Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 January 9
- - uploaded by Thefreshraj (notify | contribs).
- Has no use purpose and a name containing random numbers. Compwhiz II 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delist - Image was already nominated for deletion (by same nominator) on 8 January. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Aditya Kabir (notify | contribs).
- It violates WP:NFCC#8. The image certainly does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the fact. Once Image was used in a song (non-notable). It is whether it would be detrimental to readers' understanding not to have it. Without this image, readers would easily be able to understand that actress acted in the song. NAHID 07:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As the uploader of the image I don't think I should post a !vote here, but I certainly see a necessity to post a comment. It's both about the amazing level of bad faith that shines through this nomination and the justification of the use of the image. Here goes:
- Bad faith: This deletion proposal closely followed my posting of the following on the Admin noticeboard, where I also discussed what I consider to be bouts of borderline stalking and the lamest of edit wars coming from the nominator here (and the editor in discussion there).
Yep. That would definitely mean a lot of hassle. Like when the user in discussion disputed fair use of a non-free image I uploaded. When I put a hang-on tag and detailed the rational on talk page, he went on to put it to speedy. Luckily, another user saw it and removed the tag, and rebuked the user for that. He also managed to get the image deleted, though it was restored (it involved three highly active image patrolers, too), and the user apologized to the rebuking party (no concern about me, of course). But, overall it was quite a hassle.
- Justification: The article (a GA) writes about how the film was inspired by the painting of Raja Ravi Varma, a point much better illustrated by positioning a scene from the film and the painting that inspired it (a public domain image) side-by-side. Unless there is a blanket call for deleting all non-free image, it may be very hard to see why this image should be up for deletion. This goes doubly true if we read the policy - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (WP:NFCC#8). Check for yourself. I am quoting the article text and image caption succession below.
Article text: The director used three paintings of Raja Ravi Varma - Damayanti and the swan, Lady in thought and Girl carrying milk tray - as inspiration to picturize the song Pinakkamano (acted by Prithviraj Sukumaran and Kavya Madhavan; sung by M. G. Sreekumar and Manjari).[1][2][3] Sivan says, "Yes, it is a tribute to Raja Ravi Varma, who is so intrinsically etched in every Malayali's mind."[4][5]
- ^ "Raja Ravi Varma's art makes song number one favourite". Now Running. Retrieved 2007-03-29.
- ^ "Newsmaker: Raja Ravi Varma". Varnachitram. Retrieved 2007-03-29.
- ^ "Ananthabhadram". Deccan Herald. 2006-08-02. Retrieved 2007-03-29.
- ^ "Newsmaker: Raja Ravi Varma". Varnachitram. Retrieved 2007-03-29.
- ^ "Ravi Varmas come alive". The Hindu. 2006-08-02. Retrieved 2007-03-29.
Image caption: Kavya Madhavan in the "Pinakkanamano" song sequence
- The community surely can decide for itself. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- That discussion in AN/I was about articles NOT for images. I did not have to follow your posting there. I felt it violates Non free image criteria (WP:NFCC#8), so I nominated it here. And I'm bit confused about links (with name) you provided. Nominating image for deletion should not be considered as bad faith nominating, Stalking, disputing or lamest edit warring. Otherwise, no one would've nominated image for deletion (IFD or Speedy). Of course, I had reason (WP:NFCC#8) to nominate it. Every day a number of image is being tagged for deletion (IFD or speedy). Sometimes, either they get kept or deleted through discussion. You are welcome to make arguments here.--NAHID 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I already did. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Aditya, perfectly sound fair use. - Mafia Expert (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Big_Adamsky (notify | contribs).
- does not contribute significantly to readers' understanding (WP:NFCC 8) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, possible copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, this citation page from emminent linguist and Ossetian himself Abaev's book is pertinent to the Ossetic language article, it states that Ossetian language has little to do with the Iranian languages, the image was removed from the article as a result of RV wars and in violation of WP policy on respecting attributed quotations. Barefact (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Cumbrowski (notify | contribs).
- non-free logo used only in user infoboxes Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not the original logo. It is an image that looks similar to the non-free logo, but is not the logo itself. See comparison here. If the use of the fake logo would be used for commercial gain or deceipt that would damage the owner of the original logo, they might be able to build a legal case. But this is not the situation here. It could be argued that the logo constitutes fair use (in a different sense as the fair use of the original logo for the wikipedia article about the object itself), but I am not a lawyer to make this fine distinction. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 17:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete - derived work, even if the FU argument was valid it would be in breach of WP policy and therefore be deleted anyway Fasach Nua (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Johnscrows (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, most of image consists of copyrighted product cover Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Adirondacker1 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Source license is cc-by-nc-nd which is unfree for our purposes. -Nard 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Cinemapress (notify | contribs).
- CV - Image is a movie poster and uploader does not own rights to image so cannot release under GFDL. See also images uploaded by blocked socks of L.L.King Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Cinemapress (notify | contribs).
- CV - Image is a movie poster and uploader does not own rights to image so cannot release under GFDL. See also images uploaded by blocked socks of L.L.King Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by SynnManagement (notify | contribs).
- CV, OR - Uploaded by sockpuppet account of L.L.King, image is a mosaic of copyrighted works to which uploader does not own rights to, orphaned and identical to previous image nominated for deletion on 8 January. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Helmandsare (notify | contribs).
- Rationaled to "highlights the episode in question", used in
{{Infobox Television}}at Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance with critical commentary of "Screen Capture from a Webisode". Fails WP:NFCC#1, #3a, and #8. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by User:Arctic Monkies (notify | contribs).
- Remove per WP:BLP. It's very likely that that subject of the article would be chagrined to see such a pic of him on Wikipedia. The uploader's intentions are also very suspicious. See this original caption. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Attack image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -He's a friend of mine. He doesn't care about it. He laughed about it. Check the intro to T.I.'s album T.I. vs T.I.P. for context.--It's Dark...•...and Hell Is Hot! 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe you, this is a terrible picture and T.I. namedropping Cohen has absolutely nothing to do with this nomination. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- When a question of attack image arises, "he's a friend of mine, he doesn't care" doesn't suffice. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It shows a lighter side to a guy that's otherwise a ruthless asshole. --Piepie (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is not sufficient for keeping this image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Attack image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
weak delete - wp:bio "Basic human dignity", although if there were more images of the subject it would dilute the impact of this, if kept commons and rename Fasach Nua (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - The evidence suggests to me that this image is also a copyright violation and that User:Arctic Monkies does not in fact own the rights to it. Given the previous caption on the photo, I would seriously question their representation of ownership. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who the hell are you question my ownership of the pic? I can prove ownership by providing another 20 he had me take at the same time.
--It's Dark...•...and Hell Is Hot! 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- obsolete by NYSF_logo.svg Frade (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- user has changed a logo's color Addhoc (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- (author) - The background was incorrect, you can clearly see on their products that the logo contains no background. Asenine (talk)(contribs) 11:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Musiclover16 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned and seemingly unencyclopedic. Dubious claim of ownership too. Chris.B (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
