Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 24

< May 23	May 25 >

May 24

File:IMAGE046.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. Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned low quality image of a crossbread dog. Article on crossbreed was deleted a while back, and this image hasn't been used since. Possible future use is limited, as there are better images of the same crossbreed, and the crossbreed itself was determined not to be notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It got moved to File:Kelpie - Border Collie crossbreed.jpg, it should still be deleted, IMO. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:06, 3 June 2011 (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:IMAGE 00137.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. Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality image. No article about the subject of the image. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:48, 24 May 2011 (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:IMAGE 066.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. Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, encyclopedic, low quality. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:06, 24 May 2011 (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:IMAGE 067.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. Killiondude (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, encyclopedic, low quality. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:07, 24 May 2011 (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:Dwight3002.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, poor quality, both tagged as "own work" and described as previously published by a commercial publisher; if the uploader claims to represent the publisher they would need to provide confirmation; was therefore correctly tagged as "di-no permission"; wrongly de-tagged by admin Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:51, 24 May 2011 (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:P. Ramlee.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

evidently an old photograph or screenshot, inherently implausible "own work" claim; uploaded by a sock of a user who had previously admitted under his other account name that all their "own work" uploads had been copyvios. Was already validly deleted, but restored by wheel-warring admin with a record of poor image decisions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:55, 24 May 2011 (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:Nacimiento y Recuerdos.JPEG

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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, apparently non-free album cover, implausibly claimed as own work. Re-upload of earlier File:Nacimiento y Recuerdos.jpg, which the same uploader had previously declared as non-free. Uploader had massive history of bad uploads. Was already validly deleted, but restored by wheel-warring admin with a record of poor image decisions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:57, 24 May 2011 (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:Solution7.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 as F9 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free album cover falsely claimed as own work. Duplicate upload of File:Solution7.JPG, tagged as non-free, and of File:Solution 7.gif, ascribed to an external source by same uploader. No credible sign that the uploader represents the publisher; consistent history of bad uploads. Was already validly deleted, restored by wheel-warring admin with a history of poor image decisions Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:58, 24 May 2011 (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:Solange Knowles - In My Heart.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, copyvio. Allegedly an album cover of an album that never appeared (see multiple re-creations in the deleted history of In My Heart and In My Heart (album)), possibly fan art on the basis of some non-free photograph. Was uploaded by an abusive account that got blocked for serial copyvios and sockpuppeting shortly after. Falsely claimed as "own work". Was already validly deleted, but restored by wheel-warring admin with a record of poor image decisions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:03, 24 May 2011 (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:Jht17.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyvio, old upload by editor who was later indef-blocked for a massive history of deliberately abusive uploads. Was correctly tagged as "di-no source" but wrongly de-tagged by admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per copyvio uploading pattern. Contrary to the statement given by the nominator, who has admitted to stalking me, it was rightly de-tagged: we've grandfathered in older images that don't fit contemporary requirements for sourcing or permissions, and this one is old enough that it might well not qualify for deletion without this discussion. Since it might not be covered by the present requirements, I followed policy because I don't speedy delete media except in the most obvious cases. Nyttend (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong: When this image was uploaded, WP:IUP already clearly demanded source information [1], and when a few months later the "no source" CSD was introduced [2], it deliberately said "regardless of when uploaded". There was no grandfathering-in. And destroying the work of a hard-working copyvio cleanup editor by removing their tags without any further alternative action, on the mere guess that the policy might not apply, is simply not okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 24 May 2011 (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:Randy Gives Lecture About T.M.I..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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot of a cartoon series. Was uploaded under the naive premise that since most other articles in the series have a screenshot, this one must too. Fails NFCC#8 as so often: not embedded in analytical commentary, not needed to understand article, no visual details of the image are the subject of explicit discussion. Note that the editor has uploaded several alternative images for the same episode and hasn't yet made up his mind which of them he wants to use. This nomination applies to all alternatives, no matter which of them ends up on the page (supposing that those that remain unused will be speedied anyway) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the last two but delete the rest. The others are not illustrative at all but the one of the angry mob is somewhat, it works far better than trying to explain who and what they are in words. - filelake shoe 11:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That image doesn't help me to understand who and what they are either. The text does. Which of them is supposed to be the Tea Party Member, the White Hiphop Fan, or the Tall Goth? The text gives me at least some vague idea what kinds of characters these might be; the image leaves me completely in the dark. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - South Park episodes have a tendancy to reach GA and have a tenancy to exhibit the model applications of fair use images for television episodes by that point. I'm not seeing that here. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that this debate seems to have essentially stalled and since it is clear that no consensus has been reached yet on which of these snapshots is the most suitable for performing the role of being this article's lead image, I have decided to signifigantly expand the "Non Free Use Rationale" tables for each of these screenshots (except for the image Cartman Measures Butters' Genitalia; as I concur with User:Future Perfect that this particular screenshot doesn't sufficiently enhance the content of the article in any way other than graphically illustrating the "regular" method [i.e. just measuring the legnth of the penis by utilizing a tape measurer or ruler] of determining the size of the genitals) in order to hopefully provide a clearer explanation as to why these pictures do not infringe upon WP:NFCC. If you are an administrator, then please carefully read the improved non-free use rationale charts for each of these snapshots (especially for Cartman and the Pissed Off and Angry Party; as this picture appears to be the top option for the lead image right now) before you hastily decide to delete the files. In addition, I would greatly appreciate it if I could know what the final verdict is on which snapshots are deemed to be "acceptable" for usage on Wikipedia by no later than Sunday night. --Kaiser Taylor (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. As long as you are still talking of a "role of being this article's lead image" as if there had to be such a thing, and as long as you are still framing the issue in terms merely of "which of these snapshots is the most suitable" for it, rather than "whether any snapshot is suitable", I doubt you have understood the basic issue. Since you are the person who wants an image, I suggest you first make up your own mind about which of them you want to keep; then the deletion discussion can focus on that one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I fully understand that some editors & administrators may feel very strongly that none of these snapshots are appropriate for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I also realize that due to my poor choice of words, I didn't really make this point especially clear in my preceeding post; so I can't really blame you for this misunderstanding. As far as your suggestion regarding these images is concerned, unless another contributor voices their support for another snapshot within the next 36 hours, I will personally select the png. format screenshot titled Cartman and the Pissed Off and Angry Party (since this seems to be the only picture that has recieved any sort of approval from an administrator) for the article "T.M.I."'s lead image and I will then promptly delete all the other files that I uploaded onto Wikipedia. Then, if you insist, we can continue this debate over that specific image file. --Kaiser Taylor (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all There now seems to be an emerging consensus on which (if any) of these screenshots is suitable. —teb728 t c 10:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that this snapshot is the only one to have recieved any sort of approval from an administrator, I have removed the file "Cartman and the Pissed Off and Angry Party.png" from this "Files for Deletion" page and inserted it into the article "T.M.I." as the lead image. If you are an administrator, you may now delete all of the other image files (in other words, every snapshot except for "Cartman and the Pissed Off and Angry Party.png") that I uploaded onto Wikipedia around eight days ago. If you are an administrator and you also have a problem with the aforementioned snapshot (i.e. "Cartman and the Pissed Off and Angry Party.png") that I have selected to be the lead image for this article, then please create a new section on the "Files for Deletion" page so that we can debate whether or not THAT specific snapshot is acceptable for Wikipedia use. --Kaiser Taylor (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a new discussion for THAT screenshot, for it has been under discussion here for almost seven days, and the change does not affect the validity of the discussion: Three editors say all should be deleted; one says the angry mob is somewhat illustrative; and one apparently thinks anything is acceptable. —teb728 t c 01:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just to confirm that the "angry mob" image was nominated regularly together with the rest from the start and remains part of this nomination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 31 May 2011 (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:CheWithMao1.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. Problems with NFCC #1 and #8 as noted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many PD pictures in Che Guevara that we don't need any more, particularly since this one is mostly decorative. I don't see how it contributes significantly to the reader's understanding of the meeting between Che and Mao. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The photo contains a full fair use rationale and represents the only meeting of two historical figures. It clearly has encyclopedic value and does not represent anything that would be at risk of violating the unknown photographer’s commercial opportunities. The fact that there are many PD images of Guevara is irrelevant to the value of this particular image (which is used in a section discussing Che’s shift towards the Chinese position in the Sino-Soviet split) – a position that began to crystallize after this particular meeting. Redthoreau -- (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my comment about the number of PD images was kind of off topic. But still, a picture of "the only meeting of two historical figures" that just shows them shaking hands does not really help with understanding the meeting. Che's preference towards China can be expressed easily in text without the need to show him together with Mao. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We always delete images like these. We don't need to see a handshake picture to convey the information that two people met at an important event. --Damiens.rf 20:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 23:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (comment) - This entire page seems to be manned by image deletionists with no appreciation for the intellectual value of imagery in articles. However, I realize it a futile and losing battle, because the vast majority of users who would probably support most of these images, don’t bother to even read the “listed for deletion” page. It is crazy how 2 to 3 users who have a universal disdain for fair use imagery can cause an avalanche of deletions on so many quality Wikipedia images. Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Perhaps this will help you understand: English Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. Many Foundation projects do not allow any non-free content at all. The Foundation requires that any project that does allow non-free content must have an “Exemption Doctrine Policy” (EDP). An EDP is required to be more restrictive than US fair use law; for example, an EDP may not allow the use of non-free content if someone could upload a free replacement. On English Wikipedia the EDP is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (NFCC). One of the NFCC policy requirements is, “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. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.” Although the use of this photo may comply with US fair use law, it does not comply with English Wikipedia’s intentionally more restrictive policy because it does not significantly increase reader understanding. —teb728 t c 22:09, 25 May 2011 (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:Chase IBM GirlScouts logos.svg

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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC #1; can be easily replaced with three PD-textlogos. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new PD image and replaced it in the Logo article. --Beao 12:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 24 May 2011 (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:Bonniejocampbell2.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A free image of this woman could be created. Damiens.rf 15:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i could find no free image; create the free image before deletion. Slowking4 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there appears to be no bar to obtaining a free-use image of this living person. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2011 (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:Mickey mouse acid warning.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: kept. Closing admin won't make any soon-to-be-overtaken-by-events statement on where this may be used as his crystal ball is on the fritz. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this image is really non-free (I couldn't verify since its source seems wrong), it should be used none of the four articles it is currently being used in. It seems replaceable in each of them (actually unnecessary in some). Damiens.rf 15:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would question whether this is really within the spirit of any non-free image policy. This image is of a folk artifact, an anonymous text circulated without copyright claims with the express intent of having it reduplicated, together with a crude drawing of Mickey Mouse. FWIW, the original image is still on the Web here. For some reason, links to the actual page it appears on fail, but you can reach the image, where it is attributed to the Jan Brunvand book, by following the "What do they look like" link. A number of variants are collected on those pages. This one is mentioned as the earliest, and according to that site appeared in a published source. I'd say that this image was dedicated to the public domain by its anonymous original author. Any replacement image would also have the same issues of anonymity and recentness. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, anonymous folk artifact, and clearly fair use in Blue star tattoo legend.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's decided to keep the image, the closing admin should make a statement about in which article should the image be allowed. --Damiens.rf 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think normal editorial judgement should cover that nicely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Normal editorial judgment placed this non-free image in four distinct articles including one list while having a fair use rationale for just one of them. If the closing admin decides for keep, he/she can well enough save us from a new discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. --Damiens.rf 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - FWIW, I checked the Jan Brunvand book; there it is in The Choking Doberman on page 164. Google image here No copyright credit is given in the book for the image. The bit of faxlore in question apparently originated in New England but was collected in Atlanta; part of the point is that they get around. This isn't a "fair use image"; it's a freely redistributable image that may not be suited for Commons. It was made for that very purpose. Now what we have to worry about is the asshat who will decide to crop out our new free image of Mickey Mouse and insist on its exclusive use to illustrate the character. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:43, 25 May 2011 (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:Rabbit foot blues.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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover for an album never mentioned, being used to support some theory (apparent original research). Damiens.rf 15:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The image confirms the age of the rabbit's foot belief. References and discussion in the article text confirm both its association with blues music and with cemeteries and bones, as discussed in that article. Uncertain whether this is actually still under copyright. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not original research, properly cited to scholarly work. In any case, keep - published 1926 without evidence of copyright notice. Another use of what appears to be the same image is here, an ad that contains no copyright notice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as PD per SarekOfVulcan. Suggest moving to Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's deemed to be PD, of course I don't object keeping. --Damiens.rf 17:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't move to Commons unless we're quite sure we've connected the dots properly -- they could well delete it for something we're missing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2011 (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:Dan Ross.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable drawing. Damiens.rf 18:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph, actually, not drawing. I suspect it's copyright Northeastern University, rather than the College Football Hall of Fame. I'd be surprised if we couldn't dig up a free-use picture of some sort for him. Failing that, http://www.collegefootball.org/news_article.php?id=871 might be a better image to use, since it's portraying a significant moment in his life (Hall of Fame induction) rather than being a generic publicity photo.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That really looks like a pencil done drawing to me. In a related note, collegefootball.org says nothing about the copyright status of the images they use. Shouldn't we avoid them? --Damiens.rf 18:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally, yes, but since the background in that shot is their logo, I think it can be safely assumed in this case that it was an official event photograph. Of course, we can't make that assumption about the picture which is the subject of the discussion... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's replaceable, please find the replacement. We can't create a new one, and due to the age and subject (college football), photos are generally not available for free: commercial photographers want money for their work and non-commercial photographers don't have their images online/digitized. 75.71.157.20 (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2011 (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:Pramod Mahajan on India Today Cover.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover. I'm not sure what exactly is it being used for, but I believe it's there just to make the point some event got covered by the magazine. Damiens.rf 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as purely decorative. There is no attempt at a non-free use rationale. I wouldn't be above creating one, but I couldn't guess what the purpose of the use is supposed to be. —teb728 t c 21:47, 27 May 2011 (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:Swas.gif

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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, not useful. Moving it to Commons is what Hitler would have done, but Godwin says this is an argument to avoid on deletion discussions. Damiens.rf 18:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Soviet Russia, Stalin votes delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (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:MandelaFidel.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 as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails at least WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. We don't need to copy a picture from Associated Press showing the meeting of two leaders to make the point they once met. Damiens.rf 21:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#F7. AP photo is not the subject of sourced commentary. —teb728 t c 22:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. An important historical image of Mandela’s first foreign visit after being released from prison. The meeting and visit was significant at the time, because Mandela used it to illustrate his appreciation for Cuba’s assistance to Angola and the Anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa. Castro and Mandela then published a book together of their speeches from this event (as noted in the article caption). Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redthoreau, I fail to see the relation of your argument with our policy, or the concerns raised on the nomination. How will the lack of this imagery be detrimental to the understanding of the article? Why can we illustrate our text about this important event with this image for free, while Associated Pres's main business is selling the rights of images like this one (including this one!) to exactly this kind of use? --Damiens.rf 15:11, 25 May 2011 (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:ThomasSankaraSpeaks.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free book cover for a book that is barely mentioned in the article. Damiens.rf 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The book is the only one by the subject of the article and the definitive work on his thought. It also has the benefit of visually identifying where an interested reader could go to read more about the subject. Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the “List of works” section, the caption of the cover image is the only mention of the book. Anything the article may have to say about the book could be expressed in free text. If readers want more on the subject, they can click on the ISBN link in the “List of works” section, which will take them to a list of library and bookseller sources for the book. —teb728 t c 21:03, 27 May 2011 (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:Al-Amriki1.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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image from a living guy copied from some News Agency (source says: "New York Post, Fox News, Youtube, CNN etc"). Damiens.rf 21:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The possibility of creating a free replacement is extremely limited: A contemporary photo could come only from a member of al-Shabaab, who would be unable to confirm a free license, or from a visit by a journalist, who surely would not grant a free license. —teb728 t c 21:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TEB. Copyright is plainly not owned by a news agency: this is a still from a self-publicity video. Jheald (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2011 (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:Kevinjames2.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary tv screenshot shows the headshot of two tv hosts, apparently being used to make the point the were hosting the show. Damiens.rf 21:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as purely decorative. The non-free use rationale (if there is one) does not say what the purpose of the use is supposed to be, and I can't guess what the purpose might be. The text (trivial as it is) about James’s appearance on Hardball doesn’t need a screenshot. —teb728 t c 20:26, 27 May 2011 (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:CheMotoDiaries2.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movie screenshot (or is it a promotional shot?) being used to decorate the movie plot. Damiens.rf 21:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The image is both a screen shot, and the most common one used to promote the film. It visually helps the reader understand the topic as it shows them on the type of motorcycle they were on, shows that they shared the same motorcycle etc. It also allows the characters in the film to be visually identified and then their real-life identities be noted alongside the characters (in the photo caption). Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The text about them riding the motorcycle is perfectly understandable without the screenshot. The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 19:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only apparent justification would be that it shows the appearance of the two lead actors as portrayed in character. No opinion as to whether that should be considered sufficient to pass NFCC #8. Not convinced that it doesn't, but not a slam-dunk that it does either. Jheald (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2011 (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:Program hosts in augumented reality sets.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: Kept - Image is now free - Peripitus (Talk) 11:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale does not say what the purpose is supposed to be, but apparently it is to illustrate the continually changing computer-digitized sets. If so, the text elucidates that better than the screenshot. In any case the use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 21:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI TEB728,

You may be right. I thought it added - especially since it was one of the first shows to do this back in the 90s. But, I'm not hung up on it being included. However, I think I can get permission to use it if that's the issue. Many thanks!

Sinclairindex (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For handling permission see WP:COPYREQ. Bear in mind that permission for use only on Wikipedia is not enough; acceptable permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. Such permission would make the use OK. —teb728 t c 22:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TEB728

Thanks for the help. I received permission from the production company (who contacted Wikipedia directly). They're providing permission to copy and for others to reuse as well.

Thanks again

Sinclairindex (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS permission confirmed for free license release in ticket 2011052510012464. – Adrignola talk 15:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gladly withdrawn. —teb728 t c 19:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi teb728 and Adrignola,

Thank you very much. I appreciate the advice and help.

Best regards,

Sinclairindex (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - is there something I should do to remove the "delete" message on the article [3] or is that automatically done by a bot, editor, etc.???

Thanks.

Sinclairindex (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since deletion discussions usually run one week, most discussions on this page will be closed about June 1. In most cases an admin will delete the file, and a bot will close the discussion. When the result is keep, the closer closes the discussion and removes the notices from the file pages and articles. Since this nomination has been resolved, I wouldn't be surprised if it were closed early. —teb728 t c 20:53, 28 May 2011 (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:Bridgebase.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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image that does not help in enhancing the reader's understanding of Bridge Base Basic. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have removed it from Bridge Base Basic where it obviously fails NFCC, but placed it in Bridge Base Inc. where there is a section discussing the software. I have updated the non-free rationale accordingly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry. Do we need a screenshot of "gameplay" as well as the screenshot of livecast that illustrates Vugraph?

[[Image:vugraph-screenshot.jpg|thumb |right| 180px | Screenshot]]

Neither is more fundamental to Bridge Base, Inc., and the vugraph in a broad sense may have historical priority. Maybe Bridge Base Inc. should be written so that both are appropriate. (Either one would be decorative at Bridge Base Basic, I agree.) --P64 (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2011 (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.