Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
August 6
[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ken Jennings - What is FedEx.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EditorE (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC #8; the Final Jeopardy! round from Mr. Jennings's 75th episode is already very well described in the text. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obvious NFCc#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I see no sense about this picture. Just another Jeopardy image. TruPepitoM (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AKB48 1830m Regular Edition Back Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hidayat alfian (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
back cover with no specific rationale as to why we need it. Adds little or nothing to reader understanding and fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 11:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete another of those WP:NFCC#8 failures. TruPepitoM (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Catch you video.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FanofPopMusic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
random screenshot from a video that shows nothing of great note. Image does not significantly add to reader's understanding of the topic and has a rationale that in no way even hints at what this image is for. Fails WP:NFCC#8 at least. Peripitus (Talk) 11:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#8 failure. It scares me, too. TruPepitoM (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2012 (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 The reference to WP:NFC#UUI5 seems invalid: that seems to be talking about using an image from one war to illustrate the general concept of "war" on an article about another war. This image relates directly to the article in question. As for WP:NFCC#8, that criterion is often inherently subjective, coming down to one side asserting "It's not important to understanding!" and the other "Yes it is!", as seems to be the case here. And in this case, the "keep" assertions significantly outnumber the "delete"s. Anomie⚔ 10:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WhiteWriter (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free historic photograph of a refugee treck in 1991, of undocumented authorship. Purely decorative use in article, not object of analytic discussion; contents could easily be covered by a textual description alone ("roads were crammed with trecks of refugees on tractors, lorries and other makeshift vehicles"). Fails WP:NFCC#8 per WP:NFC#UUI5. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Massive disagree. It is not decorative, it is essential, as this image directly represent aftermath of the situation. Also, i highly doubt that you can "explain" 300 km of refugees, better then just use image of at least part. And it is by far iconic image, included in World's famous photos, as it represent entire Operation Storm, as you may see if you search at least a little bit. Definitely dont fail NFC, questionable request here. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can "explain" 300 km of refugees in words much better than in an image, because the image doesn't show those 300 km at all. But what's really the only thing that matters is that there is no sourced commentary on the photograph as an object of encyclopedic coverage in its own right. That's the criterion, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree with "purely decorative use in the article". The source says: "This photo, called "Trail Of Tears" is one of the most famous and tragic photos taken during the wars in Former Yugoslavia. It shows a column of Krajina Serbs being expelled by Croat forces in 1995 during Operation Storm." --Zoupan 19:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's of no use as long as there is nothing about that in the article and as long as it isn't backed by a reliable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As you saw, we are just discussing on talk page about expansion of the article. It is a bit hypocritical to ask for deletion during that prices, that started yesterday... I would withdraw this, as it is quite clear that image is extremely notable. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you just call me hypocritical?! Watch your language. – And no, without even a single reliable source talking about the image, it is everything but clear that it is notable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, i will add a lot about this, so it would be very, very clear that this image and event is notable. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the event is irrelevant. Only the notability of this specific photograph, as reflected in reliable sources, is at issue. By the way, I have removed the image from the article now. Don't even think of reinserting it before you've found and added those reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? Notability is already established, did you saw what user Zoupan told above? --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't a reliable source. Don't you know what counts as reliable sources in this place? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And that blog's source was an even less reliable site. The original description of the photo on that website was The Serbian Trail of Tears. The Serb Indians leaving their ancestral lands in Krajina under combined American/Croat Nazi attack.. Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 11 years after Operation Storm, Croatia Retries Soldiers For War Crimes Against Serbs Pogoršani odnosi između Europske unije i Hrvatske... ... And this is it. A lot more can be found, but this is more then enough to establish that this IS the image of Serb refugees leaving Croatia after the Storm. Please, restore image back in the article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I didn't ask for sources confirming what event this is an image of. I asked for sources explicitly discussing this photograph to establish its notability. None of the links you provided speaks about the photograph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 11 years after Operation Storm, Croatia Retries Soldiers For War Crimes Against Serbs Pogoršani odnosi između Europske unije i Hrvatske... ... And this is it. A lot more can be found, but this is more then enough to establish that this IS the image of Serb refugees leaving Croatia after the Storm. Please, restore image back in the article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And that blog's source was an even less reliable site. The original description of the photo on that website was The Serbian Trail of Tears. The Serb Indians leaving their ancestral lands in Krajina under combined American/Croat Nazi attack.. Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't a reliable source. Don't you know what counts as reliable sources in this place? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? Notability is already established, did you saw what user Zoupan told above? --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the event is irrelevant. Only the notability of this specific photograph, as reflected in reliable sources, is at issue. By the way, I have removed the image from the article now. Don't even think of reinserting it before you've found and added those reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, i will add a lot about this, so it would be very, very clear that this image and event is notable. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you just call me hypocritical?! Watch your language. – And no, without even a single reliable source talking about the image, it is everything but clear that it is notable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As you saw, we are just discussing on talk page about expansion of the article. It is a bit hypocritical to ask for deletion during that prices, that started yesterday... I would withdraw this, as it is quite clear that image is extremely notable. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's of no use as long as there is nothing about that in the article and as long as it isn't backed by a reliable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree with "purely decorative use in the article". The source says: "This photo, called "Trail Of Tears" is one of the most famous and tragic photos taken during the wars in Former Yugoslavia. It shows a column of Krajina Serbs being expelled by Croat forces in 1995 during Operation Storm." --Zoupan 19:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can "explain" 300 km of refugees in words much better than in an image, because the image doesn't show those 300 km at all. But what's really the only thing that matters is that there is no sourced commentary on the photograph as an object of encyclopedic coverage in its own right. That's the criterion, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Btw that's actually one file that has been copied, cropped and reproduced by these websites.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is nonsense request, and you know it. You dont need source that the sky is blue. There are millions of other files on wiki that are here, without any reason or link, and this obviously essential image is stopped by you without any real reason, and with sources. Well, if you are so "explicit", put here link of some similar "source explicitly discussing some photograph", so we will see what to do next. I doubt that i even understand what you want, but that is, anyway, unrelated to this FfD request... Put it here, please, i am waiting for it. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am serious. You wanted a reliable source that contains discussion about notability of one particular image? As i am sure that request as such was never founded in WP:NFCC, please, give me here ANY similar source for any non-free image on wiki, and we could talk more about that. I will wait 24h, and then act further... --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is nonsense request, and you know it. You dont need source that the sky is blue. There are millions of other files on wiki that are here, without any reason or link, and this obviously essential image is stopped by you without any real reason, and with sources. Well, if you are so "explicit", put here link of some similar "source explicitly discussing some photograph", so we will see what to do next. I doubt that i even understand what you want, but that is, anyway, unrelated to this FfD request... Put it here, please, i am waiting for it. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Please read the NFCC criteria that FutureP mentioned. You haven't provided any source that establishes that this particular photo is notable. An example of such notability is Omayra Sanchez. Can you find any source that goes into detail about this photo and its impact?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That amount of notability is not necessary for non-free images. Is it? Can anyone points guideline about that? --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I know these events are controversial, but I am not seeing the argument for deletion. The event is notable and a whole section of the article is devoted to discussing it. If free images are available, then of course they should be used instead, but until any are found this one can be kept. I cannot understand the notability issue being raised: we do not expect every image of a notable event to be itself a notable image. If the description in the text has accuracy issues, this is a different issue to the image and needs to be dealt with separately. SpinningSpark 18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly my point. Thank you. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, we don't expect every image of a notable event to be a notable image, but since this is non-free content we do expect it to be an image with iconic status or historical importance, hence sources that back up its notability will be needed. Btw this is a discussion about non-free content and has nothing to do with any dispute or the accuracy of the file's description.-— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so, the guideline you linked yourself says "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." This is certainly a historical image and it significantly aids in illutrating the event. SpinningSpark 21:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't, because all information it conveys could easily be covered by text alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does! You are violation viki rules by insisting. You are obviously not right. This content dispute should be moved to talk page, as this image will definitively not be deleted. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't, because all information it conveys could easily be covered by text alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And again, yes, that is the same thing i was telling, but not in the same way. Thanks Spinning. I will restore this image to the article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so, the guideline you linked yourself says "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." This is certainly a historical image and it significantly aids in illutrating the event. SpinningSpark 21:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, we don't expect every image of a notable event to be a notable image, but since this is non-free content we do expect it to be an image with iconic status or historical importance, hence sources that back up its notability will be needed. Btw this is a discussion about non-free content and has nothing to do with any dispute or the accuracy of the file's description.-— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly my point. Thank you. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The claim of "Purely decorative use" is bogus. No free equivalent to describe this massive event. File:Oluja traktor.jpg is no substitute. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above.--Zoupan 19:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but change the pro-Serb-POV title.--201.81.224.11 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to clearly conflict with WP:NFC#UUI - "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article." Bulwersator (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Information for closer. This image was in Operation Storm. It has been removed on the grounds of NFCC during the course of this discussion, but could, of course, be restored if this debate closes "keep". That is, a deletion on the grounds that it is not used in an article would be invalid. SpinningSpark 22:32, 8 October 2012 (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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Alain Rochat Whitecaps FC.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dkd1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
publicity photo from the club is likely copyrighted Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2012 (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.