Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 31
July 31
[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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:DSCN0305.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PokeTIJeremy (notify | contribs).
- OR, UE, cryptic name. Current image has no source, and overwrote a previous, different image (which I'm also not sure if we need). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:21, 6 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Fiapalbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Happygrouch (notify | contribs).
- OR, possibly UE, unidentified subject; if an album cover as title would indicate, then it isn't public domain. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:00, 31 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:God is Watching!.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sensky (notify | contribs).
- OR, UE; probably a derivative work, too. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Orphaned file, no encyclopedic purpose. — Σxplicit 22:01, 31 July 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Published under claim of being released under a Public Domain license by the copyright holder, no evidence of this being true. Actually, this appears to be a promotional picture for the band, which is hardly being a PD one. Angelo (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of release. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 31 July 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 user says below that these images were a work product, meaning, the employer owns the copyright. --B (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Srivijaya Empire Map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gunkarta (notify | contribs).
- Wow... what's your problems kid? is it your ass? Parading along and listing infographics to be deleted. I suggest you to be more civilized and polite. Let me tell you this, this infographic map is made by me using adobe illustrator (redrawed) based on the source I've mentioned in the file information (based from "Atlas Sejarah Indonesia dan Dunia" (Indonesian and World Historical Atlas) page 32, Drs. Achmad Jamil, Yulia Darmawaty, S.Pd, Sri Wachyuni, S.Pd, Mastara, Jakarta 2004). If I just scan it, the map will be different in style of drawing and coloring (rather plain and boring), and it will be written in Bahasa Indonesia. Understand..? (Gunkarta (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- That does not change the fact that it is a blatant copyvio. Also, I'm an Australian, so its all OK. There is no such thing as a clean-mouthed Australian. You're the one at fault in the first place through the copyvio, so get over it. You are not the "original copyright holder". Scanning something does not make something your own. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And try not to edit other people's posts; that is foul-play. Avoid using "kid" to make your Ad hominem argument; it only makes you appear more foolish. The only way you can successfully deny the fact that you have breached copyright policy is to provide sufficient argument and credible evidence, rather than going for the Argument from ignorance. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- QUOTE: "I've mentioned in the file information (based from "Atlas Sejarah Indonesia dan Dunia"" - a fallacious argument, as it does not justify your claim of "self-made" and your use of the self-GFDL template. WP:FFDs are based on evidence, not on argument. They are based on facts, that is, the fact that this image is a copyvio given the current evidence, they are based on the law, that is the law prohibits violations of intellectual ownership. Wikipedia and FFDs on Wikipedia do not work on words, they work on proof. Try to read Wikipedia:Image use policy next time before you upload any works, so that you thoroughly understand what is considered acceptable and non-acceptable as far as copyright is concerned. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not change the fact that it is a blatant copyvio. Also, I'm an Australian, so its all OK. There is no such thing as a clean-mouthed Australian. You're the one at fault in the first place through the copyvio, so get over it. You are not the "original copyright holder". Scanning something does not make something your own. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This part is out of topic, but still I felt an urge to response on your unnecessary remarks and arguments: Let me put this straight oh you unclean-mouthed wiki contributor (you said it yourself). I have some Australian friend, and unlike you they are polite and courteous, maybe the problem is lies in YOU and your attitude. It is not fair to attribute your uncivilized attitude as common to Australian, also your profile that you are a descends of Chinese immigrant, but your ancestry is not the issue here. I've seen your profile page, and regarding on how you write and response, yes... I think you are still a "kid" that spend lots of your time playing game.
- That would be entirely Un-Australian, and I would be a traitor to my country in doing so. Australian English should be spoken properly. Profanity is an indisputable part of the Australian psyche. But again, that is running away from the main topic - your claim of "self-made" is disputed, and although you argue that you work at a media company, this places dispute over your "ownership". Your exact words, when applying that template is "I, the copyright holder of this work". -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay now back to the topic: It is necesarry to cite or mentioned the sources or references of objects or images uploaded on wikipedia. I've mentioned the sources, from books, maps, or media I have as reference (if you diligent and careful enough to read the info in the graphics file). I didn't simply took the file or scan it and upload it and claim it as mine. There was some works I've done in order for this graphics to be well presented in wikipedia pages. If the source was written in non-English languages (in this case: Bahasa Indonesia) or poor quality of graphics and prints, etc., I do my contribution as wikipedian by reproducing it using graphic computer program such as adobe illustrator (did I mentioned that I'm also a graphic designer and infographer?). Recreating, translating, comparing to other source, and perfecting the graphics. My objective is to spread and share the information mentioned in this references books and maps I have, in order to enriches the articles in Wikipedia to reach wider international readers.
- However it is a derivative work. It does not meet originality requirements under US law, which is where the Wikimedia servers are located. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay now back to the topic: It is necesarry to cite or mentioned the sources or references of objects or images uploaded on wikipedia. I've mentioned the sources, from books, maps, or media I have as reference (if you diligent and careful enough to read the info in the graphics file). I didn't simply took the file or scan it and upload it and claim it as mine. There was some works I've done in order for this graphics to be well presented in wikipedia pages. If the source was written in non-English languages (in this case: Bahasa Indonesia) or poor quality of graphics and prints, etc., I do my contribution as wikipedian by reproducing it using graphic computer program such as adobe illustrator (did I mentioned that I'm also a graphic designer and infographer?). Recreating, translating, comparing to other source, and perfecting the graphics. My objective is to spread and share the information mentioned in this references books and maps I have, in order to enriches the articles in Wikipedia to reach wider international readers.
Your copyviolation accusation against me is baseless, I made this graphics by my own hand, based on collection of reference materials I have that I had courteously and fairly mentioned in file info. I provide the English translation and try to improve it in graphics arts department. Is that series of research, works, labors and contributions is a copyright violations?
Unlike you whom seems enjoy to indulge yourself arguing about rules, regulations, accusing others for violating copyright and sabotage others works, I prefer to research the source and references, create, and contributes instead, in order to enriches wikipedia articles. If you have other sources, for examples about Srivijaya or Majapahit maps etc, you are welcome to contribute, present, propose, and contested it against present map, rather than attacking this file by try to proposing them for deletion.
- About my identity and my claim as the author of the graphics of Majapahit Maps and Trowulan Archaeological site. Also my job as infographer and work for the newspaper in Jakarta that publish this graphics. There's NO WAY you can proof or confirm my identity or anybody's identity in the net just by sitting in front of your PC. Except you want to spend your time fly to Jakarta come to my editorial office, asking about the identity of the infographer, then you might lucky to met me here. So all you can do is take my word for it... or not. Soo its up to you if you believe me or not whether I created Majapahit Map and Trowulan site. Still that can not change the fact that I'm the one that uploaded the files, and no one, except you, see it as the problems so far. (208.110.17.141 (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Again, Ad hominem and Appeal to emotion. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To sum everything up, the following are a number of arguments against you in all your FFDs:
- Your claim of "self-made".
- Your usage of the "self-GFDL" license template, which specifically states "I, the copyright holder of this work".
- The fallacious argument that creator = copyright holder in the case where the company holds the license.
- Your usage of image watermarking, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images.
- Originality as defined by US law.
- Inability to fulfil WP:BURDEN in your claims.
Regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after careful research of what considered good map and graphic in wikipedia I think I understand the problem here. Because of I'm often uploading my photo images in JPEG file, habitually I'm also converting map or graphic images I've created in this JPEG or bitmap format. As the result some people may suspected me just copy-pasting or scanned it. I've seen examples of good maps that actually retain their vector graphic as SVG format. So I think I will perfected this images especially tables and maps and I will uploaded again in SVG format to enable further adaptation in other languages (also to proof that I'm the one who make it) complete with informations of reference source. In the case of some of works that I've created for my office (Majapahit and Trowulan map), indeed the copyrights belongs to the company I'm work for, so I don't mind if it will be deleted. But until then I will remake it in different style but still use the information in present maps as reference. I hope I have extra time to redo this maps. Cheers (Gunkarta (talk) 17:50, 2 August 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader claims to be the "author" of the image and "releases it under GFDL", despite it being a scan from a magazine. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was taken from the newspaper (Kompas daily), and I'm the infographer whom made that infographic, translate the text from Bahasa Indonesia to English and uploaded it, Yes I AM the author. (Gunkarta (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- How can one justify that what you say is so? I am not a mind reader, nor God. ONE: You cannot use the "self-license" tags, as there is little evidence currently at hand which proves that it is your own work. You have merely scanned a page. TWO: if you claim that you are the "infographer", then you have the WP:BURDEN of proving it. You see, a verbal or written statement by yourself is not considered "proof". Proof is EXIF data for a photograph, proof is a citation, proof is something that is concretely justifiable. If you are unable to prove your case, then pound the table and yell like hell. But even if you do prove that you are this wonderful "infographer", then great, but how does that justify the use of the "self-GFDL" template when you are not the copyright holder, since the company, the media source holds the copyright? Here's a lovely example: say I work for Microsoft. Can I say that I own Windows XP? Sure, I worked on it, 99% of "this section" was made by me, but isn't it still under the ownership of big-daddy Microsoft? I don't own Windows XP; I don't even own the components of it that I created. In this example, I am employed to exchange my labour for a salary, nothing more, nothing less. I don't see any correlation between working somewhere and owning the things that come out of it. You cannot make a justification by attacking the Straw man of creator=owner applying in all situations. You cannot justify your point by simply stating that you "ARE the author" without any evidence. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since the author was presumably paid for the work, he doesn't hold rights to the image. The newspaper does. They need to release it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as a work for hire, all rights are held by the employer. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:02, 1 August 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 user says below that these images were a work product, meaning, the employer owns the copyright. --B (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Majapahit, Genealogical Diagram.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gunkarta (notify | contribs).
- "I, the copyright holder of this work" my ass, blatant copyvio -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet, another rude remarks. I suggest you to grow up and be more civilized in this well-respected open-encyclopedia. I made (redraw with adobe illustrator) the genealogical diagram of Majapahit royal family based on the book I've mentioned in source in file infos. Actually there is another complete source of whole "Rajasa Dynasty" incorporated also Singhasari and Majapahit lineage of kings, but I don't have a time to make over the diagram with adobe illustrator. (Gunkarta (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- When you upload an image, you agree to the conditions on the preface of the upload page:
This form should be used to upload a work that you created from scratch. The act of scanning or photocopying someone else's work is not considered to be "creative". Additionally, it is important that your work not incorporate third party clip art unless that clip art is public domain. The image must be completely your creation – meaning that you took the photograph, painted the painting.
- QUOTE: "I suggest you to grow up and be more civilized in this well-respected open-encyclopedia." Appeal to emotion or another Ad hominem attack? Does it actually make a justification of your argument, or are you running away from the question that you have failed to comply with copyright policy? It even appears that you are using Appeal to authority to claim that it is in your profession that you created these images, yet you are unable to solve your WP:BURDEN. And your repetitive circular arguments appear as Ad nauseam statements as well. You're worried about my attractive, youthful appearance, wouldn't that be an Appeal to intellectual and mental stability or capability, under the assumption that youth equates to stupidity? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:22, 31 July 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 user says below that these images were a work product, meaning, the employer owns the copyright. --B (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Trowulan Archaeological Site.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gunkarta (notify | contribs).
- "I, the copyright holder of this work" my ass, blatant copyvio -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same with the case with Majapahit Map, it was also taken from the newspaper (Kompas daily), and I'm the infographer whom made that infographic. I work in that Newspaper (in case you don't understand), translate the text from Bahasa Indonesia to English and uploaded it, And Yes.., I AM the author. You see a little credit title on bottom right corner written GUNAWAN? That's my real name. (Gunkarta (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Any third-grader with a computer can tag an image. Even I can. Should I demonstrate? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and I hope you are not admitting to violating the "no-watermarking" clause of Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images, are you? Compare the text used in the tag on the image; it was clearly added digitally afterwards. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any third-grader with a computer can tag an image. Even I can. Should I demonstrate? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since the author was presumably paid for the work, he doesn't hold rights to the image. The newspaper does. They need to release it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I agree with you. it is the newspaper I'm work for is the one that rightly hold the copyright. Not me. S'il vous plait...
But let me ask something first, if Somebody wants to upload the map like this, or any other maps or images that being published by certain media. Recreate it and translate it to english. What can be done to make this legal in wiki? Mention it as rightfully belongs to the media, or adapt it myself. Since I'm not mastering this copyright rules. (Gunkarta (talk) 18:06, 31 July 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 file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC) No Longer Needed --Mr. Unknown (talk) 14:49, 31 July 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:CrivelloandAssociates.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nullcron (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.
- 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⚡ 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:De old.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thegoodson (notify | contribs).
- No explicit source; orphaned; what does this depict? A flag? If so, what flag? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:16, 31 July 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: deleted - we don't use "fair use" photos of living people. (Heck, if they lived in the age of digital cameras and weren't hermits, we usually don't use fair use photos of dead ones either.) --B (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lecmanagementteam.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Copy_Editor (notify | contribs).
- Photograph illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information. PhilKnight (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Historically important photograph which is impossible to recreate in free context. Church (Living Enrichment Center) has closed and Mary Manin Morrissey and Edward Morrissey have since divorced. This marriage resulted in a $10 million embezzlement scandal regarding the biggest New Thought church in the state of Oregon, and one of the biggest in the world, resulting in the imprisonment of Edward Morrissey [1]. This received wide coverage in major media in Portland, Oregon. [2][3] [4] Image is low resolution and not likely to deprive anyone of any income because image is not for sale anywhere but was scanned from church directory which is not now and never has been for sale to the public. Wikipedian08 (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Further information: Picture was published in a directory produced by Life Touch Church Directories. An article about Mary Manin Morrissey and Edward Morrissey was published on the website of cult researcher Rick Ross: http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general650.html) Wikipedian08 (talk) 05:25, 9 August 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User claims this image as their own, as they do just about everything they find on the internet. It would be PD-US or PD-ineligible, but since we don't know the source, we have no way of knowing if this is an accurate logo. If it is, it should be SVG anyway. B (talk) 22:05, 31 July 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Showing covers of multiple different printings of the book isn't nessecary unless the covers are specifically discussed; fails WP:NFCC#8, as it doesn't significantly increase the reader's understanding. General consensus (not sure where, but I've heard it quite a bit) is that using the first edition cover (the other one in the article) is perfectly OK but other printings need strong rationales for inclusion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:04, 31 July 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.