Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 6

< August 5	August 7 >

August 6

Image:Shot-01-022.jpg

Image:Shot-01-022.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KALA654 (notify | contribs).

Unfree photo of a living person. Was already marked as rfu, somebody removed the tag and added a fair use rationale which is not consistent with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. (It is entirely possible to create a free replacement, M.I.A. is giving lots of concerts and there are already photos of her on Commons. — High on a tree 05:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - "Invalid fair-use claim" ALTON .ıl 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pur 18.jpg

Image:Pur 18.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 66.153.153.178 (notify | contribs).

Empty image, vandalism — Naruttebayo 05:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is at Commons, need to take the claim there. This is for Wikipedia images only. Ejfetters 06:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

dose u like pie

Image:DC and Highway.jpg

Image:DC and Highway.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jay Firestorm (notify | contribs).

Fair use screen cap for living actor, replaceable with free use, adds nothing encyclopedic to page — Ejfetters 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

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.

Image:Replace this image1.svg

Image:Replace this image1.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ?? (notify | contribs).

Looks like this is obsoleted by Replace this image male.svg and Replace this image female.svg - if this is incorrect i apologize and withdraw this nomination — Ejfetters 06:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC).
Keep. Not obsoleted, its a no-gender generic variant and as such, possibly useful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Piotrus --Knulclunk 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - creates a self reference to Wikipedia. This image includes the self referential text "click here". As such, it causes any article using the image to violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. As our Manual of Style states, "certainly don't use terms such as "click here' ". Also "clicking" may have no meaning for a physically impaired user working with an alternative pointing device, or for anyone reading a print version of Wikipedia. Image:Replace this image male.svg and Image:Replace this image male.svg also need to be deleted because they also violate the Manual of style. Force10 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, this was discussed at length Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner, and it was apparent that there was community consensus for the whole "Fromowner" system—including the images—to stay as they are. (And I know that Ejfetters isn't nominating the whole system, but I think this image is useful, so I think it should kept as well.) --Iamunknown 21:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true that saying "click here" it a terrible practice. See http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere . And the self-reference concerns regarding this image is also truth. But I believe both of them could be addressed simply by reworking the text on the image. It should say only "no free image available" (if anything at all). But I do believe (but can not prove) that the placeholder presence decreases the likelihood of someone uploading a non-free image to the article. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the images themselves are very helpful - as Abu badali said, to deter uploads of non-free use images, and to encourage users to find free use images to replace it, I just dont understand the need for this version. Gender would be either male or female, unless there is another human gender I am not aware of hehe. If you mean for transgender, they like to associate themselves as their new gender don't they, so they should use the proper one. And I dont see it useful for non-human subjects, as its clearly a human silhouette, so using it in a cat or a dog's page per say, would not suffice. And I dont think we should make ones for animals, thats going too far. I say just delete this one and keep the male & female. Care should be taken if deleted, to make sure any pages linking to the pic are converted to the correct male or female image as to not create a bunch of dead pics throughout Wikipedia. Oh, and yeah, CLICK HERE, sounds terrible, like some advertisement would do, needs rewording. Ejfetters 09:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Abu badali and Piotrus. Although there are male and female versions, a gender-neutral one is still useful. It may, however, be beneficial to rewrite the text. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment it will take some time to shift over to the male and female images.Genisock2 17:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. howcheng {chat} 17:50, 15 August 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:EurekaFlag602.png

Image:EurekaFlag602.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pengo (notify | contribs).

A vector version of this image is also available OsamaK 07:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep above reason is not a valid reason to delete. Vector is based on PNG, so keep original for reference. —Pengo 08:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flag should be SVG. So SVG is enough.--OsamaK 10:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pengo --Knulclunk 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SVG is the best for flags and they should be SVG. and why "for reference" we can see "PNG version was Image:EurekaFlag602.png" That's enough ;). DELETE. --OsamaK 13:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Earthlights_dmsp_small.jpg

Image:Earthlights_dmsp_small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dcoetzee (notify | contribs).

Unused, Image:Earthlights dmsp.jpg is enough. OsamaK 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I originally uploaded it because the original image had poor contrast (I don't know why I resized it), but evidently the authors of the article using it chose to remove it, so whatever. Dcoetzee 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - orphan, the big one is fine. ALTON .ıl 02:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Image deleted, but one with same file name is on Commons. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Comparison of MM1 boxcover to real megaman.jpg

Image:Comparison of MM1 boxcover to real megaman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vicarious (notify | contribs).

User claims to have created himself and releases it as such, but the image is merely 2 copyrighted promo images with no source, copyright status, or fair use rationale. Apparent copyright vio. — Ejfetters 10:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

Delete - for reasons above. ALTON .ıl 02:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Whitney-bobby.jpg

Image:Whitney-bobby.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Real One Returns (notify | contribs).

Tagged as PD, but is almost certainly not - uploader wrote "Personal scan" as a source, quite obviously a personal scan of a commercial immage. Fair use should not apply, as we have other photos of both individuals. — _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for above reasons. ALTON .ıl 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From how it's placed in the articles, it simply enhances the accompanying text. Jtpop 06:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jtpop, the use of fair use images should be such, that without them a reader's understanding of the article text would be impaired. Simple illustration is not a valid excuse for fair use. Anrie 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-free, NFCC #1, etc. Jheald 10:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WikiFunctions2.png

Image:WikiFunctions2.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kingboyk (notify | contribs).

No enough info, I think that's .NET. it copyright. OsamaK 11:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a object diagram of components of User:kingboyks Wikifunctions 2. This has now all been merged into WikiFunctions.dll. It is not copyright to MS or anyone, as the components are those of kingboyk's, but it may be an un-needed image due to the merge. Reedy Boy 12:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It incorporates GUI design from Microsoft Visual Studio, unless someone can convince me that those icons and stuff are not copyrighted. howcheng {chat} 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Bring radicals cartoon.png

Unencyclopedic. This low-quality cartoon is only used on a single page, on which it is neither informative nor funny. I can't really think of a purpose for this other than that the creator may like it to have his art on Wikpieda. >Radiant< 12:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cartoon is informative; the pun reinforces the idea that radicals are not sufficient to express the solutions of a quintic in closed form. The many detractors of this cartoon do not seem to understand the meaning of the cartoon nor the material in the article Bring radical; on the other hand, a number of mathematicians (subject matter experts) myself included, do think it's appropriate.
I'm also copying here the previous discussion on IfD for this image (or, rather, its virtual copy). See also Talk:Bring radical and Talk:Quintic equation. This image has been getting far more attention than it really should. Lunch 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 27#Cartoon at Bring radical. Lunch 16:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the cartoon is not informative, the caption is informative. >Radiant< 09:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you're trying to convince me (and others), you'll have to do better than one line statements. So far you've only made two bald assertions with no support.
      Can I ask what brought your attention to this article in the first place? For someone out of their league in the subject matter, it seems an odd place to start. Was it the RfA for Booyabazooka? Lunch 22:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You know, that's the second time you're implying that people who disagree with you must therefore not know what they're talking about. That's not particularly civil. I don't see how it's relevant, but I found the article in a cleanup category. >Radiant< 08:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lunch, CyborgTosser and previous discussions. --Knulclunk 16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion

Image:Bring radicals cartoon.PNG - unencyclopedic. Also, not funny. -℘yrop (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is funny. Besides, it does actually serve a pedagogical purpose in that it, on first reading, seems to contradict a known fact about solving quintics, but then after the pun is recognized, emphasizes distinction between types of solvability. --C S (Talk) 07:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no fugly drawings on Wikipedia, please. I'd not take serious an encyclopedia article with that sort of illustration. Also not funny for those lacking an university education in math, i.e. 99% of the world. Sandstein 14:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is in use on someone's page, I see no harm in keeping it. Weatherman90 17:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it says: "No pages link to here." Sandstein 18:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check again. User:CyborgTosser

Oh, now I see. I looked here. Still, I think it's just not done well enough to illustrate a scientific article. If you just want to keep it on your user page, no problem. Sandstein 07:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually me who said "Check again", my signature got misplaced somehow. You must have read the userpage link that I pasted on there as a signature. The user who has it on his page has yet to comment. Weatherman90 16:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To summarize my comments on Talk:Quintic equation, 1. silly cartoons are found in serious encyclopedias (although I admit, not often except in articles about cartoons or humor), 2. low-quality silly cartoons of this sort are often seen in math/science magazines accompanying articles similar to the ones this cartoon has been used in (was in Quintic equation, now in Bring radical). I seriously doubt that the presence of a cartoon would make many readers with a serious interest in a math article take the article less seriously, as the same group of people would likely have seen similar cartoons in similar contexts elsewhere. Also, so what if 99% of people in the world wouldn't get the pun; 99% of people in the world won't read the article. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 19:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. The image is properly licensed and the question of whether to use it in the Bring radical article is an editorial decision best left to Talk:Bring radical. howcheng {chat} 17:57, 15 August 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This image is not needed to convey the role Natalie Imbruglia plays in the film. That could easily be done with a sentence or two. As such, the image is purely decorative. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:French_DVD_cover_of_Johnny_English.jpg

Image:French_DVD_cover_of_Johnny_English.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Garik 11 (notify | contribs).

Non-free movie poster being used only to show that Natalie Imbruglia appeared in it. Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First off, it is not a movie poster, but a DVD cover accompanied by a fair use rationale. I am sure that it does significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, since it illustrates the kind of role Imbruglia plays in this James Bond parody film (i.e. "Bond girl") and how she plays it alongside Rowan Atkinson, in a way any text cannot. Garik 11 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is not necessary for the understanding of a discussion about Ms. Imbruglia's role on this movie. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:39, 6 August 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Mirusuvil_victims_burial.jpeg

Image:Mirusuvil_victims_burial.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Taprobanus (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free image showing a burial site of the exhumed bodies, used to illustrate the information that such site existed. It doens't help on the reader's understanding of the article in a way that words alone can not. Abu badali ^(talk) 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because in this massacre and mass grave case, the alleged perpetrators denied ever commiting these crimes. The fact that the bodies were found and reburied illustrates the finality of the massacre and the subsequant mass grave although the court case still pending as is usual in Sri Lanka. Thanks Taprobanus 20:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- luckily, we don't have to. As not every "little detail" on this image contains encyclopedic information. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wish I'd stop seeing encyclopedic being misused so often on wikipedia, did you know that half the results on google for encyclopedic are to do with wikipedia? Anyway, getting back on track.... encyclopedic is defined as "comprehensive" also "broad in scope or content". If anything, this seems to be the opposite of what you were trying to say. Because you were wishing to instead narrow down the scope and content of the article, making it less comprehensive. Mathmo ^Talk 20:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may want to propose the removal of the term "encyclopedic" from our policy. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mathmo Harlowraman 00:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need to see a picture of a grave to understand that one exists. And if it's still there, then this is a replaceable non-free image. howcheng {chat} 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image deleted. Does not add significantly to the article and is replaceable with a free image. -Nv8200p talk 02:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chrd_with_mirusuvil_victims.jpeg

Image:Chrd_with_mirusuvil_victims.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Taprobanus (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free image showing some people meeting, used to show "the reaction ofthe civil society of Sri lanka" towards a massacre. It's not necessary for the understanding of the topic. Abu badali ^(talk) 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because the image illustrates the civic society's role including buddhist monks (apparently belonging to the majority Sinhalese ethnic group) being involved in assuring the case was heard and the victims compensated. Considering the conflict is between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils, it is an impartant picture. Thanks Taprobanus 20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Taprobanus Harlowraman 00:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a useful image, but not a necessary one. The idea that Buddhist monks were involved in the effort is adequately explained via text. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Still_In_Love_Cap.JPG

Image:Still_In_Love_Cap.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ratizi1 (notify | contribs).

Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PhaserFunctions.gif

Image:PhaserFunctions.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheJosh (notify | contribs).

Unused, We can replace it with text, I think we do not need it. OsamaK 15:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used in multiple user boxes. No reason to delete. --Knulclunk 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can replace it with text in all user boxes. that's easy in HTML.--OsamaK 18:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm bad in HTML ;), but what do you think about this--OsamaK 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
then replace it in all the user boxes first, be sure that the box does not fall apart in different browsers or text size settings.--Knulclunk 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, this image unused in anyway.--OsamaK 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flaws_&_All_Cap.JPG

Image:Flaws_&_All_Cap.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ratizi1 (notify | contribs).

Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kitty_Kat_Cap.JPG

Image:Kitty_Kat_Cap.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ratizi1 (notify | contribs).

Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Freakum-dress.jpg

Image:Freakum-dress.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Noboyo (notify | contribs).

Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Angels_screenshot_WT.jpg

Image:Angels_screenshot_WT.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Electric Storm89 (notify | contribs).

Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sasha and soo 2.jpg

Image:Sasha and soo 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LXSushi (notify | contribs).

uploader only edit was to his userpage, that got deleted. this user probably left. — -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1360137468 l.jpg

uploader only edit was to his userpage, that got deleted. this user probably left. — -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Claude_nicollier_ESA.jpg

Image:Claude_nicollier_ESA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nova77 (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free image, used solely to identify Mr. Nicollier. We have a free image, Image:Claude Nicollier.jpg, which sufficiently identifies him. Iamunknown 16:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Westgorg.gif

Image:Westgorg.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Greenmountainboy (notify | contribs).

1. The image is tiny. 2. Its copyright status is disputed. 3. It can be considered superseded by Image:George Westinghouse.jpg (which is known to be PD). — WhiteTimberwolf 17:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, commons image showing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DailyDownload.jpg

Image:DailyDownload.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ashenasylum (notify | contribs).

Non-free screenshot of a musician performing on tv, used solely to illustrate the information that she performed on tv, and to show what she looks like. Abu badali ^(talk) 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Can you explain only with words what she looks like? Nope. Mathmo ^Talk 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but a free image could be found or created to show what she looks like. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Democracyplayer.png

Image:Democracyplayer.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eloquence (notify | contribs).

Orphan image claimed to be free, but containg parts of potentially copyrighted material. Abu badali ^(talk) 17:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, screen shots are allowed. This doesn't mean it is breaking any copyrights. Besides, Democracy Player is released under GPL. Seriously now, what is the problem?? Mathmo ^Talk 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently it's orphaned, but I think it would be useful in future expansions (the history does not show major encouragement, however). ALTON .ıl 00:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Microsoft_logo.png

Image:Microsoft_logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zzyzx11 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, replaced by Image:Microsoft logo.svg Abu badali ^(talk) 17:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - superseded. ALTON .ıl 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Abu Badali Harlowraman 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:World-champions-cup-75.jpg

Image:World-champions-cup-75.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by THUGCHILDz (notify | contribs).

Non-free image showing an athlete holding a trophy, used to illustrate the info that he won that trophy. It doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ample precedent for this. A picture of the person holding a trophy is not necessary to understand that he won it. howcheng {chat} 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kapil_Dev.gif

Image:Kapil_Dev.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IndianCow (notify | contribs).

Non-free image showing an athlete holding a trophy, used (in 6 articles!) to illustrate the info that he won that trophy. It doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Also, there's no copyright info (source is a geocites page).Abu badali ^(talk) 18:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mathmo. Harlowraman 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ample precedent for this. A picture of the person holding a trophy is not necessary to understand that he won it. howcheng {chat} 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image deleted. Source is geocities.com which is invalid as the image is a really a BBC picture. The image was just being used in a decorative manner in 5 different articles. -Nv8200p talk 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AUSTRALIA_WIN_WC03.jpg

Image:AUSTRALIA_WIN_WC03.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by THUGCHILDz (notify | contribs).

Non-free image showing a team holding a trophy, used to illustrate the info that they won that trophy. It doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 18:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ample precedent for this. A picture of a team holding a trophy is not necessary to understand that they won it. howcheng {chat} 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:99_world_cup.jpg

Image:99_world_cup.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by THUGCHILDz (notify | contribs).

Non-free image showing some athletes holding a trophy, used to illustrate the info that they won that trophy. It doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Also, the image is from Sports Illustrated, and our replaces the original market role for the image. Abu badali ^(talk) 18:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ample precedent for this. A picture of a team holding a trophy is not necessary to understand that they won it. howcheng {chat} 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:E-goat2.jpg

Image:E-goat2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jebediah springfield (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencylopedic (the page it was used on was deleted a few months ago). --- RockMFR 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - orphan. ALTON .ıl 00:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ALittleBitOfLove.jpg

Image:ALittleBitOfLove.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Artemisboy (notify | contribs).

Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I fail to see how you could replace all the little details in an image efficiently with text. Mathmo ^Talk 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for 14 months the uploader has failed to give a rationale. ALTON .ıl 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the image is unnecessary in A Little Bit of Love, and a free alternative could be created for Jazzmun. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Speedy closed, the image is hosted at Commons, and any further discussion should occur at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tankini2.jpg. --Iamunknown 06:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tankini2.jpg

Image:Tankini2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Test-tools (notify | contribs).

Violates WP:Profanity. This image misrepresents tankinis — Me5000 20:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention it's being used for this page Tankini Me5000 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Nominator claims it violates WP:Profanity, yet if anything it weakens the nominator's case for deletions (if it is even possible to weaken a non-existent case). What they should have cited is: "Wikipedia is not censored", it is policy. Which yet again does nothing for showing a reason for deletion. It appears this image has been nominator purely out of a wish to censor wikipedia. Mathmo ^Talk 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean any article can have profane images. It is not typical of Tankinis to be see-through, which makes the image inappropriate for the article. Me5000 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out List of sex positions. Neither threesomes or double penetration are typical sex positions when the average person has sex. With your logic, all those images ought to be deleted.... clearly to do that is nonsense. Mathmo ^Talk 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not just about the picture not being typical, it's offensive to some people, and it's on a page that shouldn't contain offensive images. With the sex positions page people know they might be offended, and they know exactly what's going to be there. Me5000 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd like to see proof the webpeople "released it as" CC, and know what that is. ALTON .ıl 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

meh, "proof".... what would that be to you? Anyway, you can see the article talk page for discussion of this where it was stated permission was given. Mathmo ^Talk 02:18, 7 August 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Taxco.jpg

Image:Taxco.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by iudesigns (notify | contribs).

Seems like a copyvio'ed image. Advised on IRC to list here. — Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think it's ironic to claim copyright and simultaneously assume PD. Also, images should not have watermarks (according to policy). ALTON .ıl 00:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader also uploaded Image:Taxco2.jpg - same tagging and watermarks. --- RockMFR 00:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]