Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
July 5
[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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Desimoneo.ext (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Desimoneo.ext listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs | uploads).
- 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Anna Chapman SPY Russian 002.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Fastefx (notify | contribs | uploads).
- This is a modelling photo. Unlikely to be an FBI mugshot as claimed by the uploader. Apocalypse Survivor (talk) 05:11, 5 July 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.
- 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 - permission is not confirmed though a note has been left on the uploader's page about how to do this. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Living waters spa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by JS5owner (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Orphaned file, possibly copyvio as it may have been taken from livingwatersspa.com. — ξxplicit 07:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I own this spa and took the picture. Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JS5owner (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 July 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Foramy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Magnius (notify | contribs | uploads).
- The only thing distinguishing this non-free television screenshot from the public domain vanGogh painting on which it is based is the presence of an almost indiscernable scrawl, "for Amy," on the vase. It's so indistinct that I'm not sure readers would even be able to make it out, but this image is anyway fully replaceable by free content, and even if it were not, seeing it is not essential for readers' understanding. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since the "For Amy" addition is easily described by a few words of text on top of the free original work (which, using our versions, the free version is tons better resolution than the screengrab from the show) --MASEM (t) 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I do think that seeing the actual image is important for viewers' understanding. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does it meet NFCC 1 and NFCC 8? Your comment does not explain this. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the image meets NFCC #8 (and, by extension, NFCC #1) on the basis that viewing the image with the message integrated into the work carries greater emotional weight than having the changes described. I realize that it's a very small change from the original Van Gogh painting, and that I may be in the minority, but I think the difference in viewing is significant. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC 8 would require you to establish how, and in what way(s), the image's omission – and/or replacement with a free equivalent – would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic. Just because it would be a little easier for someone to visualise does not mean that its removal could possibly harm their understanding. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 20:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have given my explanation and stand by it. If the consensus is that the article should be deleted, so be it, but I don't intend to waste your or anyone else's time spinning our wheels over this. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not provided an explanation of how it meets NFCC 8 other than, "it carries greater emotional weight," which does not directly address the points of that criterion. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 07:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have given my explanation and stand by it. If the consensus is that the article should be deleted, so be it, but I don't intend to waste your or anyone else's time spinning our wheels over this. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC 8 would require you to establish how, and in what way(s), the image's omission – and/or replacement with a free equivalent – would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic. Just because it would be a little easier for someone to visualise does not mean that its removal could possibly harm their understanding. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 20:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the image meets NFCC #8 (and, by extension, NFCC #1) on the basis that viewing the image with the message integrated into the work carries greater emotional weight than having the changes described. I realize that it's a very small change from the original Van Gogh painting, and that I may be in the minority, but I think the difference in viewing is significant. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does it meet NFCC 1 and NFCC 8? Your comment does not explain this. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clear NFCC failure. We have to assume that reader's have sufficient imagination to see the free image, read the text describing the small changes, and not have their understanding of the article's topic significantly harmed as a result. Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 7 July 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Recovery21.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Asid12345678 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- the cover, rational and usuage fail to provide sufficient context or further understanding of the subjct. Per WP:NFCC#8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In this case there is no reason as to why the omission of this cover would decrease the reader's understanding of Recovery (Eminem album). Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete See also WP:NFCC#3a, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:09, 5 July 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nba live 09 screen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Icealien33 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- No discussion of the image, no contextual significance. WP:NFCC#8. Mosmof (talk) 20:08, 5 July 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Stamp india 2008 Tata Steel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Devx101 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Stamp used decoratively - no convincing rationale and does not seem to add significantly to reader's understanding. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 21:29, 5 July 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Stamp india 1958 Tata Steel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Devx101 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- decorative non-free image that does not significantly add to reader's understanding - fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 21:31, 5 July 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Skipperdriving1 300.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Skol_fir (notify | contribs | uploads).
- OB and OR: this file was uploaded in error, and has been replaced by a duplicate under the name "File:Skipper_Stowe.jpg". Skol fir (talk) 22:40, 5 July 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.