Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 May 16

< May 15	May 17 >

May 16

Image:Mamintb.PNG

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.

Not deleted. This is not an issue for IFD. Consensus to keep or remove the image from the article should be done at Talk:Mammary intercourse. If it's removed, it can be deleted for being an orphan. howcheng {chat} 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mamintb.PNG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by multiple (notify | contribs).

Self-drawn picture of questionable artistic and informative value. Wikipedia is not picture gallery. — `'mikka 16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. It adds to the article in question, making it obvious exactly what the sexual practice is, and there is very little chance we could have a better, freely usable picture illustrating mammary intercourse.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would *perhaps* be worth keeping if the person being titty-fucked didn't look so much like a transsexual and there were not semen squirting all over the place. It's not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of good taste. Bueller 007 12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I created a more reasonable modified version of the image, but it kept getting reverted by a single person on the grounds that the semen was somehow essential. I gave up trying to fix the image due to the constant resistance of that individual to any changes to the image. Neitherday 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think whether the person looks transsexual is particularly relevant (MTF trannies can be titty-fucked too). However... (see vote below). Joie de Vivre 01:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This image is in 2 articles dealing with non-penetrative sex. It is the only image in mammary intercourse. Other photographic images have been got rid of (helped by the argument that this one made them unnecessary) and now this one is to be censored away. Wikipedia is not censored (or at least it is not supposed to be!). Removing content from pages not dealing with non-sexual subjects is considered vanadlism - with sex pages there's a permanently avilable pretext. The sex pages (especially those dealing with safe sex) are an important first source of information with links leading to sex education websites. We should work to improve the clarity and factual accuracy of these pages. --Simon Speed 11:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: The quality of this illustration is really, really bad. It looks like an after-hours version of pixellated 50s pulp fiction. The woman's nipples look like suction cups, the image lacks any suggestion of shading or depth; the coloring is garish and unrealistic; it's just awful. She looks like Jessica Rabbit on bad acid. I have no objection to a high-quality illustration of mammary intercourse. The purpose of such an image is to provide an encyclopedic diagram of the subject. However, this image is so bad that it is worse than having nothing. The quality of this image is unbefitting of our encyclopedia. Delete. Joie de Vivre 01:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep unless and until a better image is provided. So it'll never be a featured image. So what? It's still free and serves a useful purpose. I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a lot of less-than-stellar images on Wikipedia since we started purging replaceable-fair-use images. Xtifr _tälk 10:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep free image, illustrates the idea nicely. People looking at this article are reading about sex anyway, a nice picture won't warp their minds any more. Nardman1 20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator's objection was to this drawing's "questionable artistic and informative value", not to it's danger to anyone's mind. Joie de Vivre 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever looked at erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum? Mankind has explored its sexuality through bad art for millenia. It's only Judeo-Christian thinking which would label this as questionable. Yes, it's kind of crudely drawn. Yes, it's not the awesomest picture. But it's freely licensed. It carries on the highest tradition of exploration of human sexuality through bad art. It represents everything that is coy and playful and joyous of the bedroom. It strikes the very soul of our human being. See also Wp:nor#Original_images: "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles". -N 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "It strikes the very soul of our human being." is a bit of a hyperbolic in regards to a titty wank picture. Neitherday 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ugh. There is nothing majestic or universal about this crappy drawing. The only way it "struck into my soul" was like a pebble in my shoe. Joie de Vivre 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would only defend this image as a technical illustration. I agree that art is good, but it may be neither necessary nor sufficient to convey information. --Simon Speed 20:50, 25 May 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:Oj420x60.gif

Image:Oj420x60.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Cumbrowski (notify | contribs).

Orphaned because Image:Roy SAC banner.png made this image obsolete. PNG crusade bot 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pads.jpg

Image:Pads.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Oman4now (notify | contribs).

Image is part of non-notable article mainly for vanity — Janarius 01:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blood_004.jpg

Image:Blood_004.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Aiden6 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, insuficcient context to determine encyclopedic value, user's sole contribution Iamunknown 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ritahayworth4.jpg

Image:Ritahayworth4.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Philbertgray (notify | contribs).

There is no critical commentary in the article about this film screenshot, thus failing WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Docedeleite.jpg

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

Possible Copyright violation. It's an unsourced image only "believed" to be in the public domain. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Themonitors.png

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

Replaced with a smaller sized version at Image:Themonitors Archive.jpg in view of this guideline. This leaves this png file effectively orphaned. — J Greb 07:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your replacement as it was impossible to see any detail, image is now again in use. --Basique 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Allssdcu0.png

Image:Allssdcu0.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Basique (notify | contribs).

Replaced with a smaller sized version at Image:Allssdcu0.jpg in view of this guideline. This leaves this png file effectively orphaned. — J Greb 07:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Atom.jpg

Image:Atom.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by John M. (notify | contribs).

Image has been removed from use as it was taken directly from another encyclopedia or encyclopedia-like publication as per this guideline. — J Greb 07:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aquaman - Gleason.jpg

Image:Aquaman - Gleason.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Lesfer (notify | contribs).

Image has been removed from use as it was taken directly from another encyclopedia or encyclopedia-like publication as per this guideline. — J Greb 07:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tiger_shark_caught_in_bay(1).jpg

Image:Tiger_shark_caught_in_bay(1).jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by HogPig (notify | contribs).

Doctored from Image:Tiger_shark_caught_in_bay.jpg for vandalism resons, only used in one page, to replace original picture. Suggest speedy, but vandalism pictures is not reson for speedy, but it does not fulfill copyright clause either ... — Stefan 09:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Quidditch Pitch Dimensions.PNG

Image:Quidditch Pitch Dimensions.PNG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Curlyjimsam (notify | contribs).

Non-commercial — Pagra shtak 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Odense 002.jpg

Image:Odense 002.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Twthmoses (notify | contribs).

Non-derivative, replaceable. — Pagra shtak 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why delete an image, - that yes can be relaced, but does not yet have one? Is this deleting images for the sake of deleting images? What is the purpose of deleting it? Twthmoses 08:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "The following conditions must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives. Please list this image for deletion if they do." and the terms that follow prohibit derivitive workes. Since the image is replacable, an alternative should be found. Neitherday 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. see comment above. Neitherday 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Odense 004.jpg

Image:Odense 004.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Twthmoses (notify | contribs).

Non-derivative, replaceable. — Pagra shtak 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why delete an image, - that yes can be relaced, but does not yet have one? Is this deleting images for the sake of deleting images? What is the purpose of deleting it? Twthmoses 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "The following conditions must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives. Please list this image for deletion if they do." and the terms that follow prohibit derivitive workes. Since the image is replacable, an alternative should be found. Neitherday 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. see comment above. Neitherday 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GRDilley (1).jpg

Image:GRDilley (1).jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ghangro (notify | contribs).

"I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GRDilley (2).jpg

Image:GRDilley (2).jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ghangro (notify | contribs).

"I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GRDilley (7).jpg

Image:GRDilley (7).jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ghangro (notify | contribs).

"I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GRDilley (8).jpg

Image:GRDilley (8).jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ghangro (notify | contribs).

"I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GRDilley (9).jpg

Image:GRDilley (9).jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ghangro (notify | contribs).

"I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GRDilley (10).jpg

Image:GRDilley (10).jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ghangro (notify | contribs).

"I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GRDilley (11).jpg

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

"I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unencyclopedic, very low quality.- Punkmorten 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Me1sdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf.jpg

Image:Me1sdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Kzip2005 (notify | contribs).

Orphan, unencyclopedic — – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree. Punkmorten 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:106006774 f03b4b4b07 s.jpg

Image:106006774 f03b4b4b07 s.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Littledaniel 93 (notify | contribs).

Dubious free use claim. Seems like the image is cropped.- Punkmorten 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Madison_Steigerwald-_50th_Anniversary,_Disneyland_(July_17_2005).jpg

Image:Madison_Steigerwald-_50th_Anniversary,_Disneyland_(July_17_2005).jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mkm156 (notify | contribs).

Absent uploader, Orphaned, Unencyclopedic hbdragon88 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mally.JPG

Image:Mally.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by DJ Bob Hoskins (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic, user's only upload was this picture hbdragon88 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Medinetindia.JPG

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

Clearly not GFDL, summary is spammy. Orphaned, Absent uploader (no contrib except for the image uploader), unencyclopedic hbdragon88 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mario thomas.jpg

Image:Mario thomas.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mariothomas (notify | contribs).

Unencylcopedic, personal photo, absent Uploader hbdragon88 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Maxim Baird.jpg

Image:Maxim Baird.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ufish (notify | contribs).

Image:Mehmetalioytun.jpg

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

OR, UE, personal photo, AU hbdragon88 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MercedesAshley.jpg

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

Personal pic, UE, OR, AU hbdragon88 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looks like it should be used on Mercedes Ashley, but on the other hand, I suspect that there's reason to doubt whether it's really GDFL. Still, it might be worth some further investigation. Xtifr _tälk 10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, now I see the misplaced comment on the image below. Yup, ugly watermark, so delete. Xtifr _tälk 20:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Memeg.JPG

Image:Memeg.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Danman007 (notify | contribs).

No evidence that it is GFDL licensed. Watermark in the upper left had corner violates image policy. hbdragon88 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any watermark, but this is clearly unsourced and encyclopedic. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 07:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right-o. This reason was written for image:MercedesAshley.jpg above, which does have a watermark. For some erason, I swapped them. hbdragon88 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Merritt shield lowres.jpg

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.

Not deleted. However, I'm a little concerned there may be copyright issues with the shield's design in play as well. howcheng {chat} 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Merritt shield lowres.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Polaron (notify | contribs).

Blurry, out of focus, low-quality image hbdragon88 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is to show the trailblazer used on the Merritt Parkway. An svg shield will be made soon (hopefully) to replace it. But until then, the article would be better off with an image of the shield. --Polaron | Talk 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was the shield until Connecticut re-signed it with new shields that look slightly different. It is now irreplaceable. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 07:51, 17 May 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.