Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 19
| < October 18 | October 20 > |
|---|
October 19
[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 billinghurst (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Under Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored, clearly states that "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed". This image violates US federal law (18 U.S.C. § 333 and 18 U.S.C. § 475), which prohibits defacement and modification of currency, which is what this image is portraying. Nicholas.tan (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image does not violate the law, the defacement of the bill violates the law. There is nothing illegal about taking a picture of a defaced bill (it's like taking a picture of a crime scene), therefore the content (or image) is not in violation of the laws of the state of Florida (or the United States).--kelapstick (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kelapstick. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a point of information, even the act of "defacing" this bill was probably not illegal, because it is not done with the intent to make the bill unfit to be reissued (section 333), nor is it done for commercial purpose (section 475). (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice) kmccoy (talk) 08:52, 23 October 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 as G7 by Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TheGuardianByBobPackSugarLandTX.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by WhisperToMe (notify | contribs).
- This image appears to fail WP:NFCC#8 as it is not necessary to see this statue to understand the article about police officers. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no opposition to its deletion. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we do not need a fair use image to depict police officers. I've also tagged the image as missing a fair use rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 October 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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pure john.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Orientcharlie (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned image; had only been used in a deleted article. TheMile (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete editor gone two months, no description of what the image shows, orphaned. No apparent usefulness. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this image is dependent on the article Pure John that was deleted four times. ww2censor (talk) 04:54, 24 October 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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Inco Mine Manitoba.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zhatt (notify | contribs).
- Should be fairly easy to get a free image of the Thompson Mine headframe as it is still standing and over 10,000 people live within 10 miles of it. kelapstick (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as blatantly replaceable fair use. No rationale, and now orphaned (removed from two articles for lacking rationale). --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - violation of WP:FUI; no uses in articles, no rationale, replaceable. Intelligentsiumreview 00:39, 25 October 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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lbpt small bp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SheighZam (notify | contribs).
- A photograph of a newspaper article, not necessary to illustrate the subject in question (Boba Phat), there is a free image at the top of the page. kelapstick (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kelapstick,
All of the photos uploaded of Boba Phat are CLEARY him - not only is his name referenced in each photo, but the fact that you are claiming these "might not be him" is indicated clearly by the tagline photos, and the other photos I personally took myself. It is obvious based on his description(s) in both the San Diego Tribune & Long Beach Press Telegram explicitly indicate that the person in the photo IS Boba Phat. Furthermore, the fact that the Daily Titan photos also refers to him by his pseudonym Boba Phat is additional proof of the character in the photo IS in fact Boba Phat. The photo of him with Jane Wiedlin of the Go-Go's can be found on her verified Twitter Twitpics album, where she exclaimed that "Meeting Boba Phat just made my day!"
I do not understand why this image or any of the others you have added to the deletion list constitute pending deletion. All are photographs are sourced correctly and published in the public domain. I clarified this specifically in my rationale of each one please advise. Obviously the subject in question is Boba Phat as indicated not only by the original tagline themselves but also based on valid 3rd party news sources. These photos specifically refer to the character, thus meeting the criteria for GNG status (as a fictional character is technically not qualified as a BLP), and thus support Boba Phat's notability as a well-known cosplayer. Please clarify what you need in order for me to remove the potential deletion result.
Thank you Kelapstick! SheighZam (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blatant delete The article already has a free image, and we certainly do not need all these photographs of newspapers to convey what he looks like. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnecessary use of a non-free image when freely licenced image are already in the article. ww2censor (talk) 04:44, 24 October 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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:LA Weekly Wiki.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SheighZam (notify | contribs).
- A screenshot of a copyright website, not necessary to illustrate the subject in question (Boba Phat), there is a free image at the top of the page. kelapstick (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kelapstick,
All of the photos uploaded of Boba Phat are CLEARY him - not only is his name referenced in each photo, but the fact that you are claiming these "might not be him" is indicated clearly by the tagline photos, and the other photos I personally took myself. It is obvious based on his description(s) in both the San Diego Tribune & Long Beach Press Telegram explicitly indicate that the person in the photo IS Boba Phat. Furthermore, the fact that the Daily Titan photos also refers to him by his pseudonym Boba Phat is additional proof of the character in the photo IS in fact Boba Phat. The photo of him with Jane Wiedlin of the Go-Go's can be found on her verified Twitter Twitpics album, where she exclaimed that "Meeting Boba Phat just made my day!" He was featured on the cover story of the online version of LA Weekly, thus that photo is referenced, sourced, rationalized & also available in the public domain.
I do not understand why this image or any of the others you have added to the deletion list constitute pending deletion. All are photographs are sourced correctly and published in the public domain. I clarified this specifically in my rationale of each one please advise. Obviously the subject in question is Boba Phat as indicated not only by the original tagline themselves but also based on valid 3rd party news sources. These photos specifically refer to the character, thus meeting the criteria for GNG status (as a fictional character is technically not qualified as a BLP), and thus support Boba Phat's notability as a well-known cosplayer. Please clarify what you need in order for me to remove the potential deletion result.
Thank you Kelapstick! SheighZam (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blatant delete The article already has a free image, and we certainly do not need all these photographs of newspapers to convey what he looks like. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnecessary use of a non-free image, without a fair-use rationale, when there are freely licenced images already in the article. ww2censor (talk) 04:46, 24 October 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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Daily Titan Boba Phat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SheighZam (notify | contribs).
- A photograph of a newspaper article, not necessary to illustrate the subject in question (Boba Phat), there is a free image at the top of the page. kelapstick (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kelapstick,
All of the photos uploaded of Boba Phat are CLEARY him - not only is his name referenced in each photo, but the fact that you are claiming these "might not be him" is indicated clearly by the tagline photos, and the other photos I personally took myself. It is obvious based on his description(s) in both the San Diego Tribune & Long Beach Press Telegram explicitly indicate that the person in the photo IS Boba Phat. Furthermore, the fact that the Daily Titan photos also refers to him by his pseudonym Boba Phat is additional proof of the character in the photo IS in fact Boba Phat.
I do not understand why this image or any of the others you have added to the deletion list constitute pending deletion. All are photographs are sourced correctly and published in the public domain. I clarified this specifically in my rationale of each one please advise. Obviously the subject in question is Boba Phat as indicated not only by the original tagline themselves but also based on valid 3rd party news sources. These photos specifically refer to the character, thus meeting the criteria for GNG status (as a fictional character is technically not qualified as a BLP), and thus support Boba Phat's notability as a well-known cosplayer. Please clarify what you need in order for me to remove the potential deletion result.
Thank you Kelapstick! SheighZam (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blatant delete The article already has a free image, and we certainly do not need all these photographs of newspapers to convey what he looks like. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnecessary use of a non-free image, without a fair-use rationale, when there are freely licenced images already in the article. ww2censor (talk) 04:47, 24 October 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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lbpt bp small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SheighZam (notify | contribs).
- A photograph of a newspaper article, not necessary to illustrate the subject in question (Boba Phat), there is a free image at the top of the page. kelapstick (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kelapstick,
All of the photos uploaded of Boba Phat are CLEARY him - not only is his name referenced in each photo, but the fact that you are claiming these "might not be him" is indicated clearly by the tagline photos, and the other photos I personally took myself. It is obvious based on his description(s) in both the San Diego Tribune & Long Beach Press Telegram explicitly indicate that the person in the photo IS Boba Phat. Furthermore, this ENTIRE article featured in the photo is about Boba Phat thus expressing his notability.
I do not understand why this image or any of the others you have added to the deletion list constitute pending deletion. All are photographs are sourced correctly and published in the public domain. I clarified this specifically in my rationale of each one please advise. Obviously the subject in question is Boba Phat as indicated not only by the original tagline themselves but also based on valid 3rd party news sources. These photos specifically refer to the character, thus meeting the criteria for GNG status (as a fictional character is technically not qualified as a BLP), and thus support Boba Phat's notability as a well-known cosplayer. Please clarify what you need in order for me to remove the potential deletion result.
Thank you Kelapstick! SheighZam (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blatant delete The article already has a free image, and we certainly do not need all these photographs of newspapers to convey what he looks like. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnecessary use of a non-free image, without a fair-use rationale, when there are freely licenced images already in the article. ww2censor (talk) 04:47, 24 October 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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1165.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CLubonatic (notify | contribs).
- I find various versions of this image around the web when searching for "Christopher Lambert" and it was uploaded with only "Lol" as description so I suspect this "one shot" absent uploader is not the actual photographer. Sherool (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obvious theft. Orphaned. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 October 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 as G6 by Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:120672.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by S001deleted (notify | contribs).
- Unused personal photo, absent uploader. Sherool (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A resume picture? Wikipedia isn't a hosting service. Uploader gone, orphaned. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 October 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.