Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 February 18

< February 17	February 19 >

February 18[edit]

File:Jealous screenshot.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 - here solely for decoration, with no context provided, and does not enhance the reader's understanding of the song/music video in question. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article it is used in, has a photo of his girlfriend, which is sufficient for the explanation of the origins of the song. Green Giant (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2015 (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:Muhammad Sex Simulator gameplay.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on the talk page as to whether this fair use image is justified. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An image of gameplay is primordial for any video game, no matter the content. I brought up in discussion parallels with the use of an image in Ethnic Cleansing (video game), another independent video game made to provoke, plus File:Hot coffee.png, which shows controversial video game sex content. An illustration of what is provoking reaction from a provocative work is necessary, think Piss Christ or Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons '''tAD''' (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The controlling guideline is WP:Offensive images (and Wikipedia:Offensive material). Both of them say (or paraphrase) "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." For this image that's an arguable point but I'm struck more by one of the caveats that appears earlier in both guidelines: "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." In the case of the image's use in the article I don't see that the claim in the image caption is supported by any reliable source. No such claim is made at the image's original source (provided in the NFUR here), and at the article's deletion discussion the editor who added the image and caption suggests that the caption is the result of original research ("I've seen videos of the game.") I find that the caption fails to portray the image in an encyclopedic manner. As I said in the article's AfD, it might help to establish context if we can find a RS that provides commentary on that specific non-free image. If the image caption were improved then I believe the image could be encyclopedic. -Thibbs (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tAD's arguments just don't hold water. The Hot Coffee mod image is completely benign; it only has offensive content if you are either racist, or if you are offended by images of people engaging in intercourse. The Ethnic Cleansing image is mostly benign without context. But this image has been chosen to be as offensive as possible; not only is the major religious subject of this game engaged in intercourse with an animal, he is also engaged in intercourse with an animal that is considered unclean by that religion. I don't think that tAD could've chosen a more offensive image from the game if they'd tried, and when you combine that with their woeful logic and comparisons in their desperate attempt to keep the image in (against consensus now, I should add) - my AGF has long since expired. There are also plenty of articles on controversial video games that do not include screenshots of the controversial parts of the gameplay, such as Super Columbine Massacre RPG! and School Shooter: North American Tour 2012 (which has no screenshots at all). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thibbs and Luke. I don't think that this image benefits the encyclopedia at all. We should not have material that may be considered offensive just for the sake of free speech. ansh 666 07:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing in the image that cannot easily be said in words. The other image already shows the general look of the game adequately. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other image is just the title screen. As mentioned in the article's talk page, title screens don't always show the general look of the game. In this case the title screen decently reflect the look of the game, but how would someone looking at the article know that? There has been a suggestion to replace the contested image with another one, but as I understand it that is an image from a selection screen rather than gameplay so it might share some of the issues of just using the title screen.Andreaseksted (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image tells user nothing he couldn't figure out for himself from the other screenshot (giving the general quality and look) plus the text's descriptions. This is gratuitous provocation for provocation's sake, contrary to policy. The uploader's history of intentional provocation on religious matters should not be overlooked. [1][2] EEng (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugh, what a mess - whether the image is offensive should have exactly ZERO to do with the decision. Personally, I would have probably !voted to delete the article, but I guess that ship is sailed - this is a minor news item worthy of mention in the article on ED, not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Anyway, that ship has sailed and if the image were available under a free-content license, then there's no question it should be retained. The decision is purely one based on our copyright rules and I'm not seeing how this image significantly increases a reader's understanding of the topic or its exclusion would be detrimental to that understanding. There is nothing about this image that cannot be stated in words. The caption adequately describes everything going on and considering that the title screen includes most of the relevant elements, you don't need both the title screen and this screenshot. --B (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2015 (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:Taylor Swift - Love Story music video.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, easily describable by word and a similar conceptual image is present in the article's infobox where Taylor Swift is dressed in a similar image. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:25, 18 February 2015 (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:Taylor Swift - Love Story.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that the cover art is for an alternate version of the original song. This cover art is redundant in that case and the actual one used in the infobox alternate parameter should be used in its place —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:53, 18 February 2015 (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:Alfa Romeo logo evolution.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 but largely not for the reason that it was nominated. The badges depicted are either mostly or completely out of copyright, even though they remain trademarked. As can be seen on [commons] free images of them can be created. Using a photo from a website when we can have free images makes the image fail WP:NFCC#1. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it dont fail , there is explanation for that free rationale -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:50, 18 February 2015 (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:Jomo Cosmos F.C. crest.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3: Unnecessary extra logo. Stefan2 (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan, why are the old logos unnecessary? Jomo Cosmos is a famous club in South Africa where English is the most frequently spoken language, and this is the English Wikipedia. Plenty of football clubs across Wikipedia have the evolution of their crest to see on their official pages, on what grounds is this considered irrelevant when it comes to this club from South Africa? Thank you for your time. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2015 (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:JomoCosmos old.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3: Unnecessary extra logo. Stefan2 (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2015 (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:Metamorphosis Remixes.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: It's a cover for 'Metamorphosis Remixes', but it is currently used in the article about 'Metamorphosis'. The image should only be used in the article about 'Metamorphosis Remixes'. Stefan2 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2015 (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:Terror in Resonance Original Soundtrack 2 -crystalized- Album Cover.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 as F5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of these images is necessary for the Terror in Resonance article. KirtZJ (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2015 (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.