Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 19: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:23, 19 May 2011

< May 18	May 20 >

May 19

File:SnapfireImage5.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F4 by Luk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useless image of obvious abysmal quality. Eeekster (talk) 02:37, 19 May 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.

File:DSCN3812.JPG

It's a very pretty watch, but there's no indication as to what kind of watch it is. Therefore it's unusable. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons as File:Elgin pocket watch, as a nice image of a pocket watch, someone can use on pocket watch articles, or about the Elgin company. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSCN3028.JPG

Orphaned, not encyclopedic, very likely a copyvio. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG-20110302-00007.jpg

Despite the fact that this is being used in an article, I am contending that this image is useless, as it does not display anything worth displaying. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Sven Manguard Wha? 05:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG0002.jpg

Image not identified, therefore unusable. Uploader has no other contributions. Based on lack of information, no way of knowing copyright status of art either. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doctors wife screenshot.jpg

Readers' understanding of the article would not be damaged if this image were deleted, so it fails NFCC 8. The makeshift TARDIS could be described in words to an adequate extent. Sure, it wouldn't enable people to visualise it 100% perfectly, but they don't need to merely in order to understand the episode's plot and the fact that this particular console was designed by a Blue Peter child. People only need to know that it's makeshift, cobbled together, and partially open IMO. Something like, "...composed of a glowing TARDIS console, protected by TARDIS walls on two sides but open on the others..." seems more than sufficient, and indeed that's way more than is even mentioned in the article: the actual aesthetics and visual appearance of the console are subject to no critcal commentary whatsoever in the article [1] and that is all there is to it. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 08:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have seen several mainstream reviews of this significant episode and they are all illustrated with a fair use picture of the Tardis avatar wife. This picture is a good one in showing several of the salient features. Understanding of the nature of a Tardis console is best communicated by a picture because we should not assume that all readers are veteran Dr Who fans - they might be young Blue Peter viewers, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As discussed at the article's talk page before uploading, at the present time there is no sourced discussion of the elements in question, but I know they exist (it is easily checked by google news) - it's easily verified and by necessity will be part of the end article. Additionally, I stress that you can't just say "makeshift TARDIS console" and that it was designed by a 12 year old and assume that the reader can visualize that. It's designed by a child, so does that mean it's pink and frilly? Tough, bulks, with laser beams and guns all over the place? --MASEM (t) 12:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would we be able to perfectly visualize the "makeshift TARDIS console" without the image? Perhaps not, although TT's attempt at a description seems quite adequate to me. The question is: why would we need to be able to visualize it perfectly? The answer is: we don't. Nothing in the rest of the article depends on that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aero industry.png

Unused image lacking description - Uploaded by currently blocked user Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:László Nagy Bronze Wolf Carl XVI Gustaf.jpg

Non-free historic photograph. Fails NFCC#8: we don't need to see a photograph of a person receiving an award in order to understand that he received it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 *'''Keep''' I have seen several mainstream reviews of this significant episode and they are all illustrated with a fair use picture of the Tardis avatar wife.  This picture is a good one in showing several of the salient features.  Understanding of the nature of a Tardis console is best communicated by a picture because we should not assume that all readers are veteran Dr Who fans - they might be young Blue Peter viewers, for example. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 12:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' As discussed at the article's talk page before uploading, ''at the present time'' there is no sourced discussion of the elements in question, but I know they exist (it is easily checked by google news) - it's easily verified and by necessity will be part of the end article.  Additionally, I stress that you can't just say "makeshift TARDIS console" and that it was designed by a 12 year old and assume that the reader can visualize that.  It's designed by a child, so does that mean it's pink and frilly?  Tough, bulks, with laser beams and guns all over the place? --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 12:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. Would we be able to perfectly visualize the "makeshift TARDIS console" without the image? Perhaps not, although TT's attempt at a description seems quite adequate to me. The question is: why would we ''need'' to be able to visualize it perfectly? The answer is: we don't. Nothing in the rest of the article depends on that. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 13:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 ====[[:File:Aero industry.png]]====