Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 October 25

< October 24	October 26 >

October 25

File:Joh for PM campaigner.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author is listed as "Unknown Brisbane Times journalist". Newspaper photos normally fail WP:NFCC#2, so this might need to be deleted. It appears to fail WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8 anyway. Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 25 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.

File:John Howard 1987.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 25 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.

File:Eurocoin.at.001.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The same argument can be made for all the national images of Euro coins, ie either all of them are removed or these two (Eurocoin.at.001.gif and Eurocoin.at.200.gif) are kept. -AK456 (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#Proposed modification to WP:NFC: an RfC confirmed that currency images can't be used in galleries such as this one. Thus, the image has to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I don't understand why you only marked these 2 images for deletion. That RfC applies to all the images listed under Category:Euro images and therefore you would have to mark all of them for deletion if you want to be consistent. --AK456 (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was checking recent uploads and found these two images among the recent uploads. I suppose that the other ones also should be tagged. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:45, 30 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.

File:Eurocoin.at.200.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The same argument can be made for all the national images of Euro coins, ie either all of them are removed or these two (Eurocoin.at.001.gif and Eurocoin.at.200.gif) are kept. AK456 (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#Proposed modification to WP:NFC: an RfC confirmed that currency images can't be used in galleries such as this one. Thus, the image has to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I don't understand why you only marked these 2 images for deletion. That RfC applies to all the images listed under Category:Euro images and therefore you would have to mark all of them for deletion if you want to be consistent. --AK456 (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was checking recent uploads and found these two images among the recent uploads. I suppose that the other ones also should be tagged. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:45, 30 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.

File:800,Baited cameras awaiting deployment.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a watermark, but there is a copy without watermark at File:QBEX Module 2, Baited cameras awaiting deployment.jpg. Let's delete the watermarked copy. Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. No. Please do not delete the watermarked image. This is used in a page, whereas the image without the watermark is not. The watermarked image relates to a page and provides information about the image. I have no knowledge that adding a watermark to an image means that it should be selected for deletion. If you have this information, please let me have it. Both images have copyright statements. Regards Gurnard (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the low-resolution watermarked images should be replaced with the high-resolution images without watermarks, and the image captions should be converted to text so that they can be read by blind people. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page using the watermarked image was deleted per WP:CSD#G4, so it is now orphaned. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 30 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.

File:800,Anchor chains for CPODs.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a watermark, but there is also a copy without a watermark: File:QBEX Module 2, Anchor chains for CPODs.JPG. Let's delete the watermarked copy. Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. No. Please do not delete the watermarked image. This is used in a page, whereas the image without the watermark is not. The watermarked image relates to a page and provides information about the image. I have no knowledge that adding a watermark to an image means that it should be selected for deletion. If you have this information, please let me have it. Both images have copyright statements. Regards Gurnard (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the low-resolution watermarked images should be replaced with the high-resolution images without watermarks, and the image captions should be converted to text so that they can be read by blind people. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page using the watermarked image was deleted per WP:CSD#G4, so it is now orphaned. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 30 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.

File:800,Experimental pots awaiting deployment.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a watermark, but there is also a copy without watermark: File:QBRX Module 2, Experimental pots awaiting deployment.JPG. Let's delete the copy with watermark. Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. No. Please do not delete the watermarked image. This is used in a page, whereas the image without the watermark is not. The watermarked image relates to a page and provides information about the image. I have no knowledge that adding a watermark to an image means that it should be selected for deletion. If you have this information, please let me have it. Both images have copyright statements. Regards Gurnard (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the low-resolution watermarked images should be replaced with the high-resolution images without watermarks, and the image captions should be converted to text so that they can be read by blind people. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page using the watermarked image was deleted per WP:CSD#G4, so it is now orphaned. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 30 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.

File:800,Noise equipment being lowered to seabed at offshore test site.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a watermark, but there is also a copy without a watermark: File:QBEX Module 2, Noise equipment being lowered to seabed at offshore test site.jpg. Let's delete the watermarked copy. Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. No. Please do not delete the watermarked image. This is used in a page, whereas the image without the watermark is not. The watermarked image relates to a page and provides information about the image. I have no knowledge that adding a watermark to an image means that it should be selected for deletion. If you have this information, please let me have it. Both images have copyright statements. Regards Gurnard (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the low-resolution watermarked images should be replaced with the high-resolution images without watermarks, and the image captions should be converted to text so that they can be read by blind people. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page using the watermarked image was deleted per WP:CSD#G4, so it is now orphaned. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 30 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.

File:800,CPOD monitoring equipment for listening to dolphins & porpoises.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a watermark, but there is also a copy without watermark: File:QBEX Module 2, CPOD monitoring equipment for listening to dolphins & porpoises.jpg. Let's delete the watermarked copy. Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. No. Please do not delete the watermarked image. This is used in a page, whereas the image without the watermark is not. The watermarked image relates to a page and provides information about the image. I have no knowledge that adding a watermark to an image means that it should be selected for deletion. If you have this information, please let me have it. Both images have copyright statements. Regards Gurnard (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the low-resolution watermarked images should be replaced with the high-resolution images without watermarks, and the image captions should be converted to text so that they can be read by blind people. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page using the watermarked image was deleted per WP:CSD#G4, so it is now orphaned. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 30 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.

File:OriginalOMArtwork.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and is more or less explained at Ocean Machine: Biomech, in the lede, as "originally released under as Biomech with Ocean Machine as the artist". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:36, 25 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.

File:Lana Del Rey Born to Die The Paradise Edition Teaser.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--this is just a picture of her face and not critically discussed. How is this necessary for aiding the user in understanding the topic? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to give the user an idea of the video. teammathi (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use But it's just a picture of her face--how is this picture explaining something that text alone could not? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The image serves no function other than to decorate the article. Besides, it looks very awkward. The image of Del Rey with the Jaguar automobile is sufficient enough to illustrate the avenues of promotion used for the EP. There is no need to use this non-free content. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely decorative use. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 27 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.

File:Lana Del Rey National Anthem music video.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--this is not necessary for understanding the subject. Readers can easily envision Del Rey wearing a pillbox hat and leaning over. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to give the user an idea of the video. teammathi (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The intention of the image is to show exactly how Del Rey depicts Jackie Kennedy in the video, from the fashion aspects, to her role in her husband's assassination. Without it, the article is seriously lacking. The article will not suffice on text alone to convey this message. Keeping the image is crucial to the understanding of the topic. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely decorative use. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As stated above, the image serves a clear purpose that is not solely decorative. Irreplacable, the image assists critical commentary on the topic of Onassi and the JFK killing. Without the image, the article is severely lacking; no free alternative exists; text alone will not suffice tonconvey the level of critique we want to offer for this encyclopedia entry. There is no need to remove every single image of Lana Del Rey from Wikipedia. It's starting to look like a vendetta. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 03:57, 1 November 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.

File:PrinceofPersia7concept.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This image violates WP:NFCC#3 (minimal use) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). The article – The Prince (Prince of Persia) – adoes not discuss the concept art itself at all (and therefore lacks contextual significance). The article does need the image of a Prince but File:Prince of Persia 2008 vg Box Art.jpg will do admirably well (NFCC 3a).

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Codename Lisa (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're really, really hurt I removed your gameplay screenshot from non-game article, eh? (I wonder what was "contextual significance" of a random screenshot.) --Niemti (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Niemti. No I am not hurt per se. I had that discussion in your talk page because I wanted things to go more friendly, not strictly business-like. (Deleting other people's contributions in cold blood is indeed cruel, let alone WP:CIVIL.) But since you refused to have a compromise and RfC also stonewalled me, I see all avenues of resolving the copyright issue peacefully closed. At least here, we can have a consensus. As you can see, I have recommended a replacement as well; so the article will not be devoid of image. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article already contains a different image of the character, so this additional image fails WP:NFCC#3a. Besides, this image isn't discussed critically (at least not anywhere near the place where the image is used), so it also fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really Whatever "the" character? The article is about a series of different characters called "Prince", completely unrelated to each other than being protagonists in the series. As you can(?) see, they also look completely different. This character design image only in itself sure wasn't "discussed critically" (let's be serious), because it's only a very small element of the work (the game), but the design was. --Niemti (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, the image is not the best in the world. Certainly not when compared to the one illustrating the Prince from Forgotten Sands. Your alternative looks a lot better, even though there is a caption across it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hi all. I uploaded that image many years ago. It's important to note that when I uploaded it, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 did not yet even exist. They weren't there to fail! So the image seemed like a good addition. And while I do believe contributions could be made to satisfy both of these rules, I do not believe it's necessary. The article gets along fine without it. Thanks! The Guy ^(edits) 21:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you saying 27 July 2009 predates NFCC? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I was referring specifically to WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, not NFCC as a whole (unless my memory is going bad). NFCC was much more streamlined back then, in my memory. The Guy ^(edits) 03:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. History confirms they existed at least as early as 4 May 2007 in the current shape. Older diffs also show them in place but with a different numbering scheme. But don't worry; I understand the core of your message now! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol? no I think it's an excellent image, iconic (often showing in articles and promo stuff such as wallpapers) and the cover picture can't be used because it's a cover picture (with the logo and stuff). What the article actually needs is (at least) one MORE illustration, especially showing the duality of the Prince character in The Two Thrones (something like [1]). All of these images can easily contain relevant critical commentary on them in the captions. --Niemti (talk) 10:57, 27 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.