Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 31

< May 30	June 1 >

May 31

File:Voluntaryism.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, the file has been replaced by a better version. Abel (talk) 04:24, 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:Albertoriv.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: not deleted - I have moved the image out of the infobox down to the section that discusses the drawing. It seems more than reasonable to have a sample of the artwork that is discussed in the article. What is not reasonable, as Damiens.rf correctly points out, is to simply use the drawing in place of a photo of the guy. --B (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 11:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a portrait of a dead person used for identification purposes, and no free image is known to exist. How would you be able to replace it with anything but a derivative work? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Drawing the guy's face. --damiens.rf 14:12, 8 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:Sens. Hatch and Lieberman at the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed semi-speedy. I'm sure the hearing was important, but what these two men happened to look like at the time is not. This image is adding nothing to the article and, in any case, lacks solid sourcing/author information. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dissenting opinion on deletion. The importance of the image is not in depicting how these two men looked (as J Milburn keeps ridiculously trying to assert), it is the fact that they are holding a copy of Antichrist Superstar and discussing its supposed corrosive effect on the mindset of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (as well as its supposed contribution to every instance of teenage violence and school shooting that occurred in the late 90s). That makes it use in the Marilyn Manson (band) article more than valid. I admit that I was wrong in using it in the Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) and Rock Is Dead Tour articles, though both of them go into deeper depth on the 1999 hearing. I have since changed its rationale for keeping it in Wikipedia.

It also depicts the Senators' attempt at trying to circumvent the US Constitution's First Amendment protection against censorship of artistic expression by attacking media distributors instead with charges of marketing "adult" content to minors. -Red marquis (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In using a non-free image, you are saying that it is important to show something. A non-free image can be used only if "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", hence my "ridiculous assertion". What do you feel this photograph shows that can not be said in the article? That they, at one point, held a copy of the album? I am not saying that we should not talk about the issue, I'm saying that this image, in showing us two men in suits, one of them holding an album, adds nothing to the article. J Milburn (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Delete since we don't need to see a photo of the man holding a CD to understand that he did it. While the information is relevant for the article, it's not visual information. It's an event that is perfectly and naturally explained in prose. Nevertheless, there's a current policy change being voted that would allow non-free images of events when the events are discussed in the article, Since the article discuss the fact that the man hold the CD at that situation, the result should be Keep.

J Milburn has a point. I guess I didn't understand this policy before he explained it here. But in light of the policy change being voted on, I'd like to wait for the results before any action is taken on this picture. -Red marquis (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no change of policy being proposed. NFCC#8 would remain policy, and, I ask you, in what way is reader understanding significantly increased by seeing this picture? The issue under discussion is the interpretation/wording of a specific example of acceptable non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 8 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:Ipatiev2.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: deleted as the uploader has been blocked and the sourcing is dubious. The source claimed is a 1965 book (not public domain). --B (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently used, appears to have been uploaded for POV-pushing related to alleged Jewish involvement in the death of the Romanovs. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file will be used later. It is an important item to keep. It is a piece of evidence that corroborates a person (Robert Wilton) whose findings form the crux of a central argument in the article I am interested in revising.Information on Wilton can be garnered here[1]

I do not believe deletion is justified. This file has not been altered. The image is discussed on p. 160 of the original edition of Wilton's book: http://www.archive.org/download/TheLastDaysOfTheRomanovs/The_Last_Days_Of_The_Romanovs-Robert_Wilton_and_Depositions_Of_Eye_Witnesses-1920-350pgs-POL.sml.pdf

Blastikus (talk)

Keep. If this was published in a 1920 book, it would appear to be available for free distribution at least in the USA, and is likely Commons-worthy. Whether it has any encyclopedic value, I can't say. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I can remove the threat of deletion? Are you an admin or somebody who has authority in disputes?

Apparently you are an admin. I would appreciate it if the deletion threat on the description page of my image could be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastikus (talk • contribs) 17:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bribery? Tsk tsk... Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 19:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am an administrator; but we act on consensus in these issues, or ought to. It surely doesn't seem to be so obviously clear that I can close this before its appointed time; someone will either delete the templates or the image based on what's said in this discussion. (And that shouldn't be me, because I added an opinion.) I still don't have a clue what this is a picture of or what I'm supposed to learn from it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably because I deleted the copyvio on the file description page that described, in great detail, what we were looking at. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that an image reveals disturbing realities does not in any way invalidate it. Wilton also confirmed some aspects of what I discussed in his book. The story of the ensuing censorship of Wilton is here:[2] Here is another interesting item tangential to the original one, which gives insight into some aspects of it[3]

The only reason SarekOfVulcan wishes to delete this image is because it clashes with his ideology.Blastikus (talk)

Delete. The file is a well-known antisemitic hoax.--Galassi (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I also am concerned about the insertion of offensive fringe theories into other articles, the lack of merit in the theory really doesn't have to do with whether we should keep this file. If it's a "well known" hoax it's likely a notable hoax, and we can have articles on notable hoaxes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file is in no way a "hoax". It was recorded by Robert Wilton in 1920 and a picture was taken as a part of the Sokolov investigation. Even the Romanov memorial website features it, although it's conclusions about it are different than that of Wilton: http://www.romanov-memorial.com/HeinesPoem.htm

Information about Robert Wilton and the ensuing ordeals he went through for presenting accurate information about the revolution can be garnered here: http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/TheWorldRevolutionAgain.htm Blastikus (talk)

The Sokolov "investigation" is a hoax in itself.--Galassi (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Image is clearly PD and could serve a useful purpose on WP. If it is being misused, then remove it from the pages where it is being misused, not nominate for deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:44, 6 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.