Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
March 3
[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: Delete; deleted by Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Checkoutseason36.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Kyle C Haight (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Orphan image from deleted article. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:31, 3 March 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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Checkout.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Wikider (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Orphan image from deleted article. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:33, 3 March 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Flowdw.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Captainjacksparrow (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, uploaded for use in Flounder (The Little Mermaid) before that was merged to Characters from Disney's The Little Mermaid, but no real use now. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 4 March 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: Withdrawn; want keep much? -FASTILYsock(TALK) 06:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Compass Card Multifare Tivcket Vending Machine.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Koman90 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, bad faith nomination: the only reason it's orphaned is because you removed it nine minutes before you nominated it for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 4 March 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. This isn't anywhere near the grey area that might make me think twice about it. howcheng {chat} 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:EndOfThePatrols-75.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by DagosNavy (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Non-free photo from a commercial photography service. The photograph itself is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade. See WP:NFC#UUI item 6, which gives as an unacceptable use of non-free images "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." —Bkell (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you mention, the copyright holder of the photo is a commercial photography service, not a press agency, thus WP:NFC#UUI item 6 is not applicable here, nor in the case of File:XmaglenSniper.jpg. Furthermore, the image was taken from a secondary source (Harnden, Toby (2000). Bandit Country:The IRA and South Armagh. Coronet Books. ISBN 0340717378).--Darius (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will leave it up to others to decide, but as I understand it WP:NFC#UUI item 6 is simply using "press agency" as an example of an organization making commercial profit from the licensing of its content, thus making it rather more difficult for us to justify a claim of fair use under United States copyright law (and also more difficult for us to show that it satisfies WP:NFCC#2). —Bkell (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The market value of the photo (as states in WP:NFCC#2) is hardly affected by its inclusion on WP, since the pic was already published by a third part (Toby Harnden, who is not the copyright holder), probably under fair use claim.--Darius (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To the administrators: there are at least four 15-days-old FfDs on this page. Can somebody deal with them, please?--Darius (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As a result poor framing of the shot or crop, this could just as well be a boring old accident - toppled over swerving to miss a big pothole. Does not seem to meet NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment PoV innuendo and sarcasm. "Does not seems to meet" proves that this user is not so sure about the reasons for deletion.--Darius (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing administrator decides whether this image meets the non-free content criteria, therefore "seems" is the right word. How, apart from captioning, can the reader see that this was the result of a bomb and not a routine accident? If they can't then the image is replaceable by the caption (since that's the informative part) and wouldn't meet NFCC #1 either. So make that two of the criteria that may not be met here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reader can realise that this wasn't a road accident by assuming good faith -another file was spared deletion on this basis- and by reading the secondary source of this image in the rationale (Toby Harnden, just in case you have no time to read the rest of this thread). The only way to determine the force of the explosion is to see the overturned Saracen and the visible edge of the big crater left by the bomb, something not replaceable by text.--Darius (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing administrator decides whether this image meets the non-free content criteria, therefore "seems" is the right word. How, apart from captioning, can the reader see that this was the result of a bomb and not a routine accident? If they can't then the image is replaceable by the caption (since that's the informative part) and wouldn't meet NFCC #1 either. So make that two of the criteria that may not be met here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets NFCC#8 if I've ever seen an example thereof. MalikCarr (talk) 08:03, 29 March 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. As Bkell points out, no sourced commentary is provided on the image itself, although there is plenty about the event depicted in the image. howcheng {chat} 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:XmaglenSniper.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by DagosNavy (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Non-free photo from a press agency. The photograph itself is not the subject of sourced commentary in either of the articles Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade or South Armagh Sniper (1990–1997). See WP:NFC#UUI item 6, which gives as an unacceptable use of non-free images "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." —Bkell (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Screenshot's comment and source added now to article (note 33). BBC, however, is not properly a "press agency", but a public broadcasting network, and the photo is actually a screenshot.--Darius (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "comment" is, "His killing was covered by the BBC 'inside Ulster' services." This does not provide sourced commentary about the image itself, but about the event depicted in the image. For example of commentary about an image itself (separate from the incident depicted in the image), see Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. —Bkell (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale for TV screenshots, however, states that the fair use applies "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents", thus it's apparently valid with a comment about the stuff depicted by the program.--Darius (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P/S: Even if brief, the text provides a sourced comment about the BBC news program to which the vidcap belongs, not about the death of the soldier.--Darius (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between a "sourced comment" (which is just a fact with a source to back it up) and "sourced commentary" (which is critical analysis or opinions formulated by a third party and cited here). Literary criticism and movie reviews are examples of commentary. —Bkell (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A possible solution - besides deletion or to keep it outright - could be a change of rationale. The screenshot depicts a unique historic image, since there are no public domain photos about a real sniper attack in South Armagh. Therefore, a "non-free historic image" template would be enough to avoid controversy about the "sourced commentary". Since BBC is not a press agency, we would be then in the same situation of File:EndOfThePatrols-75.jpg and then we should let others decide--Darius (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I think the assertion about "identification and commentary" of "the program and its contents" on the rationale means that the contents of a TV news service can be included on an article with a critical commentary of the news themselves, without diminishing the commercial value of the video as a whole. Remember that we're talking about a single snapshot from a 4:03 mins sequence. Keep also in mind that this file depicts a unique historic event.--Darius (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between a "sourced comment" (which is just a fact with a source to back it up) and "sourced commentary" (which is critical analysis or opinions formulated by a third party and cited here). Literary criticism and movie reviews are examples of commentary. —Bkell (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "comment" is, "His killing was covered by the BBC 'inside Ulster' services." This does not provide sourced commentary about the image itself, but about the event depicted in the image. For example of commentary about an image itself (separate from the incident depicted in the image), see Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. —Bkell (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Screenshot's comment and source added now to article (note 33). BBC, however, is not properly a "press agency", but a public broadcasting network, and the photo is actually a screenshot.--Darius (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As Darius says, it was a unique historic event. Where would we obtain another one as there aren't any in the public domain?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am no expert on these matters, but I do feel that this is an over-zealous application of the rules that benefits nobody. Like the Iranian Embassy Siege of 1980, there is no real alternative to the historic TV footage. --yoctobarryc ⁂ ☎ 16:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Historic image, irreplaceable contextual significance. I agree, this isn't a high quality photo, it's just a snapshot from a video, unlikely to replace the market value of the entire news program.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wholly fails NFCC.8 as this image is completely uninformative. As best I can tell, the photograph is of a mass lying under a blanket; seeing this image does not at all significantly increase reader understanding of the subject. Above claims that this image is "historic" are spurious; there are no sources indicating the importance of this image itself. Perhaps they mean the image is "historical", but that's not a reason to keep anything. As a side note, I do not believe NFCC.2 is relevant to this FfD. ÷seresin 05:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, this is the only image we have depicting the aftermath of a sniper attack in South Armagh, thus it is invaluable in order to increase the understanding of the subject; I agree that NFCC.2 (loss of commercial opportunities) is not relevant in this case, by the reasons exposed above. By the way, NFCC.8 is not the issue raised by the proposer of this FdD, but precisely NFCC.2. And the image is not "a mass lying under a blanket"; if you see at the top left, there is the hole left on the wall by the sniper's .50 bullet.--Darius (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely being irreplaceable is not justification to keep an image; there are nine other criteria it must meet. Just because the nominator only raised #2 does not mean it may not be deleted because it also fails #8. The bullet hole does not make this image any more necessary for understanding. Nothing about the subject is explained by this image that cannot be explained in text. ÷seresin 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The pic is highly informative, as stressed by other WP users, since it shows the background in which the majority of the attacks took place (i. e.: a corner of Crossmaglen), the power of the weapon used in the attacks (the bullet killed the soldier and still got embedded in a wall) and the soldier's helmet and gear (even if barely recognizable due to the low-quality required for fair use). Depriving the article of this image would impoverished it of key support material, irreplaceable by mere text. I think it largely meets #8 criterion when it reads that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.--Darius (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You say seeing those things is necessary to understand that they existed, I say you are wrong. We can fight this out, but the closing admin will hopefully pick which of us is correct and close accordingly (as NFCC.8 is the only question that matters here, and no one else has mentioned it in their keeps). ÷seresin 23:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just your opinion, which has the same value as anyone else's. All other users did mention NFCC.8 in all but name, since all of them stressed the illustrative significance of the snapshot for the article. And those 'things' in the pic are necessary to show how they look like, not merely that they 'exist'.--Darius (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I never "stressed the illustrative significance of the snapshot for the article." In hindsight, I should have also mentioned WP:NFCC#8 in my original nomination, but I didn't because frankly I couldn't tell what this was supposed to be a photo of (and so I was afraid that I was missing something important). But really the fact that I couldn't identify the significance of this photograph is an argument that it fails NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know you've never "stressed the illustrative significance of the snapshot", I was just mentioning other's opinions, not that of the nominator. And the failure "to identify the significance of this photograph" is entirely yours, other people involved in the discussion think the opposite.--Darius (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I never "stressed the illustrative significance of the snapshot for the article." In hindsight, I should have also mentioned WP:NFCC#8 in my original nomination, but I didn't because frankly I couldn't tell what this was supposed to be a photo of (and so I was afraid that I was missing something important). But really the fact that I couldn't identify the significance of this photograph is an argument that it fails NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just your opinion, which has the same value as anyone else's. All other users did mention NFCC.8 in all but name, since all of them stressed the illustrative significance of the snapshot for the article. And those 'things' in the pic are necessary to show how they look like, not merely that they 'exist'.--Darius (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You say seeing those things is necessary to understand that they existed, I say you are wrong. We can fight this out, but the closing admin will hopefully pick which of us is correct and close accordingly (as NFCC.8 is the only question that matters here, and no one else has mentioned it in their keeps). ÷seresin 23:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The pic is highly informative, as stressed by other WP users, since it shows the background in which the majority of the attacks took place (i. e.: a corner of Crossmaglen), the power of the weapon used in the attacks (the bullet killed the soldier and still got embedded in a wall) and the soldier's helmet and gear (even if barely recognizable due to the low-quality required for fair use). Depriving the article of this image would impoverished it of key support material, irreplaceable by mere text. I think it largely meets #8 criterion when it reads that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.--Darius (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely being irreplaceable is not justification to keep an image; there are nine other criteria it must meet. Just because the nominator only raised #2 does not mean it may not be deleted because it also fails #8. The bullet hole does not make this image any more necessary for understanding. Nothing about the subject is explained by this image that cannot be explained in text. ÷seresin 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader is right, the nomination must be unequivocal. You can't start the debate under the terms of NFFC#A and then change to NFFC#B (and with this the focus of the discussion) at your behest. Regarding the main issue, the Image describes how the real thing looked at the time, something that no words can express.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "You can't start the debate under the terms of NFFC#A and then change to NFFC#B (and with this the focus of the discussion) at your behest." What? Why not? Where did you get the idea that the only allowed points of discussion are the ones I happened to mention in my original nomination? Why can't the discussion evolve? Remember, this isn't a vote. —Bkell (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, it's a debate, not a poll. But the goal of this debate is consensus, and consensus would be more difficult to achieve if you change the subject of debate. I think, however, that both points (NFCC#2 and #8) have been reasonably addressed by all participants.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "You can't start the debate under the terms of NFFC#A and then change to NFFC#B (and with this the focus of the discussion) at your behest." What? Why not? Where did you get the idea that the only allowed points of discussion are the ones I happened to mention in my original nomination? Why can't the discussion evolve? Remember, this isn't a vote. —Bkell (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this poor quality non-free image which adds nothing to the reader's understanding and whose absence would not be noticeable. Fails NFCC#8 I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The pic can't be of high-quality as per Fair Use requirements, thus that point is out of topic. If deleted, it will deprive the article of the only image of the real events described by the narrative.--Darius (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The article doesn't have a picture" is not a justification for a non-free image. —Bkell (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The pic can't be of high-quality as per Fair Use requirements, thus that point is out of topic. If deleted, it will deprive the article of the only image of the real events described by the narrative.--Darius (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the argument for keeping is not "The article doesn't have a picture", the justification for this screenshot is -I repeat- that, per NFCC#8, its omission would be detrimental to that understanding (of the subject). If this pic is removed, the reader would lost a lot of context clues about how the real stuff looked like in the early 90s.--Darius (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC#8 again. The requisite of "contextual significance" is unequivocally fullfilled by this snapshot, which offers to the reader a glimpse of one of the sniper attacks. Imagination could mislead us, a contextual image not. Something different would be a non-PD picture of a British army patrol or armed members of the PIRA, because these images would be out of the article context, even if related to.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite informative, absolutely complies with C8.--66.211.155.154 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, informative and commented in article. It is also an unique historical event with a properly Non-free media use rationale note --Jor70 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 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. howcheng {chat} 00:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:2686.vid-0008-l-.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ilgiz (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Non-free television screenshot used in Alexander Litvinenko to illustrate the sentence, "…a target with a photo of Litvinenko on it was used for shooting practice by the Vityaz Training Centre in Balashikha in October 2002." However, it's impossible to tell from the photograph that the target is actually a picture of Litvinenko, and so the photo does not provide information that is not given by the text (in fact, the textual description is much more helpful and descriptive than the photo). Fails WP:NFCC#1. —Bkell (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The photograph is a snapshot from the video clip. The clip is still available on Youtube[1]. There are snapshots with close-ups of the target showing Litvinenko's image, but I believe the snapshot with the shooting hand better reflects what they did with the target. --ilgiz (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it not clear from the text what they did with the target? —Bkell (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Such rationale could be applied to any illustration. Why do we need pictures if they can be described in words? --ilgiz (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right on the money—that's pretty much what WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 say. —Bkell (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But then, what are the cases where pictures are necessary in Wikipedia? Why should the disputed image be deleted but not all of the Wikipedia images? --ilgiz (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just a slippery slope argument. Argue the merits of this image on its own. See also Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
- To answer your question, though, consider an image like File:4-Stroke-Engine.gif or File:HyperboloidOfOneSheet.png. These images greatly enhance the articles they're in, elegantly conveying concepts that would be quite difficult to explain in words alone. Of course, both of these examples are freely licensed images, and free images are always fine, even if they don't provide profound understanding. Remember, this is supposed to be "The Free Encyclopedia." Non-free content is directly contradictory to that goal. Honestly I really feel that most of the non-free images on Wikipedia don't need to be here, so I'm not a very good person to ask to defend them. However, the image in question here seems especially unnecessary, since I don't see how it conveys any understanding that is not already provided by the sentence "…a target with a photo of Litvinenko on it was used for shooting practice by the Vityaz Training Centre in Balashikha in October 2002." —Bkell (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the depicted shooting range is a unique document. Just like the words "Ruby shoots Oswald" are not enough to explain the event, the non-free snapshot of shooting at Litvinenko's image has historical value. I apologize for bringing another example, but it is difficult to argue the merits of the image outside its context and without comparing to other historical events. --ilgiz (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is non-replaceable and doesn't harm the copyright owner. It in fact publicises their product if anything. It also shows the type of firing range that was used - giving a hint of the atmosphere of the place (i.e. we can see it's not a Hollywood-film-style indoor range...). The film used it because of its descriptive power rather than just mention it with narration. We can benefit from that descriptive power too. Malick78 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably, however, the filmmakers were not attempting to make a free-content film; here we are trying to build a free-content encyclopedia. —Bkell (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the depicted shooting range is a unique document. Just like the words "Ruby shoots Oswald" are not enough to explain the event, the non-free snapshot of shooting at Litvinenko's image has historical value. I apologize for bringing another example, but it is difficult to argue the merits of the image outside its context and without comparing to other historical events. --ilgiz (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But then, what are the cases where pictures are necessary in Wikipedia? Why should the disputed image be deleted but not all of the Wikipedia images? --ilgiz (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right on the money—that's pretty much what WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 say. —Bkell (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Such rationale could be applied to any illustration. Why do we need pictures if they can be described in words? --ilgiz (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it not clear from the text what they did with the target? —Bkell (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It does not come from a reliable source (youtube), and thus can be fraudulent. LuxNevada (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The snapshot itself came from the article in Dziennik which used to be accompanied by the video clip hosted by Dziennik's web site. --ilgiz (talk)
- Hardly a reliable source. Can't even make out who the people in the target pictures are. This is totally unreliable. Definitely a case for deletion. LuxNevada (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to argue a point that I did not make and use the refutation as if I lost the case. --ilgiz (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly a reliable source. Can't even make out who the people in the target pictures are. This is totally unreliable. Definitely a case for deletion. LuxNevada (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Failes NFCC.8: In January 2007, Polish newspaper Dziennik revealed that a target with a photo of Litvinenko on it was used for shooting practice by the Vityaz Training Centre in Balashikha in October 2002. is perfectly adequate; seeing an image provides no meaningful information that this text does not. I also agree broadly with LuxNevada that copyright information is unclear. ÷seresin 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails NFCC #8 as noted by Seresin and #1 as transparently replaceable by text ("a target with a photo of Litvinenko on it was used for shooting practice by the Vityaz Training Centre in Balashikha in October 2002" tells the reader everything that this non-free image does). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 21 March 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: keep. Not obviously a derivative work as noted below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a speedy deletion due to GDFL-violations. User who uploaded it claimes that he/she created the image whereas it has been available through the show's producer ABS-CBN. Flie where dat has been posted as follows:
- http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:eTPs_R78RzTNBM:http://chikapatrol.pinoynets.com/files/2009/10/Pinoy_Big_Brother_House_Floor_Plan.png
- http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:eYll4RU9K6sj_M:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Yk6LqyG9X6w/Sz7VJrUGZdI/AAAAAAAAEzU/7dpQhO1tHRI/s320/Pinoy_Big_Brother_House_Floor_Plan.png
--TitanOne (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I created this image using PAINT, basing all data on screen captures by one forumer. The websites you quoted are not the official website of Pinoy Big Brother. I spent one whole week doing this floorplan. I claim this to be mine as I created it. The official website of Pinoy Big Brother has the virtual tour, but not the floor plan. Please be advised. LordBelly06 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: this floor plan existed even before the virtual tour was up. Also, those that you showed above are mere thumbnail copies of the large, original floor plan as made by Mr. LordBelly06 here. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I cannot say it is likely or unlikely that LordBelly created the image he uploaded, the links you provide do not make me think he did not. It is possible that those websites took this image, rather than the other way around. I conclude, keeping in mind AGF, that we ought not to deem this a copyvio and delete it. ÷seresin 05:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree, we should assume good faith.--Darius (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Good faith is necessary, but not sufficient. Keep for now.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 08:29, 20 March 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 as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Philwelch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Philwelch (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Unused Philwelch (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted under G7: nominating for deletion a file you uploaded and you alone have edited is a good indication that the author wants it to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 4 March 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⚡ 07:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hank Williams Jr Ain't Misbehavin' cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jafeluv (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Sheet music covers can't be used to identify songs, per precedent. "Piano-vocal-guitar" at top indicates that this is a sheet music cover. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:12, 3 March 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.