Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 14

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14

Peter Orszag photo2.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Orszag photo2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Orszag (notify | contribs).

Photo looks a bit too official for self-created work. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Orphaned image apparently non-free image that was removed 2 months ago with a freely licenced image. ww2censor (talk) 02:43, 16 June 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.

Blanket - June 1.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blanket - June 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PrinceParisBlanketMJ (notify | contribs).

No source information, no article. What is this? gordonrox24 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 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.

Paris Jackson.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris Jackson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PrinceParisBlanketMJ (notify | contribs).

No source information. Article it is used on is at AFD with a WP:SNOW chance of staying on Wikipedia. gordonrox24 (talk) 01:41, 14 June 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.

Blanket in las vegas.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blanket in las vegas.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PrinceParisBlanketMJ (notify | contribs).

No source info. Article that image is used in is at AFD and will be deleted. gordonrox24 (talk) 01:45, 14 June 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.

Mithun-chakraborty-2.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mithun-chakraborty-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Imortal4u (notify | contribs).

Low res, no meta-data, probably taken from elsewhere on the 'net. Even if not, description is "scanner", indicating this may be a scan of another image. J Milburn (talk) 08:55, 14 June 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.

Sinitta! - U.S. cover.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinitta! - U.S. cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mlenooo (notify | contribs).

This cover is pretty much the same as the other, and the rerelease, let alone its cover, is not mentioned in the article. Use of this non-free image is not justified. J Milburn (talk) 09:03, 14 June 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.

Scanners screenshot.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.

The result of the discussion was: Not deleted. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scanners screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ed Fitzgerald (notify | contribs).

Image is being used merely to decorate the cast list section, and adds nothing to the article. J Milburn (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the contrary, the photograph identifies one of the major characters in the film, and also helps to illustrate the flat, direct and unadorned style of the film, and the overwrought style of the acting. The fact that the image is next tot he cast list is not particularly relevant - that's where there happened to be whitespace which could easily accomodate it, however the image illustrates the article as a whole and not that particular section. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure about this one, so .. per the image description page, I'll just "share my thoughts". The placement may suggest otherwise, but I can accept that the intention is not simply to decorate the cast list. Many film articles use at least one screenshot to give something of the look of the film. I'd feel more confident if the text was expanded to demonstrate the usefulness of this specific image, but I disagree that the use is only decorative or that it adds nothing to the article. I'm undecided, but I'd lean somewhat closer to keeping than to deleting. Rossrs (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also disagree it is merely decorative. The novelty of the "exploding head" effect is specifically discussed in the production section of the article and this image references that particular fact. I also agree with Rossrs that the article could be expanded to include more detail about the style and effects, but that doesn't preclude keeping the image. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the style/appearance of the film is discussed, I accept a screenshot is useful, but it should be moved to where it is pointed to by the text, rather than just filling some whitespace. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fairly primitive approach to an article's visual layout. I work on the entire article, not on a single section. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. If an image is illustrating a point, then it should be next to said point, not decorating a section elsewhere. Utility should come before aesthetics, especially with content that we should be avoiding if at all possible. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's a false dichotomy: utility and aesthetics have to work together. A valid point made by an image and its caption is just as valid in a blank space in the article as it is 2 inches away directly next to the text. MoS recognizes this by presenting situations where images should be shifted away from where they might ordinarily go, in order to avoid visual chaos.

(This, for instance: Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two. [emphasis added].)

A valid image doesn't suddently lose its validity and become mere "decoration" by being shifted a tiny amount, it retains that validity because the basic unit of Wikipedia is the article and not the article section. The visual presentation of an article is an important consideration, since it helps the reader's eye be guided through the text. Disruptive images, even if they are valid, disfigure an article and decrease its utility. What Wikipedia needs not just good information, it needs good information, well presented. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems useful to me. Shows a major character and a well known scene. --AW (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is decorative. It does not vital for the reader to understand the subject, and there is no critical commentary of this image. The image of the exploding head is sufficient. ÷seresin 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. It does not significantly increase readers’ understanding over the effect of just the exploding head. WP:NFCC#3a. One screenshot of this scene is enough. —teb728 t c 23:51, 22 June 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.

Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 as G7 by Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Geo Swan (notify | contribs).

I uploaded this image, claiming "fair use". Fair use justification are only valid if there are no free alternatives. Since then I became aware of PD images of a "General Ali", from the same region as Hazrat Ali (File:General Ali and his Afghan fighters, November 2001.jpg, File:General Ali and his Afghan fighters, November 2001 b.jpg). General Ali looks like Hazrat Ali. I'd like more eyes on this. If these images are of the same individual then the "fair use" one should go. But the resemblance could merely be a family resemblance. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 14 June 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.

explanation -- I struck the closure text because the deleting administrator and I concluded the deletion was a good faith mistake. I am still hoping others will weigh in with opinions as to whether the "General Ali" images that are in the public domain should be considered to be replacements of the fair use image of "Hazrat Ali" -- based on a resemblance and geographic proximity. Geo Swan (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment due to the lousy resolution it is difficult to tell if these images are of the same person, but as a non-free image of such bad quality it is virtually useless to illustrate anything properly and should be deleted anyway. ww2censor (talk) 17:22, 18 June 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.

Cover of Voice of Hayat Saif.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cover of Voice of Hayat Saif.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BdEdit (notify | contribs).

I doubt this book cover has been released under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't doubt. Rest assured that this editor has the authority to release this book cover for free distribution and use. Thank you. BdEdit (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid we can't "rest assured". We will need to have an email notifying us that it is released under a named free license sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kindly advise who should write to whom. Some of the Copyright terms are not really self-exlpanatory, or may be English is not good enough for me. BdEdit (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The copyright holder, which is probably the book publisher or the person who drew the cover, should write to the above email address. See WP:CONSENT for the email template. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks a lot. I'll do the needful.BdEdit (talk) 02:50, 24 June 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.

924063.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:924063.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HUMANWINE (notify | contribs).

orphan Damiens.rf 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned album cover not known to have been released into the public domain by the uploader. Licence and summary detail do not correspond. Note WP:COI of uploader. ww2censor (talk) 17:26, 18 June 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.

Kalifornia-cover.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kalifornia-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HUMANWINE (notify | contribs).

orphan Damiens.rf 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned album cover not known to have been released into the public domain by the uploader. Licence and summary detail do not correspond. Note WP:COI of uploader. ww2censor (talk) 02:50, 16 June 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.

Optimusprime-rid.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Optimusprime-rid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mathewignash (notify | contribs).

Used in three articles, but in each one, it appears to be only a "hey, look, they're together!". The artwork/the appearance of the characters is not discussed, and this image adds nothing useful to any of the three articles that is not already in the text. J Milburn (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't correct. On the page for Robots in Disguise Ultra Magnus it is the only photo used to depict the character. Mathewignash (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous depictions of Ultra Magnus on that page. I am not following what you are saying. J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbro recycles names over the years, to keep their trademark alive. There are five different characters named Ultra Magnus on that page (they are listed in order they were introduced), and this is the only picture of this one. All five Ultra Magnuses on the page have different appearances and personalities, and appeared in different TV series over the years. Hasbro's legal department does this, assigning names like clockwork every few years to keep their trademarks alive. So every couple years they make sure some new characters in a new show uses many of the names they own, so they can keep the trademark. This particular guy wasn't even called Ultra Magnus in the original version of the Japanese cartoon. He was called "God Magnus", because he's a homage to the old cartoon character Godbomber from the Masterforce TV series in Japan. Mathewignash (talk) 15:43, 18 June 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.

Premeh II.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Premeh II.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yellowfiver (notify | contribs).

Uploader concedes the original work is from 1937, so their claim of ownership is dubious. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 14 June 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.

Logo smstar.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.

The result of the discussion was: Not deleted. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo smstar.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).

I do not see what this logo adds to a list of episodes. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Helps to distinguish Sailor Stars from the other four Sailor Moon series. As such, it significantly assists the reader's understanding of which series it is. --Malkinann (talk) 01:37, 18 June 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.

Lisa hill photo.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by ESkog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa hill photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krisztian Kleh (notify | contribs).

Web resolution image of a deceased, non-public person. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 14 June 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.

Lisa hill trio.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by ESkog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa hill trio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krisztian Kleh (notify | contribs).

Web resolution image, no meta-data, user has uploaded other suspicious images. I doubt they own the rights to this picture. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 14 June 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.

Richardbennett.jpeg

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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richardbennett.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adam Bishop (notify | contribs).

Low-res, contrast-shifted version of File:Richard Bedford Bennett.jpg at Commons. Not exact duplicate, so can't CSD Papa November (talk) 23:01, 14 June 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.