Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 September 21

< September 20	September 22 >

September 21

File:Chinese Dongfeng missle warhead loading.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chinese Dongfeng missle warhead loading.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Otherjoke (notify | contribs).

Extremely unlikely self-made. See also User_talk:Megapixie/3 and the rest of the uploaders contributions.

Megapixie (talk) 00:29, 21 September 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.

File:JJam.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 ⚡ 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JJam.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by StarScream1007 (notify | contribs).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not needed for reader understanding of either article. —teb728 t c 06:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pursuant to my non-free content review of the file, I believe the FUR for the Michael Jordan article is valid. His collaboration with the Looney Tunes characters is probably the most notable aspect of his post-retirement career, and the film depicted is discussed in the article. Powers ^T 23:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the FUR nor your NFCR nor anything you have written here explains why “its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Granted that the collaboration is significant, the article doesn’t need the image for reader understanding of that. —teb728 t c 03:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No critical commentary as to why this image is required to increase the understanding of the readers. — ξ ^xplicit 05:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I agree that this image is not needed in Jordan's article or in Space Jam, I disagree that it isn't needed on David Falk. I think it increases readers' understanding of Falk's history of promoting a player to celebrity status.—Chris!_c/t 23:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? What is the particular historical significance of this image? The text already notes Falk got Jordan and Bugs matched up in a movie. A screenshot showing the two on screen together doesn't change that understanding. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In all cases where it is currently used (Michael Jordan and David Falk), the movie Space Jam is mentioned. However, there is nothing of significance about this particular image that is discussed or even mentioned in the text of the articles. You could take any scene from the movie and have it fill the same purpose. I.e., this image blatantly fails WP:NFCC #8, lack of significance to the text of the articles. We already know they appeared in the movie together. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 30 September 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.

File:U;nee performing call call call.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 ⚡ 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:U;nee performing call call call.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stipidstid (notify | contribs).

Deceased subject, however I guess a free image could be poosibly be found, such as that taken by a fan of a live performance. Anyway, I've declined the speedy, and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 07:50, 21 September 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.

File:MJ-BadSpecialEdition.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 ⚡ 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MJ-BadSpecialEdition.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Antuan10 (notify | contribs).

Not worthy of discussion in the article, very similar to the original cover. Including this non-free image adds nothing to the article, and is not consistency with our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Image fails WP:NFCC#3 as multiple non-free files are being used when one would suffice. This image is not significantly different from the main image to justify its use. — ξ ^xplicit 05:24, 24 September 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.

File:Tulane shield web.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: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tulane shield web.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).

Lacks fair-use rationale (also orphaned, but I think that's just because it had been previously deleted). User:BQZip01 believes that this is ineligible for copyright due to its simplicity, which is why I restored the image for further discussion, but I feel that because of the stylization of the text and the design of the shield it does not consist of the simple geometric shapes and typefaces needed to be PD. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After further review, I would concur that this is not a PD image. The overlapping letters aren't a problem, but the shape of the shield isn't a geometric shape. Keep until the end of the FFD "waiting period" so we can check to make sure that another article didn't use it and simply needs a FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:55, 21 September 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.

File:Barcelona - Perpignan.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: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barcelona - Perpignan.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Edgepedia (notify | contribs).

Corrected image now universally available at Commons: [1]. Classical geographer (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If this is an "incorrect" file, why is it still being used in articles while the "correct" version isn't used on this wiki?--Rockfang (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can change that, but I figured removing the image automatically points to the correct version on Commons, which has the same name. Classical geographer (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I should have caught that they were both named the same. Which would be a logical reason why my question was dumb. :) Rockfang (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To make room for correct version of file on Commons with same name.--Rockfang (talk) 09:27, 5 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.

File:Mjrmxsuite.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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

image replaced with MJRS.jpg MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 18:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tagged as orphaned non-free image.--Rockfang (talk) 02:23, 22 September 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.

File:Falk-In-laws-Arkin.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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Falk-In-laws-Arkin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs).

Random screenshot showing two actors, used in the article about one of the actors. It is not at all clear why what the two characters looked like is of importance. J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot seems to support the article's commentary which is all from cited material:

"Director Arthur Hiller said during an interview that the "film started out because Alan Arkin and Peter Falk wanted to work together. They went to Warner's and said, 'We'd like to do a picture,' and Warner's said fine . . . and out came The In-laws. . . . of all the films I've done, The In-laws is the one I get the most comments on." Movie critic Roger Ebert compared the film with a later remake:

"Peter Falk and Alan Arkin in the earlier film, versus Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks this time. . . . yet the chemistry is better in the earlier film. Falk goes into his deadpan lecturer mode, slowly and patiently explaining things that sound like utter nonsense. Arkin developes good reasons for suspecting he is in the hands of a madman."

Hence, the image does more than show what two characters looked like — it shows their interaction and facial expressions during a typical scene. Granted that the image will be more meaningful to someone who's seen the film as it is symbolic of their relationship throughout the movie. But that relationship is the essence of this particular movie and what makes it a comedy - none of the other actors contributed to the comedy aspect. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the image were used in an article about the film, it might possibly be plausible, but it's not. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 5 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.

File:MetalMassacreCompilations.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 ⚡ 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MetalMassacreCompilations.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dman92 (notify | contribs).

non-free image - Fails criteria 3. We don't need 9 different covers to illustrate Metal Massacre. Rettetast (talk) 20:39, 21 September 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.

File:What Ive Done - Linkin Park.ogg

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 ⚡ 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:What Ive Done - Linkin Park.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adammw (notify | contribs).

Excessive use of non-free content. A single screenshot can adequately depict what's described in the text. — ξ ^xplicit 22:19, 21 September 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.

File:Sugerloaf.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication the uploader is copyright owner of this image. It's just a retouched version of the image from their album cover, which indicates it's a derivative of an image owned by the record company. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:45, 21 September 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.