Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < January 23 | January 25 > |
|---|
January 24
[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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sbmp2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pork davis (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic. The item that the image is being used to illustrate is in the bottom of the image with no detail visible, and the main subject is four individuals posing for a photo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The "item" that the image is being used to illustrate is the park itself. - Nellis 15:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the caption in the article: "Sonny Bono admirers gathered around the plaque with park in background." The boys are not only the subject of the photo, but also of the caption, which confirms the unencyclopedic nature of the photo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So if the caption were instead, "The entrance to the park," the picture would become encyclopedic, even though it's the same picture? If your complaint is with the caption, change the caption! - Nellis 15:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope - the caption just confirms the unsalvageably unencyclopedic nature of the photo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The caption is changeable and irrelevant. The picture is the only one of the park on Wikipedia as far as I am aware. The article (and Wikipedia) would be worsened by its deletion. - Nellis 13:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a good reason to keep the picture around, since the image is readily replaceable with one of equal or better quality. If it weren't for the fact that it's 30 and snowy out, I could go out on my lunch hour, grab a photo of the landmark, come back, and have it on Wikipedia that evening. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's easier to tear down than it is to build up, eh? - Nellis 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a good reason to keep the picture around, since the image is readily replaceable with one of equal or better quality. If it weren't for the fact that it's 30 and snowy out, I could go out on my lunch hour, grab a photo of the landmark, come back, and have it on Wikipedia that evening. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The caption is changeable and irrelevant. The picture is the only one of the park on Wikipedia as far as I am aware. The article (and Wikipedia) would be worsened by its deletion. - Nellis 13:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope - the caption just confirms the unsalvageably unencyclopedic nature of the photo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So if the caption were instead, "The entrance to the park," the picture would become encyclopedic, even though it's the same picture? If your complaint is with the caption, change the caption! - Nellis 15:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the caption in the article: "Sonny Bono admirers gathered around the plaque with park in background." The boys are not only the subject of the photo, but also of the caption, which confirms the unencyclopedic nature of the photo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is the only image of the park in wikipedia, as such, it enhances the article. Lorax (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not unreasonable that someone else would be able to go into the park and take another photo. This photo is unencyclopedic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone does go take a better picture of the park then we can talk about removing this one. Until that time, this is the best one available to us and adds to the article. Lorax (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a photo of a bunch of boys posing does not add to the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, there is a lot of useful information in the image that isn't in the article, and much of it is better conveyed through a picture than through text. For instance, the the shape of the plaque and how it is mounted, the design of the wrought iron fence and where it is located, how the benches look (I never would have guessed they were square), and the environment surrounding the park and how it fits in. By all means, when the snow melts go add some pictures of your own. The article would be enhanced by having several pictures illustrating different aspects of the park. You have failed to convince me of the necessity of removing the image before suitable replacements are found. Lorax (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are multiple images on Commons that more than adequately illustrate Sonny Bono Park. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, there is a lot of useful information in the image that isn't in the article, and much of it is better conveyed through a picture than through text. For instance, the the shape of the plaque and how it is mounted, the design of the wrought iron fence and where it is located, how the benches look (I never would have guessed they were square), and the environment surrounding the park and how it fits in. By all means, when the snow melts go add some pictures of your own. The article would be enhanced by having several pictures illustrating different aspects of the park. You have failed to convince me of the necessity of removing the image before suitable replacements are found. Lorax (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a photo of a bunch of boys posing does not add to the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone does go take a better picture of the park then we can talk about removing this one. Until that time, this is the best one available to us and adds to the article. Lorax (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not unreasonable that someone else would be able to go into the park and take another photo. This photo is unencyclopedic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unencyclopedic image. Someone can reasonably go to the park and take a better photo. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unencyclopedic image. Furthermore, text which is supposed to be on the plaque is illegible. If there is a higher res version of the photo, it may be possible to crop out the people to indicate some of the points brought up above. – Bu gee (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as UE and now orphaned. - File:Sbmp.jpg is a duplicate and should also go. I've replaced the image in the article with a free one from flickr that far better shows the park - Peripitus (Talk) 01:39, 30 January 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.
- 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 - Use of the image this way, per Papa November, falls into one of the listed unacceptable uses in WP:NFCC - Peripitus (Talk) 01:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFC violation: Non-free album cover being used to illustrate appearance of the
musicianauthor. The actual use of the image in the article makes no mention of the album Papa November (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- If you had read the article you would have noticed that Schifter was not a musician. On the CD he talks about his life, and the article is about his life. This is just for the record—I don't want to stand in the way of your happiness. <KF> 15:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reply. I have changed the wording above. The point is, that a non-free image of an album cover is being used to illustrate text about something other than the album (i.e. the man on the cover). Papa November (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had read the article you would have noticed that Schifter was not a musician. On the CD he talks about his life, and the article is about his life. This is just for the record—I don't want to stand in the way of your happiness. <KF> 15:26, 24 January 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.
- 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⚡ 02:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing at source to suggest this is creative commons licensed. Papa November (talk) 13:06, 24 January 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.
- 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⚡ 02:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned. Intended use unknown. DavidDCM (talk) 17:53, 24 January 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.