Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 25
[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, it seems we have free images of this person, including ones in his prime. If all our free images of him are deleted or deemed "non-free", then it would be acceptable to use a non-free image of him, and we can undelete. But as it stands, it appears to be replaceable by a free image. – Quadell (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jack LaLanne 51b.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Light show (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I don't see a reason why in god's name this picture should even be here. This is a unsuccessful meet of WP:NFCI, because I've found a few free alternatives on Wikipedia. I mean, seriously, does any guideline say that only a widely posted image on the web are the only images that are allowed in a person's infobox? EditorE (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just change to speedy delete for copyvio. We have a bunch at commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jack_LaLanne --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about not. The images at commons seem to have the right licenses. EditorE (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, just to clarify, are you saying that all the images at commons of the person are a copyvio and should be nominated to speedy deletion? I wouldn't agree with you if you said that. EditorE (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant we have free ones and this one is not. I usually just tag ones like this as copyvio speedy because they go against our fair use guidelines when we have free ones. If it were a widely covered image of him because of certain aspects of the image that readers should see then that may be a valid reason to keep it. Company logos, book and album covers are images that readers may need to see to make sure they have the correct article through visual reference. If we had an image of him being attacked by a bear then that would warrant a keep if the bear attack was widely covered.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant we have free ones and this one is not. I usually just tag ones like this as copyvio speedy because they go against our fair use guidelines when we have free ones. If it were a widely covered image of him because of certain aspects of the image that readers should see then that may be a valid reason to keep it. Company logos, book and album covers are images that readers may need to see to make sure they have the correct article through visual reference. If we had an image of him being attacked by a bear then that would warrant a keep if the bear attack was widely covered.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the rationale states, an image of him during his prime years when he was recognized as a champion weightlifter would not be replaceable by an image of him when he was 90 or when he was younger in a suit and tie. Those kinds of images are not relevant to his notability. --Light show (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would File:Jack LaLanne 1961.JPG work just as well? http://evi.com/q/facts_about__jack_lalanne would be a better one if we decide on a prime years fair use image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- His Jack LaLanne Show, from where the image was taken, only came about as a result of his notability as a fitness guru. The first cited sentence in the lead refers to him as "the godfather of fitness" and the "first fitness superhero," so the body-builder image supports that better IMO. Thanks for replacing. --Light show (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Keep the non-free image but use it only in a place on the article other than the infobox. Use the Jack LaLanne 1961 picture in the infobox. EditorE (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be discussed in the article talk page to get other editor comments. You could give your rationale and others might chime in. --Light show (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Keep the non-free image but use it only in a place on the article other than the infobox. Use the Jack LaLanne 1961 picture in the infobox. EditorE (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- His Jack LaLanne Show, from where the image was taken, only came about as a result of his notability as a fitness guru. The first cited sentence in the lead refers to him as "the godfather of fitness" and the "first fitness superhero," so the body-builder image supports that better IMO. Thanks for replacing. --Light show (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I see the points now that his physical appearance in this image is important to the readers grasp of him. Whether it remains in the infobox or not doesn't really matter to me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is a free image of him in 1950, only three years after the date of this one. It is not necessary for the reader to see a picture of him shirtless to understand that he was a bodybuilder. January (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright on the 1950 image shouldn't pass muster here. We need to know that it was 'published' between 1923 and 1977 with 'no proper notice'. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Hirtle_chart . The image also could have a copyright mark on the back which the uploader didn't provide and it could have been published after 1977 or 1989. Should I upload it to commons and put it in deletion review scrutiny over there? They are usually pretty thorough about copyright issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest raising at Commons:COM:VPC before uploading to Commons, alternatively you could send it to WP:PUF. If that image was deleted it wouldn't change the opinion I gave above. January (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure they would delete it. We normally need front and back and a publication date to claim PD over there. See:File:Lee Grant Fay 1975.jpg. I upload the back then overwrite with the front. The back has no proper copyright notice as well as the publication date. I will see if I can find a copyright board here and ask.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest raising at Commons:COM:VPC before uploading to Commons, alternatively you could send it to WP:PUF. If that image was deleted it wouldn't change the opinion I gave above. January (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright on the 1950 image shouldn't pass muster here. We need to know that it was 'published' between 1923 and 1977 with 'no proper notice'. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Hirtle_chart . The image also could have a copyright mark on the back which the uploader didn't provide and it could have been published after 1977 or 1989. Should I upload it to commons and put it in deletion review scrutiny over there? They are usually pretty thorough about copyright issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 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.
- 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⚡ 00:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kesha Las Vegas Show.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JoCalderone99 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Not uploaded with correct information and verification JoCalderone99 (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Really don't see why this should even be here. EditorE (talk) 02:44, 26 June 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.
- 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 FUR valid Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- File:Animal Crossing New Leaf Mayor.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nall (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Invalid FUR--not discussed critically. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, uploader here. I guess I'm not sure what the issue is, exactly. If there's a problem with the rationale, is there something that could be changed to make it valid, or is the problem the image itself? Thanks. Nall (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace with more critically discussful screenshot, or Keep and address the problem instead of delete. EditorE (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The mayor role is a new aspect in the series, and was therefore critically discussed in every review. Is this not sufficient motivation to keep this file? Or would critical discussion of the event of actually sitting in the mayor's seat be required? Uncle Alf (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've made up my mind, and I think the image contributes to the article because it depicts a new feature in the series. It also shows the player's character, the art style, the real-time nature of the game (a clock on the wall showing the current time), and also the fact that the player is surrounded by animals. This way it shows a lot of what Animal Crossing is about. If the image is removed I'd be happy to replace it with a different one that has more support from editors. Uncle Alf (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The mayor role is a new aspect in the series, and was therefore critically discussed in every review. Is this not sufficient motivation to keep this file? Or would critical discussion of the event of actually sitting in the mayor's seat be required? Uncle Alf (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looking into it, the image still looks fine to me. I can't think of anything else at the moment that could potentially be more relevant to most critical discussions held about this game. Maybe there's an issue here I'm not seeing, and if there is I'd like to hear it. Nall (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The content in the screenshot (those two characters and their interactions) is discussed in several sections. It seems to me that a different screenshot would be more justifiable, but that's more of an editorial decision. – Quadell (talk) 16:09, 26 July 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.
- 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 F5 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ouya Console.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kai445 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unit is now publicly available, thus no longer allowed to use non-free, per NFCC#1 MASEM (t) 16:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nominator. EditorE (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. I just uploaded a few more to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ouya that are free.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete for the reasons stated above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle Alf (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 July 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.