Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30

[edit]

DubeeHapp.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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DubeeHapp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Killervogel5 (notify | contribs).
  • Duplicate of DubeeKendrick.jpg. Player was misidentified on original upload. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned. Also picture does not seem very useful since none of the people's faces can be seen. It could be used in some article on baseball but even then it does not seem like a good choice. Photographer should keep going and upload some pictures of players from better angles.Steve Dufour (talk)
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.

DSCN0741.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 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSCN0741.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aw41285 (notify | contribs).
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.

Rainmusicvideo.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: Speedy delete per CSD:G7 as the uploader supports deletion. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rainmusicvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
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.

Pandas and ppl.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: - Keep - Note that long-standing consensus tends to allow a single cover image in an article on a book. The use in the ID article or not is another matter that will not be decided in a deletion debate. Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pandas and ppl.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Duncharris (notify | contribs).
  • Copyright violation as currently used on Intelligent design John (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Image is clearly useful and justified on the main article; debates about its suitability on intelligent design belong on the article talk page. Even if that use is determined to not be justified, the file should not be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Picture is copyrighted. WP readers have no special need to know, or even interest in, what the cover of a book looks like. If the cover has been discussed in a reliable secondary source then it could be mentioned in the article: "The cover of the book has a photograph of a giant panda. This has been said to be..." Steve Dufour (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you do not believe that the use of a book cover on an article about the book is useful without commentary relating to the cover itself? We have an awful lot of featured articles about books that use their cover without extensive discussion of them, probably even more featured articles on films and albums that use covers without discussion... Should all of those files be deleted? J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe WP policy says that a copyrighted picture should only be used if it is useful for readers to understand the topic. In this case the issue seems to be controversial so I'd say be more strict about policy, but if you want to nominate any others for deletion please let me know and I will vote to delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I would much rather see a discussion somewhere about what the whole deal is. That would be much more interesting and informative than just seeing the picture of the book cover. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing a cover of a book in an article about the book (and only the book) is beneficial- I would have thought that that was fairly uncontroversial. Book covers are the primary means of advertising and displaying a book, and are also useful for means of identification. If we are to cut back on non-free images, I would say book covers would be one of the last things to go. Increasing a readers' understanding of a topic takes more than simply showing images that have been described- what you're talking about here is a massive change of practice. Note that the NFCC do not specify that images need to be discussed; it's just a useful measure of how significant an image is. For instance, I would not expect appearances to be discussed when images are being used as a primary means of identification on an article about what they portray (covers of various sorts, logos, dead people, demolished buildings, etc). The use on the article about the book is not a controversial case, and removing it would obviously damage the article. It is the other use that is controversial, and deleting the image is not the answer, as the image itself should be kept for the other article. If you believe it should be removed from intelligent design, go and discuss the issue on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fully justified fair use in full accordance with image use policy, this appears to be a WP:POINTy dispute about use of the image on an article about the subject, with citation to a reliable source about the significance of the book cover, in addition to the well justified use on an article about the book itself. Neither instance is a copyright violation, both meet fair use standards and the additional standards of image use policy. . dave souza, talk 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the book cover discussed in the article? Steve Dufour (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with sources that describe its relevance.Quietmarc (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the discussion or the sources. Where are they, please? --John (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any. There's just one self-publish source giving the opinion that the book cover was "glossy", and this image is supposedly used in our article so that readers can understand it's "glossy". --Damiens.rf 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has also been discussed, ad nauseum, on the talk page, with a consensus to keep (supported and justified as per dave souza's comments above). Quietmarc (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, Quietmarc, if you can show me where the consensus to keep was agreed or determined by a neutral third-party, I will gladly withdraw this FFD. If on the other hand you are unable to show this, I request that you strike the part of your comment which refers to consensus above. Thanks either way. --John (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assure you there's no such consensus. What there is, indeed, is a strategy to always respond to inteligent-design's nfcc questions with "this has been discussed before, see the archives", but all you see in the archives are other replies like "this has been discussed before...". --Damiens.rf 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't matter. You can argue all you like that the image doesn't belong there, and maybe you're right, maybe you aren't. But, seriously, how can you argue that an image of the book's cover is not justified in an article about the book? J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't argued that. But still, IFD discussion may decide that an image may only be used on this or that article, what I believe would be the outcome here. --Damiens.rf 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's not the purpose of IfD. Any decision as such could hardly be considered binding. There are pages and pages of discussion, a quick vote on the wrong venue cannot decide what should be done. J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • IFD is the de facto venue for discussing nfcc issues on images, and decisions here are surely binding. --Damiens.rf 19:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Erm, no. We're not a bureaucracy, there is a long history of discussion on the image talk page regarding this issue. Even if it was part of the purpose of this page to judge the validity of specific uses, in this case, it would not be valid, as there is already so much discussion. Can you not see the serious issue with that? This page is for discussing whether an image needs to be deleted. If it doesn't, it should be kept. Simple. Whether an image is included in an article is a matter for editorial judgement and discussion on the article talk page. Whether an image is kept on the project is a matter for this page. J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - absolutely qualifies under WP:FU for Of Pandas and People, it's a book cover being used on a page about the book. Whether it should be on intelligent design is a separate question that does not mean it should be deleted from wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to see an article on "Cover art of creationist books" so that I could understand what the issues involved are.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remove from intelligent design as failing WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is the "good guys" in this case are bullying the "bad guys." (So in general no one cares to step in to defend the "bad guys.")Steve Dufour (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: file has clear and valid "purpose of use" statements justifying both usages. Nominator has never challenged these statements on file talk, but rather has repeatedly placed illegitimate templates to have the file deleted ([1][2][3] -- which templates require, for the file to be kept, "an appropriate non-free use rationale, such as Template:Non-free use rationale" which was already in place). Nominator's claim of "Copyright violation as currently used on Intelligent design", is a bare, unsubstantiated, and thus worthless, assertion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per JMilburn (and Hrafn ;-) ). We've got an article on the book, showing a picture of the book there seems quite justified. As to the other place, argue it out there, it's certainly not worth deleting the image entirely. --GRuban (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No evidence whatsoever was put forward in support of the proposition that it might be a copyvio. But either way, low resolution cover images such as this are used all the time; in the US (where WP's servers are located), the case law unequivocally, unambiguously holds such uses are protected under the First Amendment w.r.t. even remotely relevant critical commentary. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's quite standard to have an image of the book on an article about the book. R. Baley (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am not sure if people are having trouble reading the nom further up the page but my issue is not the use on the article about the book. It is within the power of this forum to restrict the use of this file to that one proper instance of fair use ("minimum use") and rule the other use as what it is, an abuse of a copyright image. This indeed is the outcome I seek here. --John (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No trouble reading at all. This page is for image deletion. It is not for restricting forums. If you don't want the image used in a different article, that should be discussed (again) on the talk page to find if there's a consensus to remove. The only outcome of this page discussion is "delete image" or "keep image". R. Baley (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Far too much of this discussion is about whether this image should be used on various articles. That is the business of the talk pages of the articles concerned. No good reason for deletion has been given. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about that it's copyrighted? I think that's a good reason to delete it. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I very much dislike people telling me what I think.Steve Dufour (talk)
Here are two valid reasons: It is copyrighted by an organization (the Foundation for Thought and Ethics) that might decide to sue WP. It has no educational value since it is just a picture of the cover of a book which can be described in words. ("It's a picture of a giant panda.") Steve Dufour (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are invalid reasons because: adequate fair use rationale has been given, and adequate rationale has also been given for the image's use. As I stated, this is a malformed proposal. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. I think they are both valid reasons to delete the image. It is not in line with WP's purpose, which is to be a resource for education. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Amatulic, point me to this "massive consensus" will you? I read the relevant discussions carefully and couldn't see it.--John (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; there is no dispute that one of the uses is consistent with the WP:NFCC policy, and there is general agreement (albeit with notable dissent) that the second use is consistent with policy. Guettarda (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that any use of this copyrighted image with no educational value is consistant with the spirit of WP's policies. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2009 (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.

Northwest N467US.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 - the nomination reason is that the image does not significantly add to reader's understanding. While the aircraft may be important I am not convinced by those seeking to keep the image that consensus shows it meeting this criteria (#8) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Northwest N467US.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dream out loud (notify | contribs).
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.

DBCooper article.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: As several point out, this fails NFCC#3 and #8, even if cropped.

File:DBCooper article.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hugh W308 (notify | contribs).
On a part-related note, the tag on the image leads to a caption on the image on the article, but the link it includes links to the default FFD page, not the dated page, is there anyway to fix this? Eg at D. B. Cooper the image tagged for deletion links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#DBCooper_article.jpg not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_30#DBCooper_article.jpg Bigger digger (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2009 (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.

Eminemprofile.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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eminemprofile.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kingcartwright (notify | contribs).
  • Delete Copyrighted. If people want to see what Enimem looks like nowdays provide a link to his own site.Steve Dufour (talk)

(Note: This discussion was restored after being removed by Kingcartwright (talk · contribs)) Do U(knome)? yes...or no 08:09, 1 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_30&oldid=1138516165"