Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 May 9
May 9
[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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- File:Thanasis.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jispir (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- File:Thaneleshner1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thanerulz123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- File:Meadows map.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CriticalGISMizzou (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused image, seemingly uploaded as a test image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- File:Lansdowne Park Ottawa Aerial 2008.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alaney2k (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Probably WP:NFCC#1, definitely WP:NFCC#8 - photograph of an existing structure, even if in the process of redevelopment, used in article top and with no contextual significance. Mosmof (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - significant in context of what conditions of Lansdowne Park had become at the period before redevelopment, which is that it had become paved over. Will remain significant historically after redevelopment as part of the historical record. Alaney2k (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I have added an appropriate section on the existing condition at the time, which is illustrated by the photograph. Alaney2k (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know that how it looks is vital to understanding the topic, if we have a source that says it was paved over. Mosmof (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the bar is that everything must be 'vital', which is of course subjective. But, requiring everything to be 'vital' conflicts with other policies. We could certainly leave a lot of images and articles out of Wikipedia on that basis. :-) In the absence of a free version, it is the most 'contextually significant' picture to illustrate the prior condition. I have not seen a free version. I do believe that my edit has satisfied the condition of NFCC#8 and I am prepared to make further edits. Alaney2k (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know that how it looks is vital to understanding the topic, if we have a source that says it was paved over. Mosmof (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- File:Sid Caesar - Coca - 1973.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Light show (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Plainly incorrect PD claim. This is a newspaper photo taken by a staff photographer, and there is no reason to expect a copyright notice on the newspaper's morgue copy. The copyright notice would appear on the published newspaper itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Copyright Registrations-Publications 1973 page 74. Paper was copyrighted to the Chicago Daily News and owner Field Enterprises. We hope (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- File:Tessek valasztani.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Themightyquill (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in both articles, as none of them contain any sourced critical commentary about the poster. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- A valid proposal for deleition, but I think I've now provided sufficient critical commentary in the Fidesz article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- You just described, what can be seen on the image. This isn't critical commentary about the image, and it isn't sourced at all. The added text could also easily replace the image, making it also fail WP:NFCC#1. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- You could be right, but I guess I'm confused. The fair use boiler plate on the image itself says "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself." Is it necessary to have critical commentary on the image, or is it sufficient that the image provides critical commentary on the party? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.