Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 3

< September 2	September 4 >

September 3[edit]

File:Comingoutconservative.jpg[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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book cover used on author's article without any critical commentary; no FuR Skier Dude (talk 03:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: does not appear to meet the threshold of originality; it consists merely of text on a plain white background. Should be licensed correctly and perhaps moved to Commons. Big Dom 15:48, 6 September 2010 (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:Comingoutspiritually.gif[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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover used on author's article without any critical commentary; no FuR Skier Dude (talk 03:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: does not appear to meet the threshold of originality; it consists merely of text on a plain white background. Should be licensed correctly and perhaps moved to Commons. Big Dom 15:45, 6 September 2010 (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:SAWK Cd sleeve.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CD sleeve; no source; unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk 04:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reupload with a fair use rationale, (or keep and remove unbelievable claim of PD), source is not too important as long as it is genuine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2010 (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:CoppsWorthFightingFor.jpg[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. Big Dom 07:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover used 2x (no FuR) -infobox for author & convention article Skier Dude (talk 04:18, 3 September 2010 (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:Copy Yourself.jpg[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. Big Dom 07:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinko's promotional material - no FuR - used in two articles w/out critical commentary Skier Dude (talk 04:21, 3 September 2010 (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:GAYAarmorattack.JPG[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. Big Dom 07:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned - incorrect rotation Skier Dude (talk 06:17, 3 September 2010 (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:GBVand.jpg[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. Big Dom 07:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, apparently for vandalism purposes only Skier Dude (talk 06:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete useless image used to disparage its subject. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2010 (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:GDocs.png[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. Big Dom 07:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

while small, at low resolution the Google logo is apparent Skier Dude (talk 06:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete CC license looks bogus due to logo included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2010 (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:Dagbladet 1995-09-02.png[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. Big Dom 07:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Fair Use rationale. As I assessed this case as a clearcut violation I undertook originally to simply remove the image from the page where it has been used and tagging the file with {{orfud}}. These edits were however reverted[1][2] by another user, so I see no other option than to burden the FfD page with this matter. meco (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please by more specific about why you feel that the fair use rationale is invalid? Regards, --Kjetil_r 10:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read examples of unacceptable use for un-free images you will find "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary." For the use to be covered there would have to be in-depth discussion of that particular newspaper front page in the article that warranted the display of the front page for clarity. As it stands no extra, significantly no essential, information is conveyed by the use of that image except that it serves to illustrate what the article mentions. Unless standards have shifted significantly since I was more heavily involved in Fair Use deletions, consensus requires that the discussion would be considerably impeded without the display of the image. I have requested for the people over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to comment on this also. __meco (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 because keeping the image does not increase the reader's understanding of the topic itself and its removal will not be detrimental to that understanding. There is also no critical commentary about the image itself and any such prose added would likely still not get it past NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2010 (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:IPad Home.png[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: Withdrawn WOSlinker (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in the iPad infobox that could be replaced with a cropped version of File:IPad_docked.jpg WOSlinker (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file WOSlinker claims is a suitable replacement has a different and highly personalised screen – as has been pointed out in the image copyright reasons for use or the TalkIIPad – the manufacturers default home screen is of the essence of the device, is copyrighted by them, and the image released by them for uses such as here. It's also been up there for a month and has been challenged presumeably because I just changed it, reducing the border space around it to make it less promotional. Trev M ~ 14:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I challenged it is because I've upladed a similar sort of image for the Samsung Galaxy Tab (File:Samsung Galaxy Tab.jpg) and it is currently being contested as well and since both images are essentically covering the same purpose, I thought that it's only fair to nominate this image as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why complicate matters in this way? Everyone except you – even the copyright owner – is happy at the moment. But I've put a note up on the talk page to see if anyone can come up with a better image. There's actually a category of iPad images but I've not got time or bandwidth to search and select from it. Trev M ~ 15:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a discussion at the moment. This image could still end up being kept. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So an image that you uploaded has been called out and therefore you decided to go after another since yours couldn't be here? That's rather pointy.--Terrillja _talk 00:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OK the flaw with the iPad image you have suggested is that it has a computer in the background - which we'd need to crop out and remove the background to create an equivalent image. If we did so then that would produce something acceptable for the infobox. However then if there are other programs other than the default ones arguably we'd be advertising those programs and/or we'd have a fair use image anyway as Apple's icons are copyrighted computer software.

We could attempt to have a screenshot without the screen on, but that wouldn't really show the device properly.

In my view the best place to get pictures is from Apple's PR website as fair use, and which Apple allow to be used in the media, however if people aren't bothered by the 'advertising' point, then we could use a different screenshot of the iPad in action. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to withdraw the nomination, although there would be advantages to a photo of the device rather than a publicity image as the photo could be a lot higher resolution. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2010 (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:TheWomanInMeVideo.JPG[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; fails NFCC#8. Big Dom 15:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't add to reader's understanding. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:39, 3 September 2010 (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.