Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 16
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Contents
March 16
[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TobyFlenderson.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NetflixSoup (notify | contribs | uploads).
Article already has one non-free image of this character, and there is no reason to have a second non-free image, as it does not add anything extra to the article. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: One non-free image of the "character" is already used in the main infobox. There is no need for another non-free image of the same thing to be used. See also NFCC 8 - Contextual Significance. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because one image would be enough and both are non-free. Thparkth (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2011 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Faceoff sivaji.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mspraveen (notify | contribs | uploads).
- File:Revival sivaji.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
Fails the NFCC. (See also Deltion discussion on other like images). These are being used soley as illustrations in the articles "plot" section. One image is used, according the the FUR's, To illustrate the adversaries from the film and the other To illustrate the climax of the film. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - excessive use of non-free images, little or no value to the reader. Thparkth (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2011 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Texas Flag at DKR - North Texas vs Texas 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Johntex (notify | contribs | uploads).
This is a non-free (only non-commercial use allowed) image showing the world's largest Texas flag being used in a ceremony, used to illustrate the point that the world's largest Texas flag was used on that ceremony. That is not the kind of information that needs an illustration to be understood. The image itself does not proves that to be the world's largest Texas flag. And the reader can understand what it looks like by her imagination, or by seeing commons:Category:World's Largest Texas Flag:free images of the flag. Damiens.rf 16:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Clearly no need to a non-free image when we have an image like File:2007 Tech at Texas Flag.jpg available. Also on the NFCC, one of the criteria is the material must have been published prior to being used at Wikipedia - self publishing on Flikr is not what that criteria means. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because the fair use rationale is fatally inadequate, and because the image has already been replaced in the article by a free alternative. Thparkth (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The image is an allowable image under Wikipedia rules. It has been published prior to use on Wikipedia, as the guidelines require. It is being used in the article to show a historic event, and a historical event cannot be repeated for the purposes of producing a new image. Therefore, removing this image would serve no purpose in terms of creating new, freer content because it is not possible to create new content documenting a past historical event. The proposed replacement picture mentioned by Thparkth is from a totally different event in 2007, which is clearly not an appropriate picture to illustrate an event from 2006. Placing a 2007 image into an article on a 2006 event is a corruption of the encyclopedia. Johntex\talk 20:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't even need an image to explain this event. The user can easily understand that "the world largest flag of Texas was used on the opening ceremony" without the aid of a picture taken at the day. --Damiens.rf 21:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By that rationale, we don't need any pictures on Wikipedia at all. Just use words to describe what happened. Johntex\talk 16:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll put a counter on my user page to register how many times I read this fallacy on a non-free content discussion. --Damiens.rf 17:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Damiens, there's no need to be so condescending. You've made your point. — BQZip01 — talk 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll put a counter on my user page to register how many times I read this fallacy on a non-free content discussion. --Damiens.rf 17:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By that rationale, we don't need any pictures on Wikipedia at all. Just use words to describe what happened. Johntex\talk 16:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't even need an image to explain this event. The user can easily understand that "the world largest flag of Texas was used on the opening ceremony" without the aid of a picture taken at the day. --Damiens.rf 21:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: First is that, as I have said, posting an image on Flickr under a no derivatives/non-commercial license does not count as "published prior to use on Wikipedia", so it fails the NFCC on that fact alone. Second, the article in question is not about the flag. The "historic event" you mention was not that the the flag was brought out onto the field - the fact we have images of the same flag being brought out onto the field from other years establishes that, in itself, was not "a historic event" and the image in question was simply used as a decoration showing a large flag. If Johntex feels that showing the same flag on the Texas side of the field at another game is a "corruption of the encyclopedia" there is a very easy solution: If the point is to show the "world's largest Texas flag" than we use the free image, if not we don't need any image. The event may have been historic but the event was not about the display of the flag, it was the game itself. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yes, you did say that about Flickr, but you are wrong. Published is published. Flickr is not some transient website, it is a highly visible site run by a multi-national corporation. You can't use a picture from event B to adequately represent event A. And there is no reason to do so either; removing this photo isn't going to magically make a "free-er" photo become available. Johntex\talk 16:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that flickr is a valid venue for previous publication. The real point here is that the reader don't need to see an illustration to understand event A. --Damiens.rf 17:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: No, I am not wrong. You probably do not understand the Non-free content policy fully - a few years ago Wikipedia stopped accepting content that had restriction such as "For Wikipedia use", "non-commercial", "with permission" and so on. Part of the "published" criteria is to disallow content that is (self) posted on the internet - such as a personal blog, a social networking site, a fan bulletin board, hosting sites such as Flickr and than call the image "published" in order to claim it here as non-free, thus retaining unacceptable restrictions. If Wikipedia allowed such sources as "published" than every single editor who wanted to bypass the free content goals laid out by the Foundation would simply upload their content on such websites first and claim them as valid non-free content. "This image was in a personal photo album that others viewed" is not considered "published" anymore than "This image was emailed to family members prior to being uploaded at Wikipedia" or "This image was on my facebook and/or Flikr page" is. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Soundvisions, the source of the image seems (to me) to be quite immaterial. Near as I can tell, it was not placed online under a compatible free license. As for your other claims, all those images would attain a copyright and don't even need to be published to be restricted from WP use. — BQZip01 — talk 04:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yes, you did say that about Flickr, but you are wrong. Published is published. Flickr is not some transient website, it is a highly visible site run by a multi-national corporation. You can't use a picture from event B to adequately represent event A. And there is no reason to do so either; removing this photo isn't going to magically make a "free-er" photo become available. Johntex\talk 16:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although Flickr is a valid venue for previous publication, I think this use fails NFCC 9 (contextual significance). Not only does this image not really help the understanding the 2006 Texas Longhorns football team, but this particular instance of the flag being displayed isn't really relevant. As far as I can tell from our article about the flag, it's displayed before every home game (as well as certain other games), and has been for some time, and this particular version of the flag was first used in 1991. This strikes me as a purely decorative use of the image, and I have a strong feeling that's all it ever could be in this article. cmadler (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (subject to change pending further responses from the uploader); JohnTex, first let me say I agree that a 2007 image does the user a disservice in an article about the 2006 season. However, certainly there is a decent free image somewhere that could be used instead, right? Perhaps a t.u. player scoring a touchdown? Second, what is so historic about this image? I guess I'm just not getting it...then again, I'm just an Aggie... ;-) — BQZip01 — talk 19:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I believe they still do the event (roll out the flag) so all we have to do is wait until the next time they do it and someone can snap an image and let us use it under GNU. A freely-usable image can be obtained so we don't need this particular one. Am I correct in that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We actually already have two free images of the flag on Commons, one from 2003 and one from 2007. cmadler (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The image of the flag is not the issue here. The issue is whether this is a notable event and deserves an exception as outlined in out WP:NFCC. I concur that an image from 2003 or 2007 is inappropriate for an article about the 2006 season (it is misleading), but I disagree that this particular image is in any way notable or related in any significant way to the article in which it is used. — BQZip01 — talk 04:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We actually already have two free images of the flag on Commons, one from 2003 and one from 2007. cmadler (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2011 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:PassinterferenceagainstSweed.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Macae (notify | contribs | uploads).
- File:Michael Bennett tackle of Colt McCoy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
Non free images in an article full of free images. The overall article is a (re)play by play of the game of the season and there is already a lot of (free) image use in the article which adds to the overall question about could a free image be found for this game as well, and could text alone covey the same point? As there are free images from the same game and the text already describes the game and these plays there really is no need for non-free content to be used. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unremarkable images which do little or nothing to increase the viewer's understanding of the topic, and which hence fail NFCC#8. Thparkth (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Both of these images satisfy fair use policy under Wikipedia rules. No free images have been found of the disputed calls/events that are illustrated in this image. Text alone can explain that the calls were disputed but text, by itself, can't adequately document WHY they were disputed as is possible with images of the event. And I disagree with Thparkth's opinion that the images do litte to increase viewer's understanding of the events. Instead, it makes the event and dispute surrounding it, much easier to understand. Macae\talk 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: First it is not a "fair use policy" it is a non-free content policy. Second i firmly dispute that "no free images have been found" of these - I would call File:2006 Lone Star Showdown Colt McCoy injured.jpg, a free image, clearly illustrating the same thing that File:Michael Bennett tackle of Colt McCoy.jpg does. Most people will understand text that says when the play happened and "Michael Bennett tackle of Colt McCoy" resulted in "Colt McCoy injured." And part of the policy is that if text can convey the same thing we don't use the non-free content. There is a lot of text in the article - there is a lot if images in the article. We do not need non-free images in a sea of free images to illustrate (And that is all these are doing) plays that happen all the time in a football game. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - We don't need to illustrate this specific moment of the game to make an article about it. The passage is understandable. There's nothing overly uncommon happening that would make a textual description something hard to grasp. --Damiens.rf 13:07, 22 March 2011 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AVGN MTV 2006.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DevinCook (notify | contribs | uploads).
Fails non-free criterion 1 and 8. Article already has a free image of the Nerd character (File:James D. Rolfe.jpg), and this image is not needed to illustrate the context of The Angry Video Game Nerd series having been featured on MTV. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A non-free image which adds no value over a text description of the same content. Thparkth (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The fact we have the free File:James D. Rolfe.jpg negates a need for a non-free shot. We do not need to see "The Nerd" was covered on MTV's 2006 news special on viral videos via a frame grab anymore than we need to see (or hear) any of the "Other media appearances" listed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would best if this image, and related text, was moved into a history section in the article. -DevinCook (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I updated the section and placed the history, that was in the Other Appearances section. The image is important to the article given this was what first made show well known. -DevinCook (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A reference was added establishing that the show was featured on MTV for being a viral video. This reference was lacking for quite a long time. As it is now, the image is referenced in the article. -DevinCook (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2011 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ff correla steiffel cornejo.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Captain Caveman (notify | contribs | uploads).
A randomly chosen still of three ballet dancers dancing is not a helpful aid to the understanding of an article mentioning the ballet. Damiens.rf 19:44, 16 March 2011 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Fay Kanin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EraserGirl (notify | contribs | uploads).
Unsourced non-free image of a living person. Damiens.rf 19:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails NFCC on various grounds, most importantly that it lacks a known source and is potentially replaceable. Thparkth (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2011 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Top.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rtalex (notify | contribs | uploads).
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use B (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - simply useless without context. Thparkth (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It may have been orphaned when Downtown Music was deleted - not sure. But either way it is of no use at the moment. Summary of "Owned by Ryan Alexander" is not of any help either. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2011 (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.