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.
Question. Yes, this is an image of a cover of a book published by Pocket Books. But how did the cover of the book get from Pocket Books to being a jpg uploaded to Wikipedia? Did the uploader own a copy of the book and scan in the cover? Did the uploader find this image on a website? That's the source of the image. That's what's not given. --Geniac (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether this copy came from a scan, a website, etc. It would still be 100% Pocket Books' image. No creative material would have been added. —Remember the dot(talk)23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it doesn't matter how it got here for determining who owns the copyright on the image, but it does matter how it got here for providing an accurate source for the image in the rationale. Selecting "It is a cover or other page from a book, DVD, newspaper, magazine, or other such source" from Wikipedia:Upload gives "Step 3. [...] the exact source of the image, such as the URL giving the location on the World Wide Web from where you downloaded it". WP:CITE#IMAGE says "If you download an image from the web, you should give the URL: [...] If you got the image from an offline source, you should specify:". This information is missing from the rationale for Image:SpaceBrat.jpg and so fails WP:NFCC#10a because the source of this image is not given. --Geniac (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, to abide by Wikipedia policy by meeting all 10 criteria for use of non-free content. Is that what you mean? Did you mean something broader or more defined? --Geniac (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2008 (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.
Keep. The image is tagged as having been released into the public domain by the uploader, and the concert venue's policies are not our concern. Zetawoof(ζ)07:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of non-notable individual, would be speedy deleted if it was an article. Orphaned, uploader's only contribution. Hut 8.512:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unencyclopedic. ("This girl is named Karla Esparza, and she is amazing, there is so many words to describe her its unbelievable. She goes to cathedral catholic high school, and likes to listen to music. She also has a myspace, http://www.myspace.com/karlaleftthedisco.") —Bkell (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article it was used in was deleted as a bio without notability. The editor who created it and uploaded this image was active 24 Feb and not since. —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is over a year out of date. Only 3 channels remain on the original "linear" Top Up TV service (cf the Push-Vod service and premium services) that this diagram illustrates, the mentioned service has not been open to new subscribers for 18 months. The image itself has not been used on the Top Up TV article for some time. I have removed it from its only remain use, List of digital television deployments by country, today. Pit-yacker (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE- Obsolete/Unencyclopedic/Low Quality- This is a fake poster. It is fan-made. If you look at the bottom credits where it states everyone's name, you will see that a lot of the names are just a bunch of scrambled, jumbled up letters and aren't names at all, that is proof that it is a fake.General Mannino (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some websites do claim that this is the first official movie poster.[1], [2], and at Horror-Movies .ca [3] also at Sci-Fi United [4]. It's even got the same background on the official SS3: Marauder websites. It really does seem official. There is no way it could be fan-made, regardless of what is depicted underneath. It's just the first official poster--EclipseSSD (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE- Obsolete/Unencyclopedic/Low Quality- Yes, many sites do claim that it is the official movie poster, but again it is not because if you look at the bottom credits where it states everyone's name, you will see that a lot of the names are just a bunch of scrambled, jumbled up letters and aren't names at all, that is proof that it is a fake. Look at it again, movie posters do not have fake names or scrambled, jumbled up letters on their poster. Also a fan could have done a screenshot of the background of the official movie site and added stuff to it that makes it seem real, it's not that hard to do, but again it's fake. General Mannino (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fine, we'll wait until the REAL movie poster gets released, or the DVD cover. You could also stop repeating DELETE- Obsolete/Unencyclopedic/Low Quality. I think we get the message. Delete the image for now.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EclipseSSD, your profile states you are just a 14 year old, which means you don't have much knowledge in Film. I am a real Filmmaker kid, so I know these things, it's a fake. General Mannino (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Listen to me right now, I made a mistake, OKAY. People are allowed to mistakes, aren't thet. Now, I may not be Steven Spielberg or George Lucas, but I have enough knowledge of films and editing article-experience to know the difference between a good article and a bad one. I don't think you are being very polite by saying I know basically nothing, and now you're saying you know everything. People make mistakes, and I did. I apologize to anybody who saw the mistake. Don't speak to me like that again. Oh by the way, I simply love your prejudice against 14-year old kids. Sure, 14 year olds don't know anything at all, so why would Daniel Radcliffe join Harry Potter in 2001 (at age 12) and become famous? One more thing; Wikipedia is not a site for personal opinions or attacks. I admit I made a mistake, once again sorry about that, but I'm just a 14-year old who knows nothing. Right? Sorry everybody, I WILL try not to let this happen again.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not talk in that manner, I did not make a personal attack, you however just did. Everyone does make mistakes, but that is not why I said you don't have much knowledge in film, I said that simply because you don't have enough knowledge to know what is fake and what isn't. You made a personal attack on your second comment to me, making personal attacks is very immature and is not tolerated on Wikipedia, please don't ever do it again. I wish for you not to speak to me ever again. General Mannino (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, let us stop arguing. This is getting us nowhere. You're right, it's immature. I for one, am sorry on my part. I don't want this to happen again. We just sort of got off on the wrong foot, and this is not what it's supposed to be about. This whole discussion was to be about deleting this image. I now agree to delete it, and get it over and done with. This is a fake image, and therefore SHOULD be deleted. Again, I apologize.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Starship Troopers is my favorite movie of all time, I remember seeing it when I was young, whenever Starship Troopers 3: Marauder comes out I'm going to stay in the store until midnight just to buy the first copy. General Mannino (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image is rationaled "to illustrate an important aspect of the episode in a manner for which text is insufficient". Image consists of four lines, two dots, and the letters (in red): P4C-970. This depicts a locked-out Stargate address from the episode "2001", a description that is equitably expressed in the plot summary. This image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, nor would its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (WP:NFCC#1, 3a, 8) — pd_THOR|=/\= | 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}