Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:12, 6 December 2009

< December 1	December 3 >

December 2

File:Billy Ray Cyrus - Back to Tennessee music video.jpg

File:Billy Ray Cyrus - Back to Tennessee music video.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ipodnano05 (notify | contribs).

non-free shot of Billy Ray Cyrus in a music video. There is nothing iconic about the image that is required for user understanding. If needed the image can be replaced with a free image of him (so it would fail WP:NFCC#1). The image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and so fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 05:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it does, it illustrates the music video section and how the music video actually looks. The text can only do so much. It is needed. Please don't delete it. Also, how would a free image add anything if it's not the music video? It wouldn't be the same. Every music video section should have an image. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace I believe a frame of a music video, in a section discussing the music video and in an article discussing the song, meets the fair use criteria. However, this particular image shows little more than Billy Ray's head- not much about the video. After watching the video, I suggest deleting this one and uploading one showing Cyrus and his truck or performing on stage. Liqudluck✽talk 06:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DOI Seal CLRsmHR.gif

File:DOI Seal CLRsmHR.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bri322 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned file, succeeded by File:US-DeptOfTheInterior-Seal.svg. Since they are not 100% copies of each other and are different formats, this file can not be speedied. — ξ ^xplicit 07:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SP.gif

File:SP.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pixeljourney (notify | contribs).

Orphaned file, image too small for any foreseeable encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 07:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a strange image... Too small to see subject matter. Mononomic (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ken Shamrock chokes out Conan, Sleep.jpg

File:Ken Shamrock chokes out Conan, Sleep.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nyquistx3 (notify | contribs).

Screenshot of an athlete on a tv show used just to make the point that he was on the tv show. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Damiens.rf 13:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royce Shamrock 2 aftermath.jpg

File:Royce Shamrock 2 aftermath.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nyquistx3 (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary decorative picture of tough guys sharing tenderness. Damiens.rf 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is NOT an "unnecessary decorative picture of tough guys showing tenderness". This is a fight that has been engulfed in debate for almost fifteen years, and a major question was which fighter would have won had there not been time limits, or had there been judges in place. This picture illustrates the type of damage inflicted during the fight. It is extremely necessary to the article's section on the first two mega stars in the sport, Shamrock's legendary rivalry with Royce Gracie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyquistx3 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFCC #8 as it doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and "its omission [wouldn't] be detrimental to that understanding". As for the above: facial damage alone isn't a criteria in MMA-judging, so using the picture to show "who really won" would be misleading. --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jackson KOs Liddell UFC71.jpg

File:Jackson KOs Liddell UFC71.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ty580 (notify | contribs).

Random non-free screenshot showing two guys fighting used just to make the point these two guys fought a fight. Damiens.rf 13:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chuck Liddell vs Tito Ortiz 2 - UFC 66.jpg

File:Chuck Liddell vs Tito Ortiz 2 - UFC 66.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ty580 (notify | contribs).

Random non-free screenshot showing two guys fighting used just to make the point these two guys fought a fight. Damiens.rf 13:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn UFC 4.jpg

File:Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn UFC 4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ty580 (notify | contribs).

Non-free screenshot showing two guys fighting used just to make the point these two guys fought a fight. All relevant information is already on the article's text and a non-free illustration is not needed. Damiens.rf 13:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2002hawaiidemocraticdebate.jpg

File:2002hawaiidemocraticdebate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gerald Farinas (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free tv screenshot showing politicians debating used just to make the point they once debated on tv. Damiens.rf 13:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006 Valencia Motogp.JPG

File:2006 Valencia Motogp.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aleenf1 (notify | contribs).

Decorative non-free image showing drivers congratulating each other during a relatively recent sporting event. All relevant information is already contained in the article's text. Damiens.rf 13:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photogallerywithcaptions.png

File:Photogallerywithcaptions.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soumyasch (notify | contribs).

This non-free image, used only in Windows Live Photo Gallery is superseded by File:Windows Live Photo Gallery.png and therefore its presence on Wikipedia is a violation of Wikipedia Non-Free Content Criterion 3 (Minimal extent of use) and Wikipedia Non-free Content Criterion 8 (Contextual significance). Fleet Command (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2005 Bali bombings SCTV screenshot.jpg

File:2005 Bali bombings SCTV screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vsion (notify | contribs).

Non-free screnshot of some broken glass spread around the street after a bombing, used just to illustrate the fact that the bombing discussed in the article spread broken glass in the street. The image is used as a infobox decoration. There's no relevant information on this non-free image that is not already contained in the article's text. Damiens.rf 13:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006 EDSA Shrine grab.JPG

File:2006 EDSA Shrine grab.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Howard the Duck (notify | contribs).

Non-free screenshot showing a guy on tv addressing people used in a gallery just to make the point this guy addressed people on tv. All relevant information is already contained in the article's text and no such illustration is needed. Damiens.rf 13:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008 Badghis province operation 2.PNG

File:2008 Badghis province operation 2.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Realismadder (notify | contribs).

This non-free tv screenshot used as an infobox decoration shows some Norwegian troops in Afghanistan is apparently used just to make the point these guys were on Afghanistan. The rationale says the image is used "'to illustrate a critical phase of the battle'" but the given image can't do that. All relevant information is already contained in the article's text and no such illustration is needed. Damiens.rf 13:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all I can see is some guys in the desert with a truck. Not high-value enough to justify keeping it around as a non-free image. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

File:2009 Afghan presidential debate.png

File:2009 Afghan presidential debate.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joshdboz (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free tv screenshot showing politicians debating used just to make the point they once debated on tv. Damiens.rf 13:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to comply with Wikipedia Non-free Content Criterion 8: Contextual significance. Fleet Command (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harry S Truman Building.jpg

File:Harry S Truman Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gerald Farinas (notify | contribs).

Not used. Source information not verifiable. Damiens.rf 13:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Source information too vague and inaccurate.

File:ThomasCup.JPG

File:ThomasCup.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aleenf1 (notify | contribs).

Replaceable. This object still exists and is constantly being exposed. Damiens.rf 14:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Replaceability requires evidence. There is no reason to believe that simply because something exist and is constantly exposed, there is a free photograph of it available. Maybe photographers and reporters are charged a fee for entry and therefore all existing photos are copyrighted and unfree. Provide evidence and I'll change my vote into "Delete". Fleet Command (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not care to provide any evidence since I never said a free photograph do exists. --Damiens.rf 13:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you did. You said that the image is "Replaceable". Replaceable means "there is a free replacement with which it can be replaced". Fleet Command (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it doesn't. It means a free equivalent is available, or could be created. --Damiens.rf 17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then, please create it. Once you've uploaded a free alternative, we can delete the file. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to believe that a free alternative exists or can be created. Fleet Command (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I find your lack of faith disturbing. --Damiens.rf 12:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lee Kuan Yew Press Conference, 9 August 1965.jpg

File:Lee Kuan Yew Press Conference, 9 August 1965.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vsion (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free tv screenshot showing a guy's headshot. No relevant information on the image. Damiens.rf 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. Fleet Command (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Workers Party rally at Ubi, 28 April 2006.jpg

File:Workers Party rally at Ubi, 28 April 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vsion (notify | contribs).

Replaceable. Just like this guy took this picture, a lot of other people did the same. Some effort should be done to produce a freely licensed image (if one is really necessary at all). Damiens.rf 14:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Replaceability requires evidence. An image must not be deleted based on an unfounded allusion that it is repleaceable. Find another reason for deletion or prove replaceability. Fleet Command (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this replaceable, it fails WP:NFCC#8 as it fails to increase the readers' understanding of the subject when text alone would suffice. — ξ ^xplicit 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tetracycline.png

File:Tetracycline.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Iorsh (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, low quality, replaced by File:Tetracycline structure.svg. JaGa^talk 21:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; SVG file seems to do the job nicely, PNG file is low quality. Not much to say here. Mononomic (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sailor Mercury.jpg

File:Sailor Mercury.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kuchulainn (notify | contribs).

Currently OR, and the use for which some editors want to keep it is frankly UE. The short anime section of Crucifixion in art has no need for this image as an accompaniment, and it would add nothing of value to the article's content. Yzak Jule (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator is edit warring to delete the file, in a content dispute (the dispute is at Crucifixion). Crucifixion in art is a new page, and is currently being expanded. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusion of the image in the article is a matter of an unresolved dispute. It's only orphaned, possibly temporarily, as a side effect of that dispute. "Unencyclopedic" is just the nominator's way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While I generally like to assume good faith, given the nominator's edit-warring ([1], [2], [3]), incivility ([4], [5], [6]) and vandalism ([7]), it's hard to believe that this is not a bad-faith nomination. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think this image should be kept for a month or so until we can determine whether it would be useful to the Crucifixion in art article. I can't imagine it being useful anywhere else, and if it is not useful in that article, it should be deleted. Gary (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let me restated what I said about the image at Talk:Crucifixion. I really don't think the image is needed as an illustration as it did not contribute significantly to the Crucifixion and will not contribute to Crucifixion in art. The depiction of a crucifixion the image is suppose to illustrate does not need an illustration, and probably does not need to be in Crucifixion in art as the depiction is neither culturally significant nor important. The only reason the image was used in Crucifixion was mostly for decorative purposes. Even the non-free use rational on the image's page, "document portrayal of crucifixion in popular culture," does not explain why the image is necessary. —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unnecessary fancruft. I see no reason why it should be kept when the solid majority of editors agreed that the section of text it belonged to should be removed. —Pompous Trihedron (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the quote about crucifixion in anime says that the producers dont' typically care about the symbolism, I don't think we need an image to show that it's not being used to indicate or symbolize whatever. DS (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary fancruft. Completely out of place in an article about crucifixion. Japanese cartoons aren't *about* crucifixion, they feature it in order to get a rise out of people. Gustave Pennington (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an example of crucifixion in modern art. Shii (tock) 09:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to have, for instance, the pic from Chris Burden? As per Gustave Pennington, that one would be about crucifixion. DS (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DS, thank you for pointing that out. But these are not mutually exclusive. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: This image is now a non-free unused image. Unless it is used in an article, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it will be speedy-deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really now, this is so poor an image as to be of astronomically (pun intended) low EV. If you are going for anime and manga based crucifixion images, I have seen several better ones (all non free, but that's not the point here.) Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 15:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think Gary hit the nail on the head, regarding the actual policy of how deletion decisions should be made. The issue here is that there is a temporary situation, growing out of a very contentious content dispute, causing the image to temporarily be orphaned. I have been made motivated to research the subject more fully, and there will soon be multiple, reliably-sourced, secondary sources at the new article, Crucifixion in art, from academic departments of religious studies, establishing notability. Obviously, the burden of proof there will rest on whether that sourcing comes through, but that is the normal editing process. The decision here is whether to (1) pre-emptively assume the outcome of the editing process on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("get(s) a rise out of people") and preclude ongoing discussion, or, (2) allow the editing process to go ahead normally, and then, as Gary said, delete if I and others end up being proven wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only reason there seems to be any contentiousness at all over this image and the deleted part of the article it was used in is because you, Tryptofish, keep insisting the situation is contentious. No one else seems to think it is. --Pompous Trihedron (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are other editors agreeing with me, in whole or in part, right here in this discussion. But I'm getting used to this kind of comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The image is so low quality that I dont see any reason to argue for keeping it. IF there has to be a anime picture in the article, atleast pick a decent one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.180.154 (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which decent one are you referring to that you think should be used instead? TJRC (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Image is currently not orphaned; it is in use in Crucifixion in art, where most of the text formerly in Crucifixion, where this image was previously used, has been moved. The FUR for the file has been updated accordingly. TJRC (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was deemed irrelevant by a large majority in the consensus on Crucifixion, and it's still irrelevant in the new article. Orphaned again.Yzak Jule (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-free use image, doesn't really add enough to the sole article it's sometimes used in to justify use, in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 *'''Keep''' This is NOT an "unnecessary decorative picture of tough guys showing tenderness". This is a fight that has been engulfed in debate for almost fifteen years, and a major question was which fighter would have won had there not been time limits, or had there been judges in place. This picture illustrates the type of damage inflicted during the fight. It is extremely necessary to the article's section on the first two mega stars in the sport, Shamrock's legendary rivalry with Royce Gracie.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nyquistx3|Nyquistx3]] ([[User talk:Nyquistx3|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nyquistx3|contribs]]) 04:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+*'''Delete''' - Fails [[WP:NFCC]] #8 as it doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and "its omission [wouldn't] be detrimental to that understanding". As for the above: facial damage alone isn't a criteria in MMA-judging, so using the picture to show "who really won" would be misleading. --[[User:aktsu|<font color="black"><b>aktsu</b></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:aktsu|t]]&nbsp;/&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Aktsu|c]])</sup> 13:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 ====[[:File:Jackson KOs Liddell UFC71.jpg]]====