's disappearance). --Elonka 03:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you tell me what information you think the image of the stamp conveys that (a) could not be adequately represented by text and (b) is so important that readers would not understand the article as well if it were removed? Stifle (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite simply, what the stamp looks like. Text could say, "the 40-year anniversary stamp included an image of the biplane and its two aviators," but that is a poor substitute for seeing the actual image. Further, the stamp includes an image of Nungesser's wartime logo, which is very difficult to convey in text. And since the plane was lost at sea, no free images could reasonably be obtained in modern times. --Elonka 03:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No critical commentary on the stamp. Clear violation of WP:NFC#Images #3. Rettetast (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Besides which the stamp is being used in the infobox. This is the place where we use an image to identify the subject of the article and, despite the lengthy caption, that is its use here. The infobox should have an appropriate freely licenced image of the plane, such as the one here which might actually be free. Imagery of the fliers is unnecessary here. All the caption tells us is what is displayed on the stamp with no commentary about the stamp itself and no reliable source to back it up. Sorry but the use is inappropriate. ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for searching for a new image, but the one you linked is not appropriate. For one, it's copyrighted by the French Air & Space museum, as the copyright image below the image clearly shows. It also says "droits réservés", meaning "rights reserved". It is not a free image. Further, there is someone standing in front of the part of the fuselage where Nungesser's wartime logo would have been displayed. Which means that we still have a reasonable case for fair use of the stamp image in the Wikipedia article: It is a commemorative stamp related to a significant anniversary of the article subject, it is discussed in the article, it is sourced, the imagery of the stamp could not be adequately conveyed in text alone, and there is nothing about the use of the stamp's image which could negatively impact the rights of the copyright holder. Indeed, the stamp was only issued for a brief period in the 1960s, so it is not possible that there could be any negative impact whatsoever on sales. --Elonka 21:19, 13 October 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.

File:Davidlewis.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Davidlewis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Formeruser-81 (notify | contribs).
  • I declined to speedy delete this file because it is a somewhat complicated issue, and it sat around nominated for speedy deletion for an entire week, so it seems no one is comfortable deleting it through that process. This file is taken from the Library and Archives of Canada. The licensing information on their site[1] says the following conditions must be met:
  • Library and Archives Canada is identified as the source;
  • You exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the material reproduced;
  • You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced; and
  • The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the material reproduced or as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of, Library and Archives Canada.
  • Is that conistent with Wikipedia's licensing, or isn't it? My thinking is that the criterion that it not be modified is a deal-breaker, but if there is one thing I know for sure it's that I am not an expert in this particular area. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I corresponded with LAC on this issue and it is quite clear that their licensing is incompatible with Wikipedia. It's annoying that some of their language implies otherwise (the "no restrictions on use" phrase refers to the restrictions that the original creator has put on LAC, not LAC on the general public). See also the notice at commons:Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada. --Padraic 10:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't modify it. That's not allowed. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:35, 8 October 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.

File:Parco dello Storga - Treviso.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 G7 by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parco dello Storga - Treviso.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Patafisik (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.

File:RED TAPE.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RED TAPE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carrion0819 (notify | contribs).
The abbreviations are on the main page WP:FFD. Eric is saying this is an orphan file, uploaded but not used anywhere, so why have it? And that it's UnEncyclopedic, doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedia. Typing the four letters "OR, UE" saves him typing time... and everyone else reading time. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guide to deletion asks users not to use Wikipedia acronyms in their nomination statements. The least he could do is link them, for this very reason. This is confusing even to experienced Wikipedians, I am personally familiar with "OR" meaning "original research" and "UE" meaning "use English." I shouldn't have to be a mind reader or an expert in image specific acronyms to understand a nomination statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 12 October 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.

File:VR.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VR.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Prowl583 (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.

File:Us senate result 2000.PNG

[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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Us senate result 2000.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Willhsmit (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.

File:Uncanny4.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uncanny4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yiotaskarveli (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.

File:Now in the Past.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Now in the Past.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yiotaskarveli (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.

File:The Book of Hours III.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Book of Hours III.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yiotaskarveli (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.

File:TN DSCN0909.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TN DSCN0909.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kylewong (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.

File:Shalhevet Pass.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: speedy close - no substantive reasons were advanced for deletion, and the nomination appears pointy -- Y not? 14:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shalhevet Pass.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joyson Noel (notify | contribs).
Strong Keep: While the photograph is not relevant for the explanation of the events that caused her death, it is highly relevant for the illustration of her appearance so as to let readers know what the toddler looked like, especially since the article is about her murder. Joyson Noel Holla at me 15:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the toddler looked like isn't relevant. She just looked like any white toddler of her age. --Damiens.rf 20:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it is. The flawed reasoning behind your argument for deletion is apparent. Do all white toddlers look alike? If so, may i know as to from where did you get that piece of information. Is it statistics, or are you a recognized independent observer of some sort? By that logic, i could also argue that Kofi Annan looks like a lot of black men of his age who sport a French beard. Hence, there is no need for illustration. Now, does that make any sense? Joyson Noel Holla at me 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be inactive in Wikipedia for a long time. As a result, i will be unable to respond. However, i must point it out to you that a person's similarity in appearance (in this case, the toddler) to someone else is not a valid reason for image deletion. The reason that you propose is nowhere mentioned in WP:GID as justification for deletion. Furthermore, the article is about her murder. So, on what basis can you claim that what she looked like is irrelevant and doesn't deserve illustration? Joyson Noel Holla at me 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relevant image to the story and identification of the subject. - DonCalo (talk) 23:49, 7 October 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.

File:Braggingrights2009a.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Braggingrights2009a.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Skiryder4life (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_October_7&oldid=1140201617"