Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 29
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < January 28 | January 30 > |
|---|
January 29
[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⚡ 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UE, personal photo (of uploader?) RedWolf (talk) 06:06, 29 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: The result was delete per our non-free use policies. rootology (C)(T) 03:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vampires Will Never Hurt You back cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zntrip (notify | contribs).
- Back cover of an album - of which there is already a non-free image in the article. The rationale does not address this image but is just the boilerplate one for all album covers. Having this back cover does not significantly increase reader's understanding - fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 06:26, 29 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: The result was delete per our non-free use policies. rootology (C)(T) 03:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Get Right UK CD 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Funk Junkie (notify | contribs).
- Alternate album cover in an article with another non-free image that is almost to identical to this one. The only differences is the text (Jennifer Lopez) and the contents sticker. Can be replaced with the free text "The UK CD 2 cover used the same artwork, but with her name printed and and orange contents sticker" - fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 06:29, 29 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: The result was delete per our non-free use policies. rootology (C)(T) 03:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jennifer Lopez - I'm Glad DVD single cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Funk Junkie (notify | contribs).
- DVD single cover that is almost identical to the lead non-free image in the article. The very small differences can be adequately described with a short piece of free text. Fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternate (also NFCC#3a and 8) Peripitus (Talk) 06:30, 29 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: The result was delete per our non-free use policies. rootology (C)(T) 03:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jennifer Lopez - I'm Gonna Be Alright 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Funk Junkie (notify | contribs).
- European double A-side CD single cover that is close to identical to that already in the article. The artwork is the same and the small text difference can easily be described in text. As replaceable with a free alternate (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 06:38, 29 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: Wrong forum. The image is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mughals.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Electionworld (notify | contribs).
- It is anachronistic and the boundaries shown extend further than they actually were. For example when the Mughals made a southern push into Andhra, several of the Northern parts had been lost to the Marathas and the Sikhs. Although the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Nawabs of the Carnatic had Mughal origins (later to become independant), the Mysore Kingdom of Hyder Ali and Tippu Sultan were not connected to the Mughals (Hyder Ali having come from a poor background rose to prominence in the Mysore Army). Although they established Muslim kingdoms, they were not Mughals. The Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of Carnatic territories can be added to the image provided that the date is before when they achieved independence. To do otherwise would be like including the map of India and parts of the United States on a map of the current British Territories. Furthermore, the southward push of the Mughals did not reach further than Bangalore (in the image the extent is shown as far as Trissur where the Mughals never even stepped foot in, where even Tippu Sultan barely reached). The common procedure in making images of empires is to represent the greatest extent of the empire at a given time (in this case would be under the rule of Aurangzeb). I think this would be the most historically accurate and unbiased depiction. Nizaat Z (talk) 06:42, 29 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: The result was delete per our non-free use policies. rootology (C)(T) 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jennifer Lopez - Jenny From The Block - CD 2 cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Funk Junkie (notify | contribs).
- CD 2 cover in an article with CD1 cover already in the lead. The two covers use identical artwork - except for the colour - and some text that is close to invisible in thumbnail size. This image can be replaced with the text "CD 2 has the same artwork as CD1 though the color was changed to yellow and the featuring artist text removed" - as replaceable with a free alternate this image fails WP:NFCC#1 - and also WP:NFCC#8 (does not significantly increase reader's understanding) and WP:NFCC#3a (unneccessary use of extra non-free content) Peripitus (Talk) 06:43, 29 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. Fails WP:NFCC #8. The image of the mill is not necessary to the understanding of this list. -Nv8200p talk 23:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Elder_Mill,_Romiley_Marple_0002.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- Image fails WP:NFCC#8 in the list-article it is used in. Rettetast (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image of mill discussed fully: Details of engine already posted. When complete each of the mills can become its own article.Notes: Elder Mill was powered by a 600hp vertical cross compound engine by Daniel Adamson, installed in 1937. It had a 3ft stroke. It ran at 106rpm. The flywheel was 16ft. [8] [show location on an interactive map] 53°24′41″N 2°05′47″W Further comment made. User talk:Rettetast#LCC ClemRutter (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't maintain fair use imagery on Wikipedia for that day in the future when an article will exist on the subject. When the subject has its own article, and in this case the mill has been demolished and there are no free license images available, then the image can be used on that article. Not here, not on a list. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image of mill discussed fully: Details of engine already posted. When complete each of the mills can become its own article.Notes: Elder Mill was powered by a 600hp vertical cross compound engine by Daniel Adamson, installed in 1937. It had a 3ft stroke. It ran at 106rpm. The flywheel was 16ft. [8] [show location on an interactive map] 53°24′41″N 2°05′47″W Further comment made. User talk:Rettetast#LCC ClemRutter (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while the building's internals are discussed, a simple view of the building is not really critical to reader's understanding. Looking at the article I think that the editor(s) should pay heed to Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles as it is hard to argue that every building requires an image to prevent reader's leaving the topic with insufficient information - Peripitus (Talk) 03:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it seems to me that most of these images are of historic buildings that no longer exist; and that were important landmarks in their local communities. This certainly applies to this one. I would see a case for 'fair use' in both a specific article on the mill, or on the location where it was sited. It is fairly well established that that is OK, as demolition tends to affect the replaceability of an image. As Peripitus notes, their use in a list is far more problematic. I don't think their use in the list is merely decorative - when it would be a clear 'delete from that article'. They are illustrative and aid the reader's understanding of the impact of a major employer throughout the north-west in their local historical contexts. It may be that policy needs to be enforced, but it should be noted that ClemRutter has put a lot of work in on this; and further has done it in good faith. The scans that have been put up do not detract from the copyright holder's interest in these images - maybe he should be asked to attempt to contact the publishers and see if copyright clearance could be obtained for their use under a GFDL licence. It may be that his local history archive could help in that respect. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; we don't permit the use of so many (50!) fair use images in a list like this (List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited). See Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. I've removed some. The rest need to go as well. Plus, many of these mills are still standing and can be photographed. If articles exist in the future for individual notable mills, then a fair use image is appropriate is the mill is no longer in existence, but not here on a list such as this. I've notified the uploader of the issue and the presence of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:49, 12 February 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: The result was delete per our non-free use policies. rootology (C)(T) 03:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Teenspiritnewversion.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Magg 608 (notify | contribs).
- Reissue album cover that is basically identical to the headline non-free image in the article. The small difference (adding the words "New Verson") can be covered by the text "For the reissue the text New Version was added but the rest of the cover remained unchanged" - Fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternate Peripitus (Talk) 06:48, 29 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: The result was delete per our non-free use policies. rootology (C)(T) 03:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:U2 Sometimes CD2.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dream out loud (notify | contribs).
- Second CD single image of a single for which the first image is identical, except for the colours. For this image the only differences are that the white background was changed to red, the red stripes to white and the text and ribbon background colours reversed. These simple colour changes can be adequately described with free text. As replaceable with a free alternate it fails WP:NFCC#1. Also the use of such a similar image is unnecessarily excessive and does not significantly add to reader's understanding - fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 06:52, 29 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: The result was delete per our non-free use policies. rootology (C)(T) 03:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:U2 Sometimes DVD.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dream out loud (notify | contribs).
- DVD single image of a single for which the first image is identical, except for the colours. For this image the only difference is that the white background was changed to black. This simple change can be adequately described with free text. As replaceable with a free alternate it fails WP:NFCC#1. Also the use of such a similar image is unnecessarily excessive and does not significantly add to reader's understanding - fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 06:53, 29 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: The result was delete, per WP:NFCC#8. rootology (C)(T) 03:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:China_Clipper_Air_Mail_Stamp_C115_1985.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Centpacrr (notify | contribs).
- Postage stamps may only be used in conjunction with discussion of the stamp itself. No such discussion is present in China Clipper, thus image fails WP:NFCC. howcheng {chat} 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand what the issue is that you are having with this image. Please be specific so that I can cure whatever the alleged deficiency is. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete - this usage falls under one of the listed unacceptable uses of non-free content. We do not use copyrighted images to discuss the subject of the image (like a boat on a stamp)- only to discuss the image itself (the stamp itself)- Peripitus (Talk) 20:32, 29 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: Image does not exist. If the image name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Iberian-Guanche inscriptios Lanzarote.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Iberomesornix (notify | contribs).
- Duplicate Iberomesornix (talk) 21:52, 29 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.