Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 July 17

< July 16	July 18 >

July 17

Image:MissionSFLogo2.png

Image:MissionSFLogo2.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pedia134 (notify | contribs).

Delete no proof of ownership given. This image seems to be a corporate image Ave Caesar (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GiveIt2MeVideo(G4).PNG

Image:GiveIt2MeVideo(G4).PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BatterWow (notify | contribs).

Non-notable screenshot from music video. There is no notability that cannot be described using words. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also, same image was already deleted - GiveIt2MeVideo.PNG - was listed for deletion, and deleted. Has been reuploaded, Speedy Delete 74.204.40.46 (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete if image was already deleted before (only admins can verify this). Otherwise, delete as it is not notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image isn't the exact same image, its just another screencap of the same music video, just her in a different pose, nothing notable about it, and the filename was different before. It essentially is the same thing. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted, was essentially the same content as the previous one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hungarian soldiers.jpg

Image:Hungarian soldiers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bunyip-Sun (notify | contribs).

Source information is insufficient to allow verification of {{PD-Hungary}} tag. How do we know it's been 15 years? —An gr 16:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless pertinent source info is provided. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hungarian AK.JPG

Image:Hungarian AK.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bunyip-Sun (notify | contribs).

Source website has no indication that its images are GFDL & CC-BY-SA. —An gr 16:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 25.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 debate was

Keep.  Meets Wikipedia:NFC requirements. Dreadstar † 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Seinfreak37 (notify | contribs).

Image makes no significant contribution to either article where it's being used. At Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade it's just decorating the "Plot" section, but not really showing us anything the text isn't already telling us. At Scouting in popular culture it's supporting a single sentence reminding us that the young Indiana Jones was a Life Scout in the film; again, the image isn't isn't adding anything. —An gr 16:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Angr initially removed this from Scouting and Scouting in popular culture with no discussion whatsoever and reverted their replacement in Scouting and Scouting in popular culture. This and his subsequent turn to this forum after User:B began a discussion on Talk:Scouting in popular culture, which Angr has failed to respond to, show his unwillingness to discuss the matter and desire to forum shop. The image is back in Scouting in popular culture but still not in Scouting. It is also currently in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. See Angr's userpage, he seems to be on a crusade to remove all non-free content. However, this image in these articles is quite legitimate and legal use of the image. It is an excellent example of valid use of nonfree images. As B said "There are precious few instances of Boy Scouts being depicted in movies (as opposed to merely mentioned) and this is one of the most well-known ones." It could even be called iconic. Angr removed the image from the article with the claim they had no critical commentary--a claim totally unsupported by WP:FAIR and US law. He should read the policy more carefully. I also agree with B where he said "This is a notable example of Boy Scouts being depicted in a movie and is thus significant to the topic.". For B's comments, see Talk:Scouting_in_popular_culture#Screenshot_from_Indiana_Jones. This image should be kept. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unaware of the discussion at Talk:Scouting in popular culture, but it doesn't change the fact that the movie is barely mentioned in the article and the image doesn't add anything significant to the image. While it's true I think the encyclopedia would be better served if there were no non-free images at all, in this particular case, the image violates existing Wikipedia policy (as opposed to what I think Wikipedia policy should be). —An gr 13:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The iconic image of Indiana Jones as a Boy Scout is an essential component of the storyline and the character's development in the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It simply cannot be adequately conveyed to the reader by mere prose alone. Moreover, as the top-grossing film of 1989, its importance in popular culture imagery of Scouting cannot be overestimated. All aspects of NFCC are fully satisfied by use of reduced-size image in the two articles in question. JGHowes ^talk - 14:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC requires critical commentary on the film, which is certainly not present at Scouting in popular culture. The article on the movie of course has critical commentary on the movie, but no discussion of the significance of Indiana Jones having been a boy scout; it's just mentioned in passing. This screenshot does absolutely nothing to further the reader's understanding of either article. —Angr 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - HUH? Why do you saying "NFCC requires critical commentary on the film"? SHOW ME where it says that. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see it's the WP:NFC guideline that calls for critical commentary. Go to Wikipedia:NFC#Images: it says, "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." —An gr 18:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep on general principle. Rabid deletionists and Wikilawyers do not speak for the majority of Wikipedians, and should be challenged at every opportunity. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What does a majority have to do with anything here? Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is, however, governed by policy. -Seidenstud (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per JGHowes and Rlevse; but I'd even go further and call this a bad faith nom because Angr keeps saying commentary is required and NFCC and law don't say that. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFC does say it. What the law says is irrelevant, since Wikipedia policy is to use non-free material only when it's indispensable for encyclopedic purposes, not whenever we can legally get away with it. —Angr 18:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Show me where it says it. You can't do it because it does NOT say that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Go to Wikipedia:NFC#Images: it says, "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." —An gr 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not a bad faith nom. "Critical Commentary" used to be a phrase used in each of the fair use templates. Also, it is still nearly ubiquitous in discussions (see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content_criteria. -Seidenstud (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Used to be' is the key there. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angr, no criticial commentary, no evidence why the image is truly necessary. Kusma (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, critical commentary is not required by WP:FN, stop inventing policy. Yes, we've shown legit use for this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go to Wikipedia:NFC#Images: it says, "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." —Angr 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are examples, not an exhaustive list. This screenshot is a noteworthy example of Boy Scout portrayal in popular culture. The "commentary" is about the Boy Scouts and their use in popular culture. --B (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Precisely, per B-it does not say it's required, plus this can not be easily replaced. There are few images of Scouting such a this in film and this is almost iconic. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, not only are there few images of Scouting in film, but substantially all of them are going to be copyrighted, meaning that all we could do is replace this copyrighted depiction with another copyrighted depiction. The only two choices for having anything there are to have this or to have nothing until something falls into the public domain. --B (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The picture doesn't seem to be adding anything to the article but "scouts show up in films", which works equally well as a non-copyrighted plain text. I do not understand why this needs to be illustrated. Kusma (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above keeps. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BQZip. The opposes seem weak to me. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- stricken out the above, it's a doube vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nominator. Angr is, of course, right. Images must make a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic, which in the case of screenshots can only mean, they must be in direct support of analytical commentary in the text that couldn't be understood without them. Nothing in either of the two articles needs the visual support of this image to be understood. "There's a boy in a scout uniform" contains all the information the article needs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this does help illustrate the film and make a significant contribution there. However, this should not be allowed as "fair use" for an article on Scouting...I highly doubt this image is irreplaceable for that purpose. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is irreplaceable, because (as I said above) (1) this was the top-grossing film of 1989; (2) the storyline is based on the title character's depiction as a Boy Scout. What better way to illustrate the impact of Scouting on American culture than through this very film? It is clearly far more than merely a purposeless, random glimpse of a Boy Scout. JGHowes ^talk - 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing of what you say requires the image to be understood. You are arguing about the importance of the thing that the image illustrates; that's not the same as the importance of the image in illustrating it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. Non-free images are only supposed to be used when there is -no- free equivalent. You can't honestly tell me you can't find a free image of a Boy or Girl Scout. --bUsaSatsui (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that, as it specifically relates to the article Scouting in popular culture, this movie depiction meets NFCC. Of course, there are numerous free images of Boy Scouts generally, but that is irrelevant to this article, where this is needed to illustrate this movie role as a very notable manifestation of Scouting in popular culture. JGHowes ^talk - 03:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, the article is about pop culture (TV, films, etc) and that is precisely what this image is, so it meets NFCC guides. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the added value of the image is compared to the sentence "The top-grossing film of 1989 is based on the title character's depiction as a Boy Scout". That sentence seems to be important, but illustrating it with a random image of Indiana Jones in a boy scout uniform doesn't seem necessary. Kusma (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Allows much better understanding of the topic and is irreplaceable. Does thus not violate fair use policy. So#Why 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I saw this discussion in Rlevse's RFB, however I agree that it does not meet the criterion for inclusion under the NFCC. It does not advance the user's understanding on the topic and its purpose is almost purely decorative. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2008 (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:Chudnovsky.png

Image:Chudnovsky.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sunos 6 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned math image replaced with math markup at Chudnovsky algorithm. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:David-newsom.jpg

Image:David-newsom.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 86-202-161-72 (notify | contribs).

Very unlikely to be in the public domain, as asserted. Source specified is that it was taken from the subject (an actor)'s myspace page Seidenstud (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verification that this image is PD (myspace is NOT PD). — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MySpace images are not GFDL licensed and thus nonfree for Wikipedia. JGHowes ^talk - 14:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]