Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 September 15: Difference between revisions

Help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:02, 22 September 2008

< September 14	September 16 >

September 15

Image:Crest protector.gif‎

Image:Crest protector.gif‎ (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Spy007au (notify | contribs).

This ship badge is incorrectly classified as being in the public domain. Although HMAS Protector (1884) was commissioned in 1884 and decommissioned from military service in 1924, the ship badge format used for this image was not created until after World War II (see Naval_heraldry#Royal_Australian_Navy) This specific version of the RAN ship badge would have been created after 1975. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the image is in the public domain. The image could be relicensed to match other RAN ship badge images, but the ship involved never wore the badge (the ship was sunk in 1943), so use in the article would be incorrect. No other ship of the RAN has carried the name or is likely to, so keeping this image serves no purpose. -- saberwyn 07:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Localhands.gif

Image:Localhands.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wazupmedia (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 00:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beobachtungen im Wilden Leben (Die Letzten Tage der Menschheit Mix).ogg

Image:Beobachtungen im Wilden Leben (Die Letzten Tage der Menschheit Mix).ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Briantist (notify | contribs).

The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds and less than 10% of the length of the track. In this case, the track is 3:50 (230 seconds) so the sample should be < 23 seconds long. This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. Bigr Tex 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bauhaus - Bela Lugosi's Dead excerpt.ogg

Image:Bauhaus - Bela Lugosi's Dead excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs).

The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. Bigr Tex 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if someone can upload a 30 second clip. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Khemerak has a history of uploading images that blatantly infringe copyrights; it's likely this isn't self made, as he claims. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely copyvio in absence of any detailed description as to this logo. JGHowes ^talk - 00:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_as_jpeg.jpg

Image:Logo_as_jpeg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Janethodur (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_banner_top.jpg

Image:Logo_banner_top.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Spursusa8 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_biomanpro.gif

Image:Logo_biomanpro.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nukeh (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_ca_eng.jpg

Image:Logo_ca_eng.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Father4u (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_castek.gif

Image:Logo_castek.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rajithmohan (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_catch.jpg

Image:Logo_catch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Catch_interactive (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_cmr_frontpage_sept07.gif

Image:Logo_cmr_frontpage_sept07.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Christismypilot (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_colour.jpg

Image:Logo_colour.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thorsten1972 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_cop22y.png

Image:Logo_cop22y.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adibdimitri (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_copy.png

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_copy2.jpg

Image:Logo_copy2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yanky77 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_ecf.jpg

Image:Logo_ecf.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EuropeChina (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_edit.jpg

Image:Logo_edit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AccidentallyonPurpose (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1101421221 400.jpeg

Image:1101421221 400.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Orbicle (notify | contribs).

The use rationale says, “This TIME Magazine cover shows the three stars of the Broadway production of Three Sisters in 1943, a production so illustrious that it was deemed important enough to make it to the cover of TIME.” This fails WP:NFCC#1, for the same encyclopedic purpose would be served by saying the same in text. It also fails WP:NFCC#8, for the article is perfectly understandable without the image. —teb728 t c 02:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_eqphpBB.gif

Image:Logo_eqphpBB.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TehAvatar (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_etr.png

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_fcn.jpg

Image:Logo_fcn.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by United_Statesman (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 02:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo_july_5,_2007.gif

Image:Logo_july_5,_2007.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AllBizzz (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Spam Nv8200p talk 02:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. In this case, there seems to be consensus and a reasonable argument that the nature of the image in question needs to be visually present to support the discussion of why and how the image was chosen by Time and why the artist was dissatisfied with it. However, I strongly recommend removing it from some of the articles in question; the detailed discussion of the role of this particular image is only necessary once. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1101931025 400.jpg

Image:1101931025 400.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Disembodied (notify | contribs).

Fails WP:NFCC#1, for the same encyclopedic purpose would be served by saying that the subject of the article was so important that it was featured on the cover of TIME. It also fails WP:NFCC#8, for the articles are perfectly understandable without the image. This image’s minimal non-free use rationale alleges that the articles provide critical commentary on the cover. The only “critical commentary I find is the captions such as “Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder on the cover of the October 25, 1993 issue of the popular magazine Time, as part of the feature article discussing the rising popularity of grunge.” This is not enough critical commentary to justify even fair use much less the far more restrictive requirements of WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The caption provided along with the image notes a particular controversy between the band and TIME magazine over the use of Vedder's image on the front. This is one part of the band's growing feud with mainstream media at the time, and it is indeed integral to the reader's understanding of the controversy and the reasons behind it. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So include the caption into the body of the article. The article doesn't need the image to convey that. —teb728 t c 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the focus of the section is the band's conflict with their media coverage, including an image of Vedder on the cover of an iconic magazine, an image which was at the heart of said conflict, is more than appropriate. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since it is a non-free image, it must be removed if it can be replaced with free content (like text) that serves the same encyclopedic purpose. —teb728 t c 20:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text is not an equivalent of an image, nor is it ever considered a suitable replacement. The section of the article is about the bands's sudden rise to fame, and the controversy of appearing in an iconic magazine. Your argument is patently ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This image is a good illustration for the "grunge explosion" and all the media hype that came with it. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename - The image passes both NFCC 1&8. In 2 of its 3 uses there is specific, referenced critical commentary about the cover itself and a controversy between the magazine (Time) and the individual on the cover (Eddie Vedder). Showing the cover gives context as to why Vedder was upset that his picture appeared on the magazine's cover, since he disliked being associated with the "grunge" movement. The cover image gives the context for this, by showing Vedder onstage performing during the height of the grunge movement, bordered by a headline and caption describing his band as part of a national music movement. The image therefore conveys visually significantly more than can be described in just plain text, and significantly increases a reader's understanding of the subject. It certainly needs to be renamed to something more descriptive, and more should be added to the accompanying citation in the articles (perhaps a quote from the article in question substantiating the controversy, since it does not appear to be available online). --IllaZilla (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is absolutely ridiculous. Images are being nominated for deletion left and right these days. This image is a helpful addition to the article, without a doubt. I implore people to stop this onslaught of deletion nominations. NSR77 ^T_C 21:04, 17 September 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.

The result of the debate was: delete. IfD is not a vote; closure has to take into account strength of arguments and long-standing practice in handling magazine cover images. This one is in no way different from the many others that have been deleted. Of the four keep votes, three fail to address the issue in any way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1937-nj1-time-cover.jpg

Image:1937-nj1-time-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Evrik (notify | contribs).

The use rationale says the purpose of the use is, "To illustrate the national emphasis on Scouting in the 1930s." This fails WP:NFCC#1, for the same encyclopedic purpose would be served by saying the same in text. It also fails WP:NFCC#8, for the articles are perfectly understandable without the image. —teb728 t c 03:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe one article is about the history of boy scouts and the image does help convey that message. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The magazine image does illustrate the history of the boy scout movement. It is not at all out of scope. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons stated above. Also, I think that in the future nominator might be better served not being so nitpicky. Philly jawn (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that this cover is a painting gives it additional significance, insofar as the artist has captured the subject's facial expression and uniformed demeanor: this is key to his portrayal by a prominent news magazine of the time as a national youth leader. As the original painting was commissioned by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), it also illustrates for the reader the manner in which the BSA conveyed their leader's visage to the public. JGHowes ^talk - 20:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replaceable with a text description of the cover (NFCC 1). CIreland (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFCC 1 and 8. Can be replaced with "So and so was on the cover of time". Unless the cover itself was the subject of the commentary in the article, we don't get an out here. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment James E. West (Scouting)#Scouting work has been expanded to include commentary on the cover; please review. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The expanded caption is an improvement (at least to the biography). But the caption is still perfectly understandable without the image; so the use still fails NFCC#8. I hope that when the image is deleted, the caption will be moved to the body of the article. Or -- I wonder if the underlying portrait is freely licensed (or PD); if so, the portrait itself could be used. —teb728 t c 23:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an example of proper use of a Time cover? I get confused when the methods that resolved previous IfDs fail. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Photo manipulation#Use in journalism. This use fulfils NFCC because you really need to see the image to understand how Time manipulated the photo. See also Time (magazine). These images are PD, but even if it were non-free, the first one would be acceptable for the purpose of “identification.” (BTW I had hoped that this West cover might also be PD, but its copyright was renewed in 1965.) —teb728 t c 00:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, perhaps I should add in case you were about to ask: The Time cover could not be used for “identification” of James E. West (Scouting), because a free image of him exists. (And beside that a magazine cover can’t be used just to show what a person looks like.) —teb728 t c 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rammstein and Apocalyptica.jpg

Image:Rammstein and Apocalyptica.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LAUBO (notify | contribs).

Probable copyright violation ~MDD 46 96 03:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was: delete, contrary to headcount but in line with longstanding practice and policy. In particular, the replaceability argument as stated most succinctly by CIreland has not been met; keep voters failed to substantiate their argument that the image illustrates something in ways "words alone cannot convey", which has remained a mere subjective assertion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aliens Sigourney Weaver cover.jpg

Image:Aliens Sigourney Weaver cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SynergyStar (notify | contribs).

The use rationale says the purpose of the use is, “To illustrate the cultural significance of the 1986 film Aliens, as shown by its selection for the cover of a national news magazine” This fails WP:NFCC#1, for the same encyclopedic purpose would be served by saying the same in text. It also fails WP:NFCC#8, for the articles are perfectly understandable without the image. —teb728 t c 04:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The image illustrates visually what words alone cannot convey. Saying "it was the cover story" is simply a statement of fact. Showing the cover image displays how prominently Time chose to feature the film, including showing the lead actress, the monster, and the declaration that it was "the summer's scariest movie". Time being a highly notable and respected publication, using the image to illustrate their acclaim of the film conveys the public reception and notability of the film in a way that words alone do not. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images #8: "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." That is clearly the case here, as the cover itself is the subject of critical commentary in the article (see Aliens (film)#Reviews) and the cover does not have its own article. As such, this image would be impossible to replace with a free image that conveys the same information. If you want to continue the ongoing discussion at NFC discussing the appropriateness of these types of cover images, that's fine, but nominating several such images ([1] [2] [3]) using the same rationale ("the same encyclopedic purpose would be served by saying the same in text", "the articles are perfectly understandable without the image") while the discussion is ongoing does not strike me as the best show of faith. Alien (film) has passed a GA review and both Grunge music and Pearl Jam have passed FA reviews; these include reviewing image use in the articles, and the cover images were deemed appropriately used in each. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at WP:NFC#Images 2 #8 does not supersede the policies WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The policy (and not the guideline) is the standard by which admins decide to keep or delete non-free images nominated for deletion. If you want to avoid the deletion of this image, you need to show that “no free equivalent [including text] is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose” and that the use “would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” That is the point of my deletion argument, and if you do not counter it, the image is sure to be deleted.

It’s not relevant to the deletion of this image, but even your critical-commentary defense is invalid: The only mention of the cover at your “critical commentary” link is “Time Magazine featured the film on the cover of its July 28, 1986 issue, calling it the "summer's scariest movie".” This is critical commentary on the film not on the cover. Critical commentary on the cover would be something like saying the cover won an award or was plagiarized or was involved in a lawsuit.

The articles you mention are fine articles, and they do not need the cover images to be so. The FA and GA reviews were reviews of the articles and not of the images. —teb728 t c 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The text describes the film's appearance on the magazine cover in direct relation to its reception and notability. The image significantly enhances understanding of this significance. Claiming NFCC #s 1&8 is a rather weak argument, as the aspects of those criteria you are basing the nomination on are rather subjective: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?", "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." These seem subjective to me. I certainly believe that text alone does not adequately convey the importance of the film's appearance on the cover of Time, and I believe that having the image significantly increases readers' understanding of this significance (due in no small part to Time being a highly notable and respected publication, and its cover being instantly recognizeable to many people in North America). It appears that the editors below agree with me. The review criteria include reviewing the images to ensure that they meet the inclusion criteria (see WP:GACR & WP:FACR), so I believe this has been done. Believe me, I'm as much of a deletionist as you're likely to find, and generally quite strict about NFCC (having led the crusade against flagrant abuse of band logos), but even I feel this image is justified and this nomination is unnecessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More fully explained by IllaZilla's reasoning, I also would like to support the keeping of this image. There is no free equivalent to visually show the major press coverage that Aliens (film) received. One point the article makes, and that was unique to this film, is that the lead, who was female, made the cover of one of the nation's top publications, and ultimately received a Best Actress nomination for her role. That this happened for a R-rated scifi action film, a genre usually ignored by mainstream press (or relegated to entertainment/review sections), is definitely a unique event, one not repeated before or since in popular memory. Making the cover of TIME, for a film itself, already is quite uncommon, but for a film of this category is virtually unheard of. Moreover, as IllaZilla has stated, it conveys further the public reception, it passed the GA review with the image in it, etc. Please keep this image, thank you. SynergyStar (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons cited above. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Hobartimus (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IllaZilla's well-said reasoning. JGHowes ^talk - 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - replaceable - like almost all the Time magazine covers we are currently misusing, this image is sufficiently simple that it can be adequately described with text (NFCC 1). Suggested text: Time featured Sigourney Weaver and the Alien on its cover under the heading "Horrors!The Summer's Scariest Movie" CIreland (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bit about "critical commentary of the image itself" is very important to keeping a FU image of a magazine cover. If there was coverage of that cover and that cover story, then we have a rationale to keep the image. If not, it is replaceable by a free equivalent and doesn't add significantly to the article. Fails NFCC 1 and 8. Protonk (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, there are 3 references now cited which discuss the selection of the film and its star for the Time cover. The current statement is "The selection of Aliens for a Time cover was attributed to the successful reception of the film,[21][22] as well as its novel example of a female science fiction action heroine.[23]" There are also multiple other sources which discuss the selection of the film for the cover. SynergyStar (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Electrophiles4.gif

Image:Electrophiles4.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhetro29 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, low res, ~~GIF format instead of preferred PNG or SVG,~~ not likely to be useful JaGa^talk 09:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Electrophiles5.gif

Image:Electrophiles5.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhetro29 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, low res, ~~GIF format instead of preferred PNG or SVG,~~ not likely to be useful JaGa^talk 09:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The format of a particular image is not a valid argument for deletion. As long as the image is clear, that should be acceptable. If the image is orphaned, however, that could be a case for deletion. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks. --JaGa^talk 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Electrophiles9.gif

Image:Electrophiles9.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhetro29 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, low res, ~~GIF format instead of preferred PNG or SVG,~~ not likely to be useful JaGa^talk 09:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Electrophiles7.gif

Image:Electrophiles7.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhetro29 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, low res, ~~GIF format instead of preferred PNG or SVG,~~ not likely to be useful JaGa^talk 09:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB101.jpg

Image:VB101.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB102.jpg

Image:VB102.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB103.jpg

Image:VB103.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB104.jpg

Image:VB104.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB105.jpg

Image:VB105.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB106.jpg

Image:VB106.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB107.jpg

Image:VB107.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB108.jpg

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB109.jpg

Image:VB109.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB110.jpg

Image:VB110.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB111.jpg

Image:VB111.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB112.jpg

Image:VB112.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB113.jpg

Image:VB113.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB214.jpg

Image:VB214.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB215.jpg

Image:VB215.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB216.jpg

Image:VB216.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mummiesep.jpg

Image:Mummiesep.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VB218.jpg

Image:VB218.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Th1rt3en (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative episode screenshot of TV cartoon series, not embedded in analytic discussion, fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Continental Shelf Border.PNG

The result of the debate was: speedy closed, mistaken listing, image is on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Continental Shelf Border.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Maderibeyza (notify | contribs).

UB This image displays no reference confirming its validity. It's also not linked to any page. Walnutjk (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete, serious WP:OR and WP:POV issue with the lines depicted here. There is no such thing as a "normal" continental shelf boundary, any such delimitation would be a highly contentious political claim in the context of the Aegean dispute, and the map gives no indication of what particular claim these lines are sourced to (they may very well be lines proposed by some Turkish authors, but we don't know). Even if sourcing and attribution issues could be solved, the fact that the highly POV qualifier "normal" is hard-coded into the graphics would continue to make it unuseable. Incidentally, the topographic base map used is unattributed and possibly copyvio; "Turkei" is mis-spelled; and "normal border" is a misnomer (if anything, it's the boundary of the territorial waters, and even that is imprecise.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Microsoft mappoint north america 2001 virtual globe.gif

Image:Microsoft mappoint north america 2001 virtual globe.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by toytoy (notify | contribs).

Orphan, Image:Microsoft mappoint north america 2001 virtual globe.gif obsoleted by Image:MapPoint2009.png Travisl (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eszopiclone.png

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

Orphaned, replaced by higher resolution Image:Eszopiclone-2D-skeletal.png JaGa^talk 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gibberellin 452D.png

Image:Gibberellin 452D.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Socrtwo (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, low quality, containing structure errors that are fixed in replacement image Image:GA452DII.png. JaGa^talk 19:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Guannum.png

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

Orphaned, has 7 and 9 in wrong positions, as seen by replacement image Image:Guannum2.png. JaGa^talk 19:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sony flagship-dslr mockup.jpg

Image:Sony flagship-dslr mockup.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Skaraoke (notify | contribs).

No source given. Also replaceable by a free image. Sandstein 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was: keep. There seems to be strong consensus that the image is highly notable, and given that its subject is not a prominent real person but an original, fictional creation, a reasonable case can be made that its visual presence significantly adds to the understanding (because the artistic invention with its elements of typical hero iconography and ethnic stereotyping provides a significant illustration of how the events were interpreted in the West). However, I strongly recommend reducing use of the image to only one article, where it is actually discussed (i.e. Hungarian Revolution of 1956). Repetition in more articles is over-use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Time Man of the year 1957Hunagarianfreedom fighter.jpg

Image:Time Man of the year 1957Hunagarianfreedom fighter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bdamokos (notify | contribs).

Fails WP:NFCC#1, for there are several free images at Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Insofar as the articles may wish to note that the Hungarian freedom fighter was Time’s Man of the Year, this could be done in text. It also fails WP:NFCC#8, for the articles are perfectly understandable without the image. The articles contain no critical commentary whatsoever on the cover. —teb728 t c 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an obvious keep. This deletion proposal is absurd and should be delisted as such. Free use rationale was provided when the previous round of attempts at mass deletions. It is an absurd process that requires attention to the same image every few months every time someone decides that he has some extra hoops for others to jump through in addition to the previous 10. No the text will not "note that the Hungarian Freedom Fighter was Time’s Man of the Year" as I'm sure you are aware that it's not an actual real person but a drawing on the cover and such this would be absurd in the article. Since it's not an actual person but a concept art created to personify the Revolution no other alternatives exist. As such it is impossible to describe the exact picture in words or show an alternative, also consider that this is an Encyclopedia and not a collection of badly written statements designed to replace one time pictures of historical significance from more than 50 years ago. Hobartimus (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There is no other free image in the article of this type. This image is nothing less than representative of the reaction of Western press at the time of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. It is also a unique icon with several features of the event. It would be difficult to describe this cover in text. Ryanjo (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if someone can show an available image that can better present the international significance of the Revolution, please do. Squash Racket (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious keep: The image is representative, not of a real person and is perfectly appropriate on the 56 revolution page as it testifies to its impact, to the benefit of anyone researching the subject.István (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a valid argument for fair use (and I am not convinced that there is a valid argument for fair use), it does not apply to any article other than Hungarian Revolution of 1956. It's absurd that this non-free image appears in four articles. --Orlady (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It only has a rationale for use in three articles. I've removed it from the other article (Budapest), as I don't think a valid argument could be provided for its use in that article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect that those arguing to keep this image are not aware that as a matter of policy Wikipedia strongly restricts the use of non-free content. One restriction is that “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” But use of this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the articles beyond what would be acchieved by saying in text: “The selection of the Hungarian Freedom Fighter as Time's "Man of the Year" for 1956 illustrates the international fame of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and its participants, and its importance to Hungarian History.” The articles are defective at present in that even with the image they do not say anything to that effect. At present the articles have no critical commentary on the image; they just use it as an illustration.

Really the only way Wikipedia policy would allow this cover to be kept would be if the cover itself (or its Boris Chaliapin artwork) were the subject of an article (or of a section of an article). For examples of magazine covers used that way see Photo manipulation#Use in journalism and Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. These uses are allowed because the actual appearance of the covers is significant in the articles. —teb728 t c 22:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is appropriate as there is no free equivalent, it lends important meaning which cannot be replaced by text, and there is no article about the cover itself. Moreover, it may not be excluded by WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8, specifically:

1. WP:NFCC#1 explicitly provides two summary tests:

a. "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" no

b. "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all? no

1a) It is not reasonable to expect a periodical cover to be rights-released except by extraordinary circumstance.

1b) TIME is an extremely reputable journal, its Man Of The Year is widely recognized as prestigious recognition of importance/impact, and is above all iconic. It is recognized at a glance by millions of English-speakers. The test is ultimately subjective, but the adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" holds if we are comparing the cover image against an equivalent body of text, and perhaps 10K words for an iconic image from an authoritative magazine, of a prestigious annual award, a profound endorsement (more profound than words can express ;-) ) of the importance of the 1956 Revolution, and its impact on an indescribably large scope of both cultural and political dynamics both then and in the future (perhaps even now? that is perhaps worth another 10K words). In any case, 100 reasonable people, given a direct choice between having 1) the TIME cover image, or 2) the equivalent block of text (which would be much larger than a sentence or two) would certainly opt for the image, certainly more than 51 of them.

2. WP:NFCC#8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.

The image clearly passes this test (see 1b. above) István (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all "clear" to me that the image passes that test. The image is impressive, but it communicates only that Time named the Hungarian freedom fighter as its man of the year. The text could communicate this. It could say that the topic was the Time "Man of the Year" and it could describe the cover. --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the replacement text could say that the image was this or that, and describe the scene details, but that would be a very poor substitute for such an iconic image for this historical event. If images were equivalent to text, why put any images in Wikipedia -- let's save a lot of bandwidth (as well as the time of all the editors here) and remove all images. The fact is ... there is no substitute for a cover of Time magazine which graphically depicts the exact subject of the article in a unique way. The reason for this project page is that there is justification for special non-free images such as this one. Ryanjo (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This image is as iconic to the 1956 revolution as the flag-on-Iwo Jima pic is to the American experience in World War 2. (Nearly every Hungarian cultural establishment I've been to here in the States has had a framed copy of this front cover somewhere on the premises...) Fair Use guidelines were invented, in part, for situations like this. K. Lásztocska^talk 12:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the iconic status of the two images may be, their use on Wikipedia is markedly different: Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg is the topic of a whole article, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. This cover is used as an illustration with no critical commentary at all. —teb728 t c 08:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim fails to meet the standard of factuality. The Iwo Jima image is used in 8 (!) articles 7 of which are not about the flag. Please do not use misleading or deceptive arguments to "win" a debate unfairly. Hobartimus (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia, you know, has been subjected to many criticism regarding the lack of pictures. Like would any of you buy a book e.g. about a country which has absolutely NO pictures in it? Or a history book? Or a travel guide?

Would you visit a webpage with absolutely no images on it? A text-only page, say, about some consumer products? While there are some people who definitely would, they are a marginal group compared to the rest of the population. You know, about 75-80% of the information you gather about the world around you comes through your eyes. Therefore from the technical point of view I'd leave all the images that consitute fair use policy whether they "can be adequately conveyed by text" or not. Actually I think that no picture "can be adequately conveyed by text". Like could you explain the color "yellow" to someone who's been born blind? Just using words? I bet you couldn't. This is also the reason why I'm trying to upload any useful images from my collection and insert them into the appropriate articles as often as I get to (as my time and net connection allows :P).

So, now about the subjective part of the reasoning: I know that being biased (even a little bit) is a mortal sin in US publishing, but hey! This encyclopedia is also about reflecting the worldwide view of the topics, right? I'm not saying however, that it would be okay to bash anybody in the articles or insert some opinions in there without allowing the other side for comment, but.......anyway, the whole issue about this picture should be closed, because it doesn't question the objectivity of anyone. It's an illustration of the Hungarian revolution of 1956, which was viewed as a heroic act in the West. And you couldn't convey this more clearly with anything but this picture. Or you think that Wikipedia shouldn't be clear, simple, and easy to understand? Well, if you do, I hope you'll get out of here pretty soon or I (and many others) will find a better place to educate themselves at.

And besides, what are you afraid of? That TIME (or the picture's author) will sue Wikipedia asserting that this doesn't constitute "fair use" policy? Do you think that they would dare to damage their reputation with anything like that? Well, AFAIK TIME magazine is not a patent troll and doesn't engage in petty lawsuits (and you can even take my word on this :P). Anyway I seriously hope that the picture will remain, since "a picture is worth a thousand words" (as already mentioned by István). CoolKoon (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph to Hungarian Revolution of 1956 commenting on the significance of the Time Magazine "Man of the Year" image, since the lack of reference to the cover within the article is cited as a reason to remove the Time cover image. This cover was the theme of the address the Hungarian prime minister gave to Parliament on the 50th anniversary of the revolution. How could this image not be a unique enough to meet Wikipedia fair use criteria?

The preponderance of opinion in the discussion above is obvious. I request that teb728 remove the proposal for deletion from the image, and let's all get back to improving Wikipedia. Ryanjo (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! CoolKoon (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HMX-structure.png

Image:HMX-structure.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sverdrup (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, replaced by higher-quality Image:HMX.png. JaGa^talk 21:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goatse.JPG

Image:Goatse.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by '65 Pontiac (notify | contribs).

Funny but useless "image" of the Goatse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned; unencyclopedic; redundant (identical image has now been uploaded to commons). As the image is now on Commons does its history need to be transferred, as suggested by CSD I8 or is it enough just mentioning it as the source? --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_September_15&oldid=240242724"

Category:

Archived image and media for deletion discussions

@@ Line 357: / Line 357: @@
 *No source given. Also replaceable by a free image. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this section. ''
+The result of the debate was: <!--Template:Ifd top-->
+[[Category:Archived image and media for deletion discussions]] '''keep'''. There seems to be strong consensus that the image is highly notable, and given that its subject is not a prominent real person but an original, fictional creation, a reasonable case can be made that its visual presence significantly adds to the understanding (because the artistic invention with its elements of typical hero iconography and ethnic stereotyping provides a significant illustration of how the events were interpreted in the West). However, I strongly recommend reducing use of the image to only one article, where it is actually discussed (i.e. [[Hungarian Revolution of 1956]]). Repetition in more articles is over-use. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 16:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 ====[[:Image:Time Man of the year 1957Hunagarianfreedom fighter.jpg]]====
 :<span class="plainlinksneverexpand lx">[[:Image:{{ucfirst:Time Man of the year 1957Hunagarianfreedom fighter.jpg}}]] ([{{fullurl:Image:Time Man of the year 1957Hunagarianfreedom fighter.jpg|action=delete}} delete] | [[Image talk:{{ucfirst:Time Man of the year 1957Hunagarianfreedom fighter.jpg}}|talk]] | [{{fullurl::Image:{{ucfirst:Time Man of the year 1957Hunagarianfreedom fighter.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode::Image:{{ucfirst:Time Man of the year 1957Hunagarianfreedom fighter.jpg}}}}}} logs])</span> - uploaded by [[User talk:Bdamokos#Image:Time Man of the year 1957Hunagarianfreedom fighter.jpg listed for deletion|Bdamokos]] (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User_talk:Bdamokos|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify]</span><!-- Fix me: The included template outputs a section header, but Mediawiki with "require edit summaries" turned on won't save the page unless a section header is added. Also, if possible please populate the new talk page message with the name of the deleted image.--> | [[Special:Contributions/Bdamokos|contribs]]).
@@ Line 399: / Line 404: @@
 ::Well done! [[User:CoolKoon|CoolKoon]] ([[User talk:CoolKoon|talk]]) 14:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this section. <!--Template:Ifd bottom--></div>
 ====[[:Image:HMX-structure.png]]====