Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 12: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
It has additionally been claimed that a tiny visual detail makes it crucial: it is argued that the submarine is flying a "Jolly Roger" flag as a sign of its "kill". However, this detail is hardly visible on the image at all; it can still be adequately explained and covered by text alone; and the significance of that detail (which some British marine insider editors seem to think an awful lot of) is currently entirely unsourced and original research. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
It has additionally been claimed that a tiny visual detail makes it crucial: it is argued that the submarine is flying a "Jolly Roger" flag as a sign of its "kill". However, this detail is hardly visible on the image at all; it can still be adequately explained and covered by text alone; and the significance of that detail (which some British marine insider editors seem to think an awful lot of) is currently entirely unsourced and original research. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
====[[:Image: |
====[[:Image:Imslayout.PNG]]==== |
||
There is an .svg image that provides better quality. This image should be deleted. [[Special:Contributions/209.2.60.98|209.2.60.98]] ([[User talk:209.2.60.98|talk]]) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
There is an .svg image that provides better quality. This image should be deleted. [[Special:Contributions/209.2.60.98|209.2.60.98]] ([[User talk:209.2.60.98|talk]]) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:48, 12 August 2008
August 12
- Not used, blatant advertising. Sherool (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — talk 04:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- This rationale does not explain how the use will not effect commercial gain or declare why it cannot be replaced by a freely licensed image. ViperSnake151 01:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Though fair use needs to be updated, that is not a reason for deletion. Simply showing the statue/trophy for purposes of identification is appropriate in this instance. — BQZip01 — talk 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, I've updated the fair use rationale. Music2611 (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Copyrighted audio sample, exceeds fair use at 3:28 minutes. Sandstein 05:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Robertlangdirect (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Robertlangdirect (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Robertlangdirect (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Robertlangdirect (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Natty4bumpo (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- scan of artwork by john wood (doesn't seem to be the uploader) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Natty4bumpo (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- halftoning suggests this is a scan, not an original photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- somehow i doubt the uploader is the copyright holder on this satellite imagery Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Danny_Flynn (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Eddie_Blake (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- A professionally posed image of a wrestler who has been dead for six years that was officially taken sometime in the nineties which has been uploaded under GFDL by a Filipino editor living in the Phillipines with a history of uploading images with fake licenses. Suffice to say I am not exactly likely to believe these circumstances. –– Lid(Talk) 07:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Danielt812 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Papabear165 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Papabear165 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Merrittcentennials (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Myscienceistight (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- no reason given for image to be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Myscienceistight (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- no reason given for image to be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Myscienceistight (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- no reason given for image to be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, possible copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Arthurknight (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- ridiculously tiny image, i really doubt this was taken by the uploader Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, probably copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Loonertheband (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Image fails NFCC#8 in that it does not significantly add to readers understanding. Compared to other images in the two articles using it, it is simply decorative and fails the fair-use requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 07:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, unecyclopedic Yopie 12:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Kintetsubuffalo (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Claimed as "historic image", but no historical significance of the scene shown, let alone the image as such, is being described or even hinted at in the article (Scouting in the Federated States of Micronesia). Clearly replaceable with a free photograph of a present-day scout group. Image is not the subject of discussion in the article; even if it were, it doesn't convey any visual information that an image of a present-day group couldn't convey just as well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fails NFCC#1+8: Snapshot of a person caught in a compromising situation that earned him some notoriety. The person is only seen from the back; the fact that made the image notorious (that he was leaving a gay bar) is not seen on the image at all. No piece of visual information in this image is important to understand the article; in fact, everything that the image presumably represents not only can but must be expressed in the text, because the image doesn't contribute to understanding it at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- This image had to be removed from several articles:
- British naval forces in the Falklands War,
- Royal Navy Submarine Service
- Churchill class submarine
- HMS Conqueror (S48)
It is currently orphaned but editors want it back, so I'm bringing it here. There has been some debate with local editors arguing the importance of the image at Talk:British naval forces in the Falklands War#Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg
This is a photograph of an historic British submarine, taken at an historic moment (the submarine is coming back from the Falklands War after having sunk an Argentinian cruiser). However, it fails NFCC#8 in that it makes no actual contribution, as an image, to understanding what it claims to represent. Editors who have been defending it as an "historic image" make a very typical mistake: they confuse the historical importance of a situation with the practical importance of an image for understanding it. This photograph may, for them, have symbolic importance in "representing" the notable historic situation; for the reader who isn't already familiar with the case, it represents nothing. There is no visual information in this image that actually helps the reader to understand the situation it is associated with. Anything this image is claimed to stand for has to be first explained to the reader through text before he can even begin to appreciate what it's about; once that is done, the text has rendered the image superfluous.
Apart from the symbolic historical significance, illustration of the concrete physical appearance of the submarine doesn't constitute grounds for keeping, since it could be replaced with free images of identical sister ships, and/or with an existing image that shows it at a later date, after its decommissioning.
It has additionally been claimed that a tiny visual detail makes it crucial: it is argued that the submarine is flying a "Jolly Roger" flag as a sign of its "kill". However, this detail is hardly visible on the image at all; it can still be adequately explained and covered by text alone; and the significance of that detail (which some British marine insider editors seem to think an awful lot of) is currently entirely unsourced and original research. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an .svg image that provides better quality. This image should be deleted. 209.2.60.98 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)