Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 December 13

< December 12	December 14 >

December 13

File:Malikriaz.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:12, 13 December 2010 (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:WIKIPROJECTREDFACTION.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image, I doubt it would be used for the Red Faction WikiProject, since it has merged with WikiProject Video Games, the project appears to be no longer active. JJ98 (Talk) 05:18, 13 December 2010 (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:2010 Nobel ceremony.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. Considering that the non-free image has been replaced by a free image showing the same thing, I must delete it per WP:NFCC#1, and therefore that is the only view I was able to consider. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free press photograph (from BBC). Purely decorative use, not itself the object of sourced analytical discussion as an image, no transformative use, not needed for understanding the article; hence, fails NFCC#8, probably also #2. Also lacks a meaningful FU rationale. ("Of historical record" is not a meaningful NFC criterion; the thing about historic photographs is meant for cases where a photographic work is notable in itself.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly historical, and the different strands are discussed at large in the article. Indeed, the article, as indeed multiple sources, describes the speech given by Liv Ullmann, the highly symbolic image of the seat left empty due to Liu Xiaobo's absence from the award ceremony, and the large image of Liu on the stage. I can fill out the rationale, but I do not agree it fails the FU criteria. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Obviously historical. Typically and significantly shows Liu's absence. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant. Being "historical" is in no way a relevant criterion according to WP:NFCC. And Liu's absence doesn't need to be "shown". We all know what an empty chair looks like. I can see an empty chair right from where I'm sitting now, in fact. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was the first time since Carl von Ossietzky in 1935 that the award cannot be handed over to its laureate nor a relative of the laureate (ref). Had you such a remarkable chair in which sits a notable person, attracting international media attention one day each year, and several days ago it was accidentally empty due to the absence of the notable person, that would be called historical as well. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the "historical" can be considered equivalent to "significance" of WP:NFCC#8, otherwise, why the {{Non-free historic image}} exists and is a valid fair use template not been AfD'ed? Don't be so pointy. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should actually read the template you cite (all of it). And that template is for unique historic images. This one isn't – there are plenty of current news images from this event, none of them more unique than the other. The event that's being depicted is historically important – this particular press photo isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you mean that, even if an event is extremely historical, but we "unfortunately" have two or more non-free photos for it, then we never have a chance to include one of them in the article even as a fair use? You see, the extremely notable photo File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg is not "unique" as you described, because we find at least one other photo exists, so we must delete them both? And are you going to say something like "we don't need an image to understand what a tank and a man look like"? // Sorry I'm not saying WP:Other stuff exists but just trying to explain what the "unique" means. The "unique" is relative but not absolute. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The visual of an empty chair became the symbolic image of 2010 ceremony as reported in media Nobel Peace Prize awarded to empty chair, The empty chair, Empty chair takes spotlight at Nobel prize gala and CNN.--Ekabhishek^talk 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? We still don't need an image to understand what the empty chair looked like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: we have a free image of the empty chair after all: File:Voa chinese empty chair 10dec10 teaser+.jpg, from "Voice of America" [1] (used under PD-USGov). Thus, the present image is clearly replaceable, whatever the other merits of the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK I hadn't seen this free image before my last argument. If we don't have a free image, it should be kept, the "unique" doesn't mean only one picture for the event, otherwise you have plenty of such photos to delete. But now we can delete this image since we have a free replacement. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's historical significance lies not only in the empty chair, symbolically important though that is. There is the combination of this with the massive image of Liu on the stage and Liv Ullmann reading his essay. Having the current image does only half the job; we have no free images for the other half. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:18, 15 December 2010 (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:Jovan Ozegovic.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned files previously used in Jovan Ozegovic, a likely hoax which has been PROD-deleted. January ^(talk) 18:22, 13 December 2010 (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.