Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 19
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 19
[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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Image-Posedonsteps.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flatmacsurf (notify | contribs).
- Uploaded by SPA, no potential of being used. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:24, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lo-res copy of File:Obama portrait check.jpg - currently unused. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lo-res copy of File:Obama portrait check.jpg - currently unused. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lo-res copy of File:Obama portrait check.jpg - currently unused. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lower-res copy of File:Obama portrait check.jpg - currently unused. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Obama check thumbanil.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ugpo001 (notify | contribs).
- Low-res copy of File:Obama portrait check.jpg - currently unused SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2009 (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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SEbadge2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:SEbadge2.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).
- 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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Http://www.ghost-trappers.com/wiki/Image:SEbadge2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by http://www.ghost-trappers.com/wiki/User_talk:Kisher (notify | contribs).
- 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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SEbadge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:SEbadge.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).
- 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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Http://www.ghost-trappers.com/wiki/Image:SEbadge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by http://www.ghost-trappers.com/wiki/User_talk:Kisher (notify | contribs).
Delete since the application associated with the WIKI GT page has not given permission for it to be used
- 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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Golden boot LSU.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cardsplayer4life (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image that can be satisfactorily replaced with free alternative File:The boot (lsu-arkansas).jpg. This image adds nothing significant to reader's understanding that the free image and some text does not. Used for decorative purposes only and fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternative) and WP:NFCC#8 (does not significantly add to reader's understanding Peripitus (Talk) 07:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Could be easily replaced with a free image. CarbonX (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Image illustrates the trophy that is the object of the annual contest, and fair use rationales have been provided. Sf46 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a free picture of the trophy so this image is uneeded for that. The rationale "Identification and critical commentary in the Golden Boot article, a subject of public interest. The image confirms to readers they have reached the correct article, and illustrates the intended message conveyed." is hardly compelling as to why we should host this image - Peripitus (Talk) 22:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free image that can be satisfactorily replaced with free alternative File:The boot (lsu-arkansas).jpg. This image adds nothing significant to reader's understanding that the free image and some text does not. Used for decorative purposes only and fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a free alternative) and WP:NFCC#8 (does not significantly add to reader's understanding Peripitus (Talk) 07:15, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Salemadminbuilding.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Garkeith (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image that can adequately be replaced with a free image in a way that would not significantly diminish reader's understanding. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand why such a simple picture is under attack, it is a historical picture of a school. What is the big deal it can hardly be used for any type of profit. Garkeith (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Victoryhighschool.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Garkeith (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image that could adequately be replaced with a free alternative - fails WP:NFCC#1. The wall in its half-built state can be described with text alone if necessary. Peripitus (Talk) 07:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand why such a simple picture is under attack, it is a historical picture of a school. What is the big deal it can hardly be used for any type of profit. Garkeith (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's because Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, so we try not to use content unless it's free for all to use. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BritneySpears-Overprotectedremix.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kageorge (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image that is close to identical to the one at the top of the article's infobox. Any small differences can be described with text alone and as replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 07:37, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BritneyOverProtected.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Rogue Leader (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image that is close to identical to the one at the top of the article's infobox. Any small differences can be described with text alone and as replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 07:37, 19 June 2009 (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: Procedural close, afd withdrawn by nominator. Discussion about image's fair-use status is continuing at Talk:MissingNo. and the closing of this AfD does not preclude a later AfD over different issues (since the current AfD was only about this image's relation to another, now-deleted, image). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Missingno-ny.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kung Fu Man (notify | contribs).
- A more comprehensive version exists, see File:Missingno.png Yuefairchild (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See Talk:MissingNo. and the related GAN. The reason for not using the "more comprehensive image" is because simply put, the Yellow version isn't discussed in the article at all. No reliable sources exist discussing MissingNo. in Pokemon Yellow.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As KFM said, Missingo-py.png is more accurate, since the article doesn't refer to the Pokémon Yellow sprite (it isn't really that notable). More importantly, however, is that using the Missingno.png image you suggest, Yuefairchild, is a grosser violation of copyright; these images have been shopped together by a person, and copyright law concerns itself with the number of images, not files. Thus, the one currently up for deletion has four violations, while the suggested one has five. With that in mind, and given that the current use of the "more comprehensive" image on Pokémon is even less comprehensive, if this discussion ends in Keep, I'll nominate Missingno.png for deletion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Okay fine, you have a point there. Go ahead then, I guess -ny.png is better.--Yuefairchild (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hillsong - God Is in the House re-release cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marky1981 (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, almost identical, one. The differences are small and can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, on the basis that this is an overly-strict interpretation of WP:NFCC#3a which is not reflective of community consensus. This vote is applicable to all of the entries filed by this user for the same "additional non-free image..." rationale. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think that hosting two almost identical images here is perfectly ok ? How is reader's understanding substantially damaged by replacing this duplicate image with a some text describing the differences ? - Peripitus (Talk) 22:12, 25 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, almost identical, one. The differences are small and can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:05, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, almost identical, one. The differences are small and can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, almost identical, one. The differences are small and can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:6f20225b9da058718cfad010.L.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cryptus (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, almost identical, one. The differences are small and can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:O' God, The Aftermath Deluxe Edition.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ianlyon (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, almost identical, one. The differences are small (colour and small text changes) and can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:11, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hillsong overwhelmed.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Skier Dude (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, almost identical, one. The differences are small and can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, almost identical, one. The differences are small and can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Radiohead - Karma Police (CD2).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CapitalLetterBeginning (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, almost identical, one. The differences are small and can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:13, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Odes remastered.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Caitlynmaire (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, very similar, one. The differences can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, very similar, one. The differences can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:15, 19 June 2009 (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. As discussed below, this is an excessive, unneeded non-free image. First image conveys enough information and changes can easily be described with text. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TyrannyForYouSilver.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tarc (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, very similar, one. The differences can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - No, a text description would not suffice, and it is well within our non-free policy to use album artwork. Whether it is the main album art or a secondary one is of no relevance whatsoever. A spurious nomination. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure ? I think that the text about the cover that "it used the same artwork as the original release though the colour was changed to silver" covers most of it and the text changes can be described with text. Covers the differences without significantly decreasing reader's understanding. The aim of the NFCC rules is to exclude all but a limited range of media, not to allow any and all album covers that editors desire - Peripitus (Talk) 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Tarc's reasoning applies to one album cover, not two. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd really like to see where the discussion took place to decide this new "one album cover but not two" interpretation of non-free policy. There was a discussion somewhere, right? I certainly hope we're not on the verge of another Betacommand-like arbitrary decision here. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When the NFCC became policy in 2007, criterion 3a, saying that multiple non-free items were not permitted when one would suffice, was enacted. It may not have been enforced properly until recently. If you feel that that criterion is no longer appropriate, please feel free to gather a consensus to change it. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", I get that. I do not believe that one does convey sufficient info though, if we're talking about two separate pieces of artwork. These aren't images of the same thing, per se. The rationales can and will vary from article to article; Virgin Killer has one notorious album cover and one "normal" one, the Beatles butcher cover for Yesterday and Today has both the controversial one and the re-shoot, and I'm sure we can dig up many more examples. Are all of these to be on the chopping block (pun unintended) ? Is there to be some sort of threshold for 2nd album covers that there has to be commentary about the artwork itself in the article for it to be used? Some wanted that strict criteria for all album art...that there had to be commentary in the article itself to justify the main album cover's usage...during the non-free image discussions a few years back IIRC, but that failed. This appears to be an arbitrary interpretation of 3a, and I feel such a reading of policy should have been taken to a broader venue, not in the backwaters of IfD. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When the NFCC became policy in 2007, criterion 3a, saying that multiple non-free items were not permitted when one would suffice, was enacted. It may not have been enforced properly until recently. If you feel that that criterion is no longer appropriate, please feel free to gather a consensus to change it. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd really like to see where the discussion took place to decide this new "one album cover but not two" interpretation of non-free policy. There was a discussion somewhere, right? I certainly hope we're not on the verge of another Betacommand-like arbitrary decision here. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was never a consensus that this sort of thing was ok in the first place so I don't see that anything has changed, not at least since the non-free content criteria became policy. Can you explain how this image meets the NFCC#1 and 3a requirements ? - Peripitus (Talk) 22:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Y'know Peripitus, the more I dig into this the less support I see for your position. Searching the NFCC discussion archives for alternate album covers topics shows quite a bit of back-and-forth, but no consensus. As recently as 5 month ago this topic was up for debate. Why are you nominating images for deletion based on a reading of a policy that, while you may personally believe is correct, is still a subject of debate and is not a product of editorial consensus? Tarc (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sonofevilreindeerjapan.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Suede67 (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, very similar, one. The differences can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:29, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Alicia Keys - The Diary Of Alicia Keys Ger Aus bonus CD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Funk Junkie (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, very similar, one. The differences can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:31, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Robert Plant and the Strange Sensation Mighty ReArranger Special Tour Edition.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arthur shapoval (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, very similar, one. The differences can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, recolored version of original release.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:WTDAmerican Version.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Notjake13 (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, very similar, one. The differences can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above - other image in article is color version of this, more or less.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, very similar, one. The differences can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no significant differences between this and main image except for title style, which can be described in text--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2009 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Trivium - Ascendancy (special edition).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cannibaloki (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, very similar, one. The differences can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this one, and delete zoomed-in version at File:Ascendancy album cover.jpg instead.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Zoomed in version? Isn't that just the normal CD cover? Rehevkor ✉ 13:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; very similar to primary cover, second one is not required. Rehevkor ✉ 13:22, 27 June 2009 (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: Deleted the B&W one. – Quadell (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Crimson Deluxe - Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jerkmonkee (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, very similar, one. The differences can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this one, and delete the B&W version at File:Crimson - Cover.jpg instead.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this or the other one; I don't mind which. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kelly-clarkson-breakaway-snapshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dbibirs (notify | contribs).
- non-free image of Kelly Clarson singing that is simply used to illustrate her singing. Could be either replaced with nothing, as the image does not add significantly to reader's understanding, or if needed a free image of her singing. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 11:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - single low-res frame to illustrate style of music video. Free image of her singing would not be a valid replacement.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, why ? The style of her holding the microphone ? This could easily be a random shot of her anywhere singing anything. None of the aspects of the video discussed in the article are illustrated by this image - Peripitus (Talk) 13:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, replaceable per Peripitus. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hot Sex.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Same As It Ever Was (notify | contribs).
- additional non-free image in an article with an existing, very similar, one. The differences can be easily described with (free) text. As replaceable with a free alternative, this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as its intent is to show the difference between the theming of the original and re-release -- and it's not very similar to the original. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very similar to the Bomb Tha System cover File:Bi-Polar Tha System.jpg in the same article. One or the other is redundant - Peripitus (Talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Er, one has nudity, one does not. That counts as "different" in any reasonable interpretation IMO. Tarc (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you must see a naked person in the article then we can keep this one and delete File:Bi-Polar Tha System.jpg. Please explain why one or the other cannot be replaced by a text description of the differences per my nomination statement ? - Peripitus (Talk) 06:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFCC#3a (either this or the other image). Stifle (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Xbox 360 Arcade.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Samuele Rosa (notify | contribs).
- Surely it violates WP:NFCC #3a to have an image of a box of every single configuration of the Xbox 360 on its article. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I appreciate the uploader was acting in good faith, but we already have a free image for this. –xenotalk 14:24, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:DSCN5474.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Halibut_Thyme (notify | contribs).
- Blurry, bad name, no description, not used, not useful – Quadell (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bartolome ramos.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Secaundis (notify | contribs).
- derivative of a non-free Philippines government work (poster) Bluemask (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2009 (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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe the uploader created this 1954 promotional pic. – Quadell (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's an error in this file. Not useful, unless I'm mistaken – Quadell (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly not the editor's own work and a terrible copy at that. IIRC logos are specifically supposed to be of high quality even when used as fair-use to avoid tarnishing/misrepresenting their brand. Shell babelfish 16:42, 19 June 2009 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Indy zoo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sedna10387 (notify | contribs).
- Outside of uploader claiming they created and own the copyright to this logo, I have some pretty big doubts about that. This logo is part of a series of logos created by the Indianapolis Zoo. I can pretty much guarantee that there were many people involved in the creation of this logo, not just the uploader (including a photographer, a graphic design artist, a marketing person, and a higher up that eventually approved it). Further, besides saying they "own the copyright" there is actually no other proof that this is true. I'd love to keep this image as it is a decent logo for the article, but I just feel really uneasy about the claims used for fair use so I figured I'd bring it here instead of using "csd" or just trying to ignore it. 132 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Uploader has since changed the fair use rationale for this logo. I'm a little unnerved about changing the rationale. If they created it, they should have kept the previous tags and figured it out here. If they didn't create it, why would they have tagged it as such? Either way, I'm not sure what the requirements are for logos so I'm just going to keep this here for discussion for now. --132 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploader has since replaced the image with another logo from the same series. --132 17:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And another (edit: and another /edit). Uploader appears to be trying to skirt around the nominated file. --132 18:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also, here (edit: here and here /edit) is another file by the uploader with the same issues. I'm not going to nominate it though before I get input on the other file. --132 17:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Uploader has since changed the fair use rationale for this logo. I'm a little unnerved about changing the rationale. If they created it, they should have kept the previous tags and figured it out here. If they didn't create it, why would they have tagged it as such? Either way, I'm not sure what the requirements are for logos so I'm just going to keep this here for discussion for now. --132 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This user appears to have a problem with claiming ownership of images which he/she obviously does not own. I've listed some of them at WP:PUF --LP talk 23:46, 25 June 2009 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source of the image is claimed as In Demand, but the link is just to In Demand's homepage. A search of their site did not reveal any such image. This exact same image has already been deleted twice (not under this name) from Commons because another used failed to show where they got the image from. TJ Spyke 17:44, 19 June 2009 (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 - No consensus to delete. Try contacting the off-wiki "source" to clarify status Papa November (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Gntm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tallulah13 (notify | contribs).
- CV. While Tallulah13 claimed to be the creator of this image (and others, taken over a lengthy period), she also stated in related disputes that she only met one of the individuals in the photo on one occasion. She therefore could not be the creator of all of the photographs she claims to have taken. This image was posted elsewhere, several months before its upload to Wikipedia, without the supposed licensor being credited. [1] In the absence of a valid license, the photo fails Wikipedia's fair use standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because it's posted on a social networking site does not mean that user:Tallulah13 is not the author.
Sites like buzznet often do not credit photos. Many photographers shoot photos without actually meeting their subjects. Not sure if I see the logic here.
I don't think the photo needs to be deleted.
Swancookie (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After placing this image on the list of Files for deletion; Hullaballoo Wolfowitz then removed the image from atleast three articles [2], [3] and [4], before any consensus could have been reached; I believe that removing the image from all articles would lead to a claim of it being an Orphaned image, which I'm sure Hullaballoo Wolfowitz knew could and would happen. I have re-added the image into the three articles I know it was removed from! Doktor Wilhelm 15:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is exactly what I've done with other photos when the licensing claim appears to be invalid, without incident or complaint. Copyright violations shouldbe removed when found. Given the extensive record of problems the uploader had with image licensing (see her deleted talk page), the image should not be kept absent some evidence that her release is valid. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, now there is a complaint, and I hope it will lead to a review of what you have done before. Also, I do not see what the uploader having their talkpage blanked, through their own choice, has to do with this. Doktor Wilhelm 20:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, since WP:IUP calls for orphaning the image -- "Remove all uses of the image from articles—make it an orphan" -- when calling for image deletion as a copyvio, the review should center on your adding back the copies of this image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are attemping to Game the system. and now with an accusation against myself for my good faith edits, it would seem, if you want to call for someone to review my edits on wikipedia, by all means do so. But in the mean time, my view is still that marking this images as a copyvio, aswell as edits to other articles and accusations against other editors (includding the uploader of this image), are an attempt to undermine articles because you yourself have an issue with the subject of the articles. Doktor Wilhelm 16:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So I point out your failure to understand or abide by Wikipedia policies/guidelines, and you respond with more accusations? One of the reasons for the level of acrimony on Wikipedia is the inability of many editors to say "Oops, I screwed that up, sorry." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy or guideline that I know of that prevents me from reverting edits that I believe to be in bad faith, and Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion makes no mention of orphaning images. Doktor Wilhelm 18:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:IUP, which I cited, does. The fact that not every relevant page cites every provision of the policy is no justification for defying the parts of the policy you don't agree with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had never read WP:IUP before you cited it. If you wish to continue accusing me of not following policy/guidlines, you should take it up elsewhere, it has no baring on the discussion of this picture, I am just providing my view on the dubious reasons why this image has been put up for deletion. Doktor Wilhelm 18:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:IUP, which I cited, does. The fact that not every relevant page cites every provision of the policy is no justification for defying the parts of the policy you don't agree with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy or guideline that I know of that prevents me from reverting edits that I believe to be in bad faith, and Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion makes no mention of orphaning images. Doktor Wilhelm 18:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So I point out your failure to understand or abide by Wikipedia policies/guidelines, and you respond with more accusations? One of the reasons for the level of acrimony on Wikipedia is the inability of many editors to say "Oops, I screwed that up, sorry." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are attemping to Game the system. and now with an accusation against myself for my good faith edits, it would seem, if you want to call for someone to review my edits on wikipedia, by all means do so. But in the mean time, my view is still that marking this images as a copyvio, aswell as edits to other articles and accusations against other editors (includding the uploader of this image), are an attempt to undermine articles because you yourself have an issue with the subject of the articles. Doktor Wilhelm 16:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also suspect that on that on more then one occasion Hullaballoo has insinuated that user:Tallulah13 be a SPA and a sock and basically bullied them off of wikipedia? Swancookie (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Tallulah13 was first discussed as an SPA in a discussion started by an administrator, not one started by me. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Clint_Catalyst. Given that the majority of her articlespace edits were made to a single article, and that Tallulah13 ran various online promotional efforts on behalf of the article's subject, that label was rather accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But without proof you further exacerbated this claim and spoke to her in an uncivil manor. It's these kinds of accusations and assumptions that can get you in hot water. Swancookie (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's rich, coming from someone whose principal activity on Wikipedia has been posting uncivil accusations of bias, etc against me and three other editors without ever providing a shred of evidence to back up those claims -- or this one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the above statement- another false accusation made by you. Swancookie (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Drama aside, the question is whether the uploader's claim of copyright is credible. She's left Wikipedia, so we can't ask her for details. I note that she uploaded images before that were not her own, and did not claim copyright, but instead contacted the photographers and handled it appropriately through OTRS. This makes me inclined to believe that she is the legitimate copyright holder. – Quadell (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (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 Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:DonKnottsPicture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cowbell31 (notify | contribs).
- I suspect this is a copyright violation, given the uploader's history (see their talk page). They also uploaded the file [File:180px-Marty clint 1885.jpg], claiming they are the copyright holder even though it is a screenshot from Back To The Future III. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)files[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Obviously not taken by uploader. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2009 (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.