Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

February 8

File:WEDX logo.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 G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete Twinbros22 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2013 (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:1986Firecracker400.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (albeit hesitantly, knowing that Wizardman's knowledge of copyvio is on par with MRG herself). Going out on a limb here (and with full disclosure that I am a fan of NASCAR and member of the related project): First I'll note that these half-dozen or so images (listed separately) are all uploads of a user who had issues with his uploads, and is no longer active. Now to support my "keep" I'll cite: WP:NFCI #8. WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. In my own words I would say that this image is of an event long past (over 25 years), and as such the image can not be reproduced. I would also say that that the image depicts something of the event which can not be described in words. Noting also that the image is used within the article about said event. With NASCAR, as car models, paint schemes, drivers, numbers, and other visual elements change yearly; as such - substituting another picture from another time or event would not accurately reflect the actual subject in question. I would also say that this picture borders on the "iconic" status as it has been published by multiple sources. (although that last sentence and a 5 dollar bill would likely only purchase a cup of coffee) — Ched : ? 18:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and struck a few of my "keep" !votes. While I don't have it in my heart to actually type the "delete", I know in my mind that the reasoning is sound. There's still a couple here that I think add to the articles, but nothing I'm willing to fuss over. — Ched : ? 16:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure how a photo of some cars are supposed to help me understanding this racing event. Besides, the photo is ignored in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how why of these race photographs really aid understanding of the race in the article. I feel like they are decorative. If the argument is about the paint schemes, I have found about 5 flickr photographers who have posted a lot of photographs from that era (1970s through 1990s) of the race cars and have agreed to Creative Commons free licenses. Their images are being used right now on Wikipedia. Perhaps some of them have photographs of this particular race?? I wouldn't be surprised if there are more willing flickr photographers who have posted photographs of that era - I haven't tried to find one / ask for over a year. And for full disclosure, I'm a member of the NASCAR WikiProject too. Royal broil 04:56, 16 February 2013 (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:1973GwynStaley400.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question It's a detailed image; how could you possibly replace this with text? The sole question here in my mind is significance/transformativeness: is it significant enough that its omission would significantly detract from the article? No opinion, so no keep vote and no delete vote. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There really are no details in this image though, hence the issue. It's just a few cars driving, with no way of knowing who the racers are, and we only know where it is even based off the source. I don't think anyone doubts that it was in fact a race, which is all the image shows us. It's essentially in image that was just put in to have one, which is precisely what the non-free criteria discourages. Wizardman 04:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning above, in that I disagree with the lack of significance, and per WP:NFCI #8 and WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. — Ched : ? 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image just shows some cars driving in front of the crowd and tells nothing about the stuff in the article. Entirely random photo of the event which is ignored in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale above. My main rationale for deletion is what Wizardman said about having an image for the sake of having one. I disagree about not being able to figure out who some of the cars are [1]. I can pick out a few cars. Royal broil 05:06, 16 February 2013 (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:DaleEarnhardtat1976Dixie500.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning above, in that I disagree with the lack of significance, and per WP:NFCI #8 and WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. (Although given the quality and lack of detail of this particular image, I am less convinced that a "keep" is the proper outcome). — Ched : ? 18:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image is ignored in the article, so it can impossibly affect the understanding of the subject of the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale above. Royal broil 05:07, 16 February 2013 (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:1993FirstUnion400.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning above, in that I disagree with the lack of significance, and per WP:NFCI #8 and WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. (Although once again, the image quality and clarity make it less than a "must have") — Ched : ? 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NFCC#8, you can only include non-free images if removal would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. In this case, it is the other way around: inclusion is detrimental to the understanding of the article. The image apparently shows the "first yellow (caution) flag incident", and so the image just raises questions: what is the "first yellow (caution) flag incident", and why doesn't it say anything about the incident in the article? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first and foremost - I am not attempting to change your mind on this. I'm more than happy to discuss a lot of this with you on your (or my) talk once the outcome has been decided. However, in this particular case I'll just say that simply because the article itself is lacking detail and/or quality, that is not a reason to delete the image. NASCAR articles in general could use a TON of work, and there are precious few folks working on them - but that's not really germane to this particular discussion. — Ched : ? 19:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale above. Royal broil 05:08, 16 February 2013 (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:DaleEarnhardtVictory1979Southeastern500.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning above, in that I disagree with the lack of significance, and per WP:NFCI #8 and WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. — Ched : ? 18:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1. The image tells that one or more members of the Earnhardt family^[who?] won the competition. This can be replaced by text: "One or more members of the Earnhardt family^[who?] won the competition". --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale above. Royal broil 05:09, 16 February 2013 (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:1983World600.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning above, in that I disagree with the lack of significance, and per WP:NFCI #8 and WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. — Ched : ? 18:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image only tells one thing: Neil Bonnett won the competition. This can be replaced with a textual statement that he won the competition, so the image violates WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale above. I find this statement in the "Low Resolution" section to be especially problematic: "It is guaranteed not be used for purposes other than permitted in the rationale." Royal broil 05:10, 16 February 2013 (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:1969National500.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning above, in that I disagree with the lack of significance, and per WP:NFCI #8 and WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. — Ched : ? 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely random photo of cars about to turn. Can be replaced by free photos of cars of the same model. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale above. Royal broil 05:11, 16 February 2013 (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:DaveMarcisinthe1974National500.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per my reasoning above, in that I disagree with the lack of significance, and per WP:NFCI #8 and WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. Although I will concede that this particular picture does not add all that much to the article which as Wizardman notes can't be described in words. i.e. - Dave Marcis running alongside Richard Petty. — Ched : ? 18:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The uploader has got WP:NFCC#8 wrong. The rule is that the image must help understanding the text in the article, but in this case, it is the other way around: without the image caption, you have no idea what's going on, and the image doesn't help understanding the text. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale above. Royal broil 05:12, 16 February 2013 (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:FreddyFryar1967Permatech300.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: No consensus -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning above, in that I disagree with the lack of significance, and per WP:NFCI #8 and WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. Images of this diver and this era are rare. — Ched : ? 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A photo of a car. Can be replaced by a free photo of a car of the same brand. Additionally, it tells absolutely nothing about the sports event, so it violates WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Any similar image of Fryar racing circa 1967 would be extremely difficult to find and it is unreproducible. Replacing it with another car of the same brand would be wrong since it's used in Fryar's article. Royal broil 05:18, 16 February 2013 (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:CurtisTurnerWins1956Southern500.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: No consensus -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning above, in that I disagree with the lack of significance, and per WP:NFCI #8 and WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. This particular image would be very difficult to find a substitute for. — Ched : ? 18:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the image caption, the image tells that "Curtis Turner wins the 1956 Southern 500". However, this information is already in the image caption, so the image caption is evidence that the image can be replaced by text. In fact, I'm not sure how to tell that Curtis Turner wins the competition from the image. You need the caption to understand the image, although WP:NFCC#8 says the opposite: the image needs to help understanding the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've been to very many races and photographed a lot of them. I don't know how to better photograph a win short of having a photograph at the finish line which often isn't possible. With this image coming from 1956, it is extremely difficult to find a substitute and it is as historic as any. It certainly is unreproducible. Royal broil 05:25, 16 February 2013 (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:1972World600PettysPitStop.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning above, in that I disagree with the lack of significance, and per WP:NFCI #8 and WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. — Ched : ? 18:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Um, sorry, what is this image supposed to tell? That a car is parked in a race field and that there are people around the car? This can easily be described in text, and the image is ignored in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale above. Royal broil 15:06, 16 February 2013 (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:1952Southern500WinningDriver.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: Keep -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Non-free criteria on significance, image shows nothing that text can't on its own. Wizardman 05:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning above, in that I disagree with the lack of significance, and per WP:NFCI #8 and WP:NFCC also #8 in the "Policy" section. I'll also note that perhaps the ".png" image(s) should be converted to ".jpg" per existing policy - but we'll see how the XfDs go first. — Ched : ? 18:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can easily be replaced by text: "An unidentified car^[which?] crossed the finish line". Besides, the image is completely ignored in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep image is a unique historical photo of the winner of the race (the subject of the article) crossing the finish line with the winning driver waving from the window of the car. The image provides a significant understanding of the type of car, the finish line complete with checkered flag and cheering crowd. I just don't think "car crossing finish line" type text would replace the visual impact of the image. Dreadstar ☥ 06:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dreadstar. Royal broil 15:06, 16 February 2013 (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:WMATA Rendering Tysons Central 7.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 (plus #1 and #3b) - now that this Metro station is starting to be built out, it's possible to get a photograph of the structure, and this rendering isn't helpful in informing readers how the station will look. Mosmof (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a position to get a photo right now but as soon as someone can I'd support replacing the images for all five of the new Silver Line stations and deleting the renderings. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to get pictures of Spring Hill and Greensboro stations if I ever get a slow day at work (McLean and Tysons Corner are easier to get to, but they already have pics). Wiehle Ave is going to be a little difficult for me. Mosmof (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I drive past the Wiehle station every day but unfortunately I'm going about 64mph at the time which makes it a little difficult to take a photo. :) --StuffOfInterest (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2013 (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:The skeleton in my closet has moved back out to the garden. (2009).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 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3b. The current ridiculously high-resolution image needs to be deleted. The uploader keeps deleting {{non-free reduce}}, so the image can't be repaired that way. Stefan2 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's generally appropriate to have an example of an artist's work on the artist's page, to show what kind of thing they are noted for. (Clearly adds to reader understanding, per NFCC #8). I wouldn't call 500 x 668 "ridiculously" high resolution. It is higher resolution than normal, but it's not right up there in the thousands. I think there is a case here for an image bigger than 250 x 300, because I think it is of value to see the very noticeable texture and striations in the work, and I'm not sure how well the reader would be able to appreciate those if the work was shrunk too far. Something like a reduction to two-thirds current size, about 375 x 450 might be appropriate. But it would be useful to hear the uploader's views. Jheald (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article only uses the image to display a 220x294 px thumbnail, while the rest of the image is ignored. As it is now, the image isn't even close to passing WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Using an image of an artist's artwork is appropriate, and I've uploaded the 220px thumbnail as the reduced version, so Stefan's concerns should be resolved unless we need a yet smaller-resolution version. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2013 (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:Nobody Knows.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: No consensus -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly random image. The music video isn't even mentioned in the article outside the image caption. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't agree. Apart from other details, I'm collecting also the sources dedicated to the music video, considered as one of the most futuristic in its country of origin, actually. Tweny13 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, have added the relevant section to the article. More details coming soon. Tweny13 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2013 (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:Charlton Heston, Ben-Hur.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. Wizardman 04:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contravenes WP:NFCC#1. A free equivalent of this image is available at the Commons (see File:Charlton Heston in Ben Hur trailer.jpg). Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously replaceable. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2013 (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:Balkan bulgarian television.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image violates WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK, I've got it out of the gallery! Don't see the point, but if you insist so, fine.--The TV Boy (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a gallery and it still violates WP:NFCC#8 anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2013 (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:Passport holder identification page.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is another file that serves the same purpose as this file Evanc0912 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what file is that? You have not shown there's a different file available. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The file that now replacing the function of the to-be-deleted file is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indonesian_passport_data_page.jpg . The new file was uploaded to Commons, unlike the old file which was uploaded to Wikipedia and was not transferred to Commons Evanc0912 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this file is deleted. It's been replaced by the image specified. --Mahaztra (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Commons image is superior to this one, so nobody's going to use this, regardless of whether we have it here or at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2013 (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:Official notes.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file is no longer in use. Evanc0912 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question It says that the image was moved to Commons, but it isn't there, and there is no indication that it has been deleted there. Is this on Commons somewhere, or is the tag wrong? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Respond No, the file was not and has never been moved to Commons. The tag is right, it is tag for files that was not approved to be transfered to Commons. Now since the file was not moved to Commons and is now orphan, it is a wise decision to delete it. --Evanc0912 (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag means that the file was moved to Commons as Commons:File:Official notes.JPG, but there has never been a file with that name, so someone has added an incorrect tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're right. I've removed the misleading tag. Is there something else I should do? --Evanc0912 (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This file is orphaned and I don't see any possibility to be used in the future. The only article that relates to this image (Indonesian passport) doesn't really need this image anyway. --Mahaztra (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons. Nothing wrong with the image itself, and it's useful for illustrating part of the passport, so it's in scope at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was an attempt to transfer this file to Commons, but it was rejected and was not moved to Commons eventually. I believe the reason was about licensing. -- GVnayR (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion I've been considering this lately. Now, I've decided to upload a version of this image to Commons that also includes the interior back cover of the passport. I own the ePassport version and the biometric chip is embedded into the back cover so it may be more useful and helpful for illustrating the content of the passport. Plus, it will be directly in Commons, so there will be no hassle of moving to Commons, etc. I will do it soon and will notify you here once it's uploaded and available. Evanc0912 (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And I also will upload other pages which has not been uploaded to Commons to make it complete. Evanc0912 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replacement uploaded I have uploaded a replacement for this file to Commons. The file link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indonesian_e-passport_official_notes_and_back_cover.jpg . It shows not only the page 48 (Official notes), but also the interior back cover. More content of the passport are (being) uploaded to Commons and placed under the category Passports of Indonesia there. Evanc0912 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a file on Commons that qualifies to replace this file. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indonesian_e-passport_official_notes_and_back_cover.jpg) Evanc0912 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the e-passport image. I thought of continuing to advocate moving it to Commons, but then I realised — who's going to use an image with half of the information blanked when there's a much more useful version at Commons? Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2013 (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:First page of an ordinary Indonesian passport.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is another file on commons that replace the purpose of this file. The replacement file is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indonesian_passport_first_page_and_inside_cover.jpg Evanc0912 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The images show different pages of a passport. They don't seem to replace each other. Also, this was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2013, not on 8 February 2013 (as it says in the page title) or 9 February 2013 (as it says in the signature above). --Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree to delete this image. The replacement is more complete, depicting not only the first page (which my image shows) but also the interior cover. I also notice that the new one is from a newer version of the passport. --Mahaztra (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The image at Commons shows both the page in question and an additional page, so this image isn't useful. It's not a copyright problem; it's purely a matter of usefulness. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2013 (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:Kwbz.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. This is the very definition of decorative fair use. The article text does not mention the image. I looked back at previous versions just to make sure nobody was trying to pull a fast one and previous versions of the article text didn't mention it either. If an image is not mentioned in the article text, it almost certainly is not critical to the reader's understanding. --B (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this screenshot in King Kong vs Godzilla fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; there is no discussion in the body of the article, only in the caption of the image. Its use does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and its deletion would in no way be detrimental to that understanding. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 19:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the upload was to show how King Kong vs Godzilla has had a pop culture influence that's felt decades after the films early 60's release. When a show like The Simpsons pays homage to the film decades after the film was originally released it just goes to show you its significance from that stand point. The picture nicely illustrates and shows readers an example of the films legacy which is why its featured in that section of the article giving a critical example of a particular films impact felt decades later, which is the point of that particular section of the article. The whole point of having pictures on articles is to give the reader a better understanding of certain portions of the article complementing the text. Its the same way text books have pictures in them to help the readers better understand certain portions of the literature. In this case it will better illustrate the legacy of that film by giving a great visual reference of its legacy and using a popular show in the process. So when someone reads the legacy section they will say "Oh wow this film was even payed homaged to by the Simpsons?". How many specific Godzilla or Japanese films in general get that kind of treatment from a pop culture style show with International appeal like The Simpsons? If not having any text in that section specifically referencing the picture is a problem I can simply add a small paragraph explaining how the legacy of the film was felt decades later by a pop culture reference given by a popular TV show. But personally I think the caption explains enough and would just regurgitate the text. P.S BTW I love your username.Giantdevilfish (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then why can't the prose just say it, you fail to address how removal will detrimental to the understanding of the subject. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 22:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A picture would be a better source than simple prose because it would give an illustrative example of the legacy of the film to the reader which would give a better overall understanding of the films legacy (the point of that section of the article.) I think a visual reference would better help the reader get an idea about the films overall legacy with its inclusion than a simple textual paragraph because it goes beyond a simple Simpsons reference but illustrates an example of the films legacy in general. I even came a cross a message board where someone had stated along the lines of "Wow the Simpsons did a King Kong vs Godzilla spoof" and included a screencap of that particular scene (which is what brought it to my attention in the fist place). So I do think the picture will help people have a better understanding of the subject.Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image seems to be ignored in the article. This has no chance of passing WP:NFCC#8 as the article is written for the moment. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2013 (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.