Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 10
[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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vegetable_Justice.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Uncle_Leo (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, target article unclear Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Orphaned image with no encyclopedic value, per WP:NOT (we aren't an image host). — BQZip01 — talk 00:21, 16 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, no real source Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a better, clearer image already exists at Venceslau Bras. This one is so small that its size and clarity preclude any usefulness on Wikipedia. The sourcing is fine, but could be better. — BQZip01 — talk 00:20, 16 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Veronica_Lake,_penny_arcade_card.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Destry (notify | contribs).
- no real reason given that this would be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not PD image. This person was born in 1922, so unless she bloomed early... — BQZip01 — talk 00:22, 16 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternative cover is not discussed, it is only mentioned in passing. The original cover is already used as the primary means of identification, leaving this cover purely decorative. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One cover is enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#3. We don't need another. — BQZip01 — talk 00:23, 16 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Leaves eyes - legend land.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cardinal Wurzel (notify | contribs).
- Alternative cover is not even mentioned, and looks practically the same as the original. The use of this non-free image is not justified. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Concur with nominator. — BQZip01 — talk 00:24, 16 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- inferior version of File:Pousao cecilia1.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Concur with nom. — BQZip01 — talk 00:25, 16 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- inferior version of File:Philipp Otto Runge 003.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inferior Duplicate — BQZip01 — talk 00:25, 16 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Cross_on_the_mountain.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fpenteado (notify | contribs).
- inferior version of File:Caspar David Friedrich 025.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inferior duplicate. — BQZip01 — talk 00:26, 16 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- inferior version of File:30 - Plum Estate, Kameido.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inferior duplicate. — BQZip01 — talk 00:26, 16 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Crassbanner1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quercusrobur (notify | contribs).
- Non-free album cover being used only to illustrate a discography (not an article about the album). Fair use rationale states that the non-free image is being used to illustrate the band's logo and graphic design style. However, this is incompatible with the {{Non-free album cover}} license and is replaceable by this free image. Papa November (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete free alternative available. — BQZip01 — talk 00:27, 16 April 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: withdrawn Skier Dude (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:GA Untouchable.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Theog101 (notify | contribs).
No source provided for this image - "contact Fascination" is not a valid reason. Same reason for deletion as Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_March_21#Untouchable_.28Girls_Aloud_promo_cover.29.jpg. User, despite being asked, has not provided any sourcing and continues to re-add the disputed image to the page. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 14:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination has been withdrawn as an appropriate source has now been found for the image. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 21:26, 10 April 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⚡ 15:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uses obsolete {{Film screenshot fur}} template. No explanation given for why this specific image significantly enhances the reader's understanding in Suspicion (film) Papa November (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See User_talk:Papa_November#Proposed_deletion_of_images for my comments. This also applies to the two images that follow on this page. <KF> 21:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Other, better fair use images already show the information conveyed in this image. — BQZip01 — talk 01:13, 16 April 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: Not deleted since it was fixed.
- Uses obsolete {{Film screenshot fur}} template. No explanation given for why this specific image significantly enhances the reader's understanding in Dial M for Murder Papa November (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Image certainly needs a better rationale, but it also serves a purpose: identifying the characters of the movie within context and showing some of their interaction within the movie. I also am opposed to any additional images unless another one is removed. — BQZip01 — talk 01:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I'd say it's used appropriately in the article and meets our criteria. But someone needs to clean up the rationale. Anyone? – Quadell (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tweaked the rationale in response to your comments. I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if there are no objections. Papa November (talk) 01:00, 17 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uses obsolete {{Film screenshot fur}} template. No explanation given for why this specific image significantly enhances the reader's understanding in The Lady Vanishes (1938 film) Papa November (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Other, better fair use images already show the information conveyed in this image. — BQZip01 — talk 01:14, 16 April 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: Kept, no clear reason to delete
- Copyright infrigment Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify as to why the image is copyright infringement? -- ZookPS3 (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What exactly is copyrighted here requiring deletion? — BQZip01 — talk 00:31, 16 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blurry pictures of computer screen, content (c) is questioned, including File:4 Al-Ali.JPG File:5 Al-Ali Tribe.JPG File:6 Al-Ali.JPG File:7 Al-Ali.JPG File:8 Al-Ali.JPG File:9 Al-Ali.JPG Skier Dude (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All orphaned images with no encyclopedic use. We are not an image host. — BQZip01 — talk 00:32, 16 April 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: Kept, and moved to Commons
- File:1936 Pittsburgh flood0007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Egpuhl (notify | contribs).
- orphaned, incorrect license Skier Dude (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fixed license. Should be moved to commons. Has clear encyclopedic value. No longer orphaned. — BQZip01 — talk 00:42, 16 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Portersmansalu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mehoves1 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned, low-quality highly pixelated Skier Dude (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, plus no encyclopedic use for this personal photo. — BQZip01 — talk 00:43, 16 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- orphaned, target article / encyc use not clear Skier Dude (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Probably being used as an image host. — BQZip01 — talk 00:45, 16 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rossandalice bluradio disp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Meravingian (notify | contribs).
- OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 16:48, 10 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Resized Ross Mawhinney BluRadio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Meravingian (notify | contribs).
- OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 16:48, 10 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ross Mawhinney BluRadio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Meravingian (notify | contribs).
- OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 16:48, 10 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ross Mawhinney BluRadio Display.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Meravingian (notify | contribs).
- OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 16:48, 10 April 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 as NFCC#8 violation
- File:Heart1973_BC.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundvisions1 (notify | contribs).
- Already have one non-free promotional image of the band in the article (File:WhiteHeart1970.jpg), don't really need a second. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - "The Band" in 1970 was a different group of people from "The Band" in 1973, (and different again in 1974, for which as yet a picture has not been located.) It even had a different name! (White Heart vs Heart). I do not understand why "Already have one non-free promotional image of the band in the article" is a problem, particularly given that "The Band" was not (and still is not) a static entity. Please explain. [If it was a second picture of the same group of people, I could understand your concern, but it isn't, so] for those reasons, I do NOT agree that "don't really need a second". --Pdfpdf (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion:
- I actually contend that both photos are really too small to be of any use; you can't really make out what any of the people even look like, but I'm willing to let the other one slide, since so many people associate Heart with the Wilson sisters. But really, we don't particularly need one photo for every incarnation of the band. howcheng {chat} 04:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the response, but you haven't answered any of my questions, or explained the reasons for any of your points of view; you have just repeated what you've already said. Specifically:
- Q1) Why is "Already have one non-free promotional image of the band in the article" a problem?
- Q2) Why "don't really need a second"?
- "I actually contend that both photos are really too small to be of any use" - Well, that's your subjective opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it is not an objective fact, and my opinion is the opposite. If you are raising that as a reason for removal, I'm afraid I need more than just your opinion.
- "but I'm willing to let the other one slide" - That's an interesting turn of phrase.
- Q3) Why "But really, we don't particularly need one photo for every incarnation of the band."?
- So far, all I have got out of your words are "I don't like it." That is insufficient justification for removal of any photograph. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the response, but you haven't answered any of my questions, or explained the reasons for any of your points of view; you have just repeated what you've already said. Specifically:
- Actually, non-free images suffer from the opposite: because our m:mission is to spread the use of free content and the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy implores that we use only enough non-free content as is required to make our points, those who wish to keep non-free content in articles must make the case why it is necessary. These goals are then codified into the WP:NFCC: #3a dictates that multiple items are not necessary when one is sufficient (as is the case here). #8 is also applicable: we have the one non-free photo of the band, we have the free photo of the Wilson sisters; this photo doesn't add additional information that can't already be gleaned from what's already available. howcheng {chat} 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Actually, non-free images suffer from the opposite" - The opposite of what? Q4) Are you saying that "I don't like it" is justification for something / anything? Please clarify.
- "those who wish to keep non-free content in articles must make the case why it is necessary." - The case has been made in the FUR, and re-inforced above. Q5) What is the point you are trying to make?
- "#3a dictates that multiple items are not necessary when one is sufficient (as is the case here)."
- First, 3a does not "dictate" anything.
- Second, 3a does not say "multiple items are not necessary when one is sufficient".
- Third, once again, "as is the case here" is your opinion, not fact.
- 3a says: (and I quote) "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In this case, one item can not "convey equivalent significant information". The two images convey different information which is in no way "equivalent".
- 8 says: (and I quote) "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In this case, it illustrates: that the band membership, at that stage of the band's history, was dynamic; that there were certain "founders" of the band, and certain "core members" of the band. Hence these two photos "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding".
- "we have the one non-free photo of the band" - Refer Q1, which you still have not answered.
- "we have the free photo of the Wilson sisters" - I don't understand the significance or relevance of this of this statement, or the point you are trying to make. Q6) Please clarify.
- "this photo doesn't add additional information that can't already be gleaned from what's already available." - As explained at least twice above, this statement is false. It is not my opinion that it is false. It is a fact that it is false.
- We now have SIX statements that you have made that are not supported by anything other than your opinion. I have previously asked three questions which you have made no attempt to address, much less answer. And now you have raised three more points that have led to questions.
- You have now said three times "I don't like it". And I have previously pointed out to you that "I don't like it" is NOT sufficient grounds for removal of a photograph.
- You have quoted two sections of wikipedia policy, and I have explained that these photos are NOT in contravention of these policies.
- Please provide some reason (other than your opinion) as to why this photo should be removed. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally have never said "I don't like it" -- please stop putting words into my mouth.
- Q1/Q2/Q6) One non-free photo of the band suffices to show what the founding members look like. This leads into #3a. Band in 1973 is easily pictured by seeing people in 1970 photo + Wilson sisters and subtracting those who have left. The other person who joined is rather immaterial because you can't even see his face in the 1973 photo. If you can't even make out what the image is, then it serves no encyclopedic purpose, not to mention that the photo isn't even captioned in the article or on the image description page, so how is anyone even supposed to tell who's who?
- Q3) Is it so difficult to understand that band members change without actually seeing photos to confirm that fact? Let me flip that back to you: Why do we need one photo for every incarnation of the band?
- Q4) "Non-free images suffer from the opposite" means that if there is no consensus either way, the default action is to delete. The burden of proof lays on those who want to keep the image, not those who seek its deletion.
- Q5) Just because a fair use rationale is written does not mean that the image is being used properly. Again, allow me to point to #8: What points are being made in the text that cannot be understood without this photo? howcheng {chat} 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally have never said "I don't like it" -- please stop putting words into my mouth.
- Thank you for your reply - it is most appreciated. I feel I can address your points, but that would just prolong a conversation that is not necessarily achieving anything, so I'll take a different approach:
- Obviously, I would like to keep this photo, and I am prepared to do what is needed.
- Is there ANYTHING I can do which would resolve these problems / issues, or am I wasting my time (and yours)?
- I would appreciate your help in achieving a situation which would resolve the "issues" and retain the photos. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your reply - it is most appreciated. I feel I can address your points, but that would just prolong a conversation that is not necessarily achieving anything, so I'll take a different approach:
- Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but I described above how it satisfies 3a. Viz:
- 3a says: (and I quote) "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In this case, one item can not "convey equivalent significant information". The two images convey different information which is in no way "equivalent".
- Further information:
- "The Band" in 1970 was a different group of people from "The Band" in 1973, (and different again in 1974, for which as yet a picture has not been located.) It even had a different name! (White Heart vs Heart).
- They illustrate that the band membership, at that stage of the band's history, was dynamic; that there were certain "founders" of the band, and certain "core members" of the band.
- Please explain how and why it "fails 3a". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but I described above how it satisfies 3a. Viz:
- My opinion is that the images do convey equivalent information, that is what the band looked like and who was in the band. The latter can be conveyed by text, and the former is conveyed by the other picture. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. As I said above, "I would like to keep this photo." Is there ANYTHING I can do which would resolve these problems / issues, or am I wasting my time (and yours)? I would appreciate your help in achieving a situation which would resolve the "issues" and retain the photos. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was on the fence for a little bit here, but the photo's context doesn't show any new information (the members) that PD/GFDL/other fair use images don't already show and it isn't needed in this article. Therefore it fails WP:NFCC#3 and should be removed. Before you ask, no, there really isn't anything you can do unless you show how this photo spread is unique and cannot be replaced. Simply stating the names of the Core members is enough because they are already pictured. — BQZip01 — talk 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion:
- OK. Context added, and now, hopefully, describes how it is "unique and cannot be replaced". Problem solved? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Nothing you seemed to add is anything that can't be simply annotated in text in the article. I understand you want to include this picture, but there doesn't seem to be a valid fair use rationale available and its status as a copyrighted image precludes other means. Sorry. — BQZip01 — talk 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I must be missing something. "Nothing you seemed to add is anything that can't be simply annotated in text in the article" - Isn't the logical extension of your statement that ALL pictures on wikipedia can be replaced by an annotation in the text? If so, doesn't that beg the question, "Why are pictures allowed in wikipedia at all?" Obviously I must be missing something. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to explain. Allow me to use hypotheticals to make it a little more clear. Image 1 shows pictures of X, Y, and Z while Image 2 shows X, Y, A, B, and C. Image 1 is important to show the beginnings. Image 2 is important to illustrate the eventual change to a new grouping. There is no need for an Image 3 (showing X, Y, Z, and A) which shows an interim change. You can simply state that Z left and ABC (pictured in image 2) joined. Seeing as the composition of bands changes over time (no big shock there) an image of the band then doesn't really add anything to the article that isn't already pictured. Please realize this is all within the context of non-free images. If it were a free image, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You obviously care about the subject, and that is commendable, but Wikipedia's goals aren't in line with what you want (namely, minimizing non-free images). I also have no problem explaining it as Wikipedia's policy maze can be quite confusing. If you have any additional questions, please contact me here or on my talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but I can't let this garbage go on without commenting. Did BQZip01 or howcheng bother to look at the Heart (band) articles history or read over the talk pages? If they did there would be no discussion at all on this. There was discussion about the band Heart forming in Seattle and than relocating to Canada in 1974. (Under a heading "Success (1975–1982)" it used to say "By the mid-1970s, some of the male band members who had been eligible to be drafted to Vietnam were avoiding living in the U.S., so the band relocated to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada." There was much "text" about the line up and about the move to Canada because as it was worded it implied the entire (as in with Nancy) band, playing as a band called Heart, formed in Seattle pre-1975 and, in 1975, "the band relocated to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada" - all at once - and that, "In 1974 the Heart lineup consisted of Ann, Nancy, Roger Fisher, Steve Fossen (bass), John Hannah (keyboards) and Brian Johnstone (drums)". These facts were wrongly placed in the article and not fully accurate. This information was corrected with "text" however this "text" was questioned by some, Pdfpdf being one. When images showing the band in Canada, without Nancy, in 1973 were placed in the article it established what no "text" was able to. Before BQZip01 or howcheng (or anyone else) make *any* other comments here about the image not having a valid FUR or not being needed do some homework and first read why the image is being used at Talk:Heart (band)/Archive 3#Country of Origin and some other thoughts The FUR is very clear is why the photo is being used as well: To show the Band heart in 1973 in Vancouver BC Canada before Nancy Wilson joined. These facts are more than enough to answer the question "What points are being made in the text that cannot be understood without this photo?" Also this discussion shows howcheng may have a misunderstanding of WP's Fair Use requirements when s/he comments on two low resolution and smallish fair use images by saying that "both photos are really too small to be of any use". Wikipedia:NFCC#3 says, under "b.", that "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used" which would aid to explain why the images are small and of low resolution. Likewise, if reading the "why" on the article does make it clear one can look at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images, under number 12 of "unacceptable uses", which says "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Clearly the line up shown in this 1973 image is not the same line up now and, clearly, when combined with the "text" that was (and still is at times) questioned as being accurate about Heart already playing, as a band without Nancy Wilson, in 1973 in Canada these images establish what words along can not. And that, as well, leads to a reply to the questions/comment: "...not to mention that the photo isn't even captioned in the article or on the image description page". From what is clearly seen in the image there *are* captions and they show the following - The band name: "Heart" and information on how to book the band: "Bookings: Axis Entertainment. P.O Box 3404. Vancouver 3 BC". We do not need any captions to show Nancy Wilson is not in the band at this time. However if you are concerned with the membership, again if one were to read the actual article's talk page (Talk:Heart (band)), you would see a conversation about who the members are in this image and contains information from the photographer: "As for the players on drums and keyboards, at the moment your guess is as good as mine. I spent a lot of time and made the most money out of bands that kept changing personnel. It was hard to keep up with who was moving where and now they all look like the same bearded hairy kids. The best that I can do is to try and find the original negs from that shoot and see if I can get a clear print of those two and send them to Roger or Ann for an ID." --20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.48.77 (talk)
- WP:AGF Assume I read everything associated with the image...I have...
- WP:CIVIL Calling others' comments or discussion "garbage" doesn't help in a discussion.
- "To show the Band heart in 1973 in Vancouver BC Canada before Nancy Wilson joined" is not valid. Anyone can look at a picture of the entire band (with her included) and clearly realize she didn't join until a year later and no context/accuracy is lost. — BQZip01 — talk 14:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but I can't let this garbage go on without commenting. Did BQZip01 or howcheng bother to look at the Heart (band) articles history or read over the talk pages? If they did there would be no discussion at all on this. There was discussion about the band Heart forming in Seattle and than relocating to Canada in 1974. (Under a heading "Success (1975–1982)" it used to say "By the mid-1970s, some of the male band members who had been eligible to be drafted to Vietnam were avoiding living in the U.S., so the band relocated to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada." There was much "text" about the line up and about the move to Canada because as it was worded it implied the entire (as in with Nancy) band, playing as a band called Heart, formed in Seattle pre-1975 and, in 1975, "the band relocated to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada" - all at once - and that, "In 1974 the Heart lineup consisted of Ann, Nancy, Roger Fisher, Steve Fossen (bass), John Hannah (keyboards) and Brian Johnstone (drums)". These facts were wrongly placed in the article and not fully accurate. This information was corrected with "text" however this "text" was questioned by some, Pdfpdf being one. When images showing the band in Canada, without Nancy, in 1973 were placed in the article it established what no "text" was able to. Before BQZip01 or howcheng (or anyone else) make *any* other comments here about the image not having a valid FUR or not being needed do some homework and first read why the image is being used at Talk:Heart (band)/Archive 3#Country of Origin and some other thoughts The FUR is very clear is why the photo is being used as well: To show the Band heart in 1973 in Vancouver BC Canada before Nancy Wilson joined. These facts are more than enough to answer the question "What points are being made in the text that cannot be understood without this photo?" Also this discussion shows howcheng may have a misunderstanding of WP's Fair Use requirements when s/he comments on two low resolution and smallish fair use images by saying that "both photos are really too small to be of any use". Wikipedia:NFCC#3 says, under "b.", that "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used" which would aid to explain why the images are small and of low resolution. Likewise, if reading the "why" on the article does make it clear one can look at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images, under number 12 of "unacceptable uses", which says "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Clearly the line up shown in this 1973 image is not the same line up now and, clearly, when combined with the "text" that was (and still is at times) questioned as being accurate about Heart already playing, as a band without Nancy Wilson, in 1973 in Canada these images establish what words along can not. And that, as well, leads to a reply to the questions/comment: "...not to mention that the photo isn't even captioned in the article or on the image description page". From what is clearly seen in the image there *are* captions and they show the following - The band name: "Heart" and information on how to book the band: "Bookings: Axis Entertainment. P.O Box 3404. Vancouver 3 BC". We do not need any captions to show Nancy Wilson is not in the band at this time. However if you are concerned with the membership, again if one were to read the actual article's talk page (Talk:Heart (band)), you would see a conversation about who the members are in this image and contains information from the photographer: "As for the players on drums and keyboards, at the moment your guess is as good as mine. I spent a lot of time and made the most money out of bands that kept changing personnel. It was hard to keep up with who was moving where and now they all look like the same bearded hairy kids. The best that I can do is to try and find the original negs from that shoot and see if I can get a clear print of those two and send them to Roger or Ann for an ID." --20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.48.77 (talk)
- I'd be happy to explain. Allow me to use hypotheticals to make it a little more clear. Image 1 shows pictures of X, Y, and Z while Image 2 shows X, Y, A, B, and C. Image 1 is important to show the beginnings. Image 2 is important to illustrate the eventual change to a new grouping. There is no need for an Image 3 (showing X, Y, Z, and A) which shows an interim change. You can simply state that Z left and ABC (pictured in image 2) joined. Seeing as the composition of bands changes over time (no big shock there) an image of the band then doesn't really add anything to the article that isn't already pictured. Please realize this is all within the context of non-free images. If it were a free image, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You obviously care about the subject, and that is commendable, but Wikipedia's goals aren't in line with what you want (namely, minimizing non-free images). I also have no problem explaining it as Wikipedia's policy maze can be quite confusing. If you have any additional questions, please contact me here or on my talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I must be missing something. "Nothing you seemed to add is anything that can't be simply annotated in text in the article" - Isn't the logical extension of your statement that ALL pictures on wikipedia can be replaced by an annotation in the text? If so, doesn't that beg the question, "Why are pictures allowed in wikipedia at all?" Obviously I must be missing something. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Nothing you seemed to add is anything that can't be simply annotated in text in the article. I understand you want to include this picture, but there doesn't seem to be a valid fair use rationale available and its status as a copyrighted image precludes other means. Sorry. — BQZip01 — talk 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry BQZip01, I don't understand what you have said.
- "is not valid" - What do you mean?
- "Anyone can look at a picture of the entire band (with her included) and clearly realize she didn't join until a year later". That doesn't make any sense to me. How can you look at a picture of her in the band (which, by the way, we don't have), and "clearly realize" anything, much less realise "she didn't join until a year later"? A year later than what? How can anyone look at a picture which we don't have? I'm sorry, but you've lost me. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is in relation to my earlier statement, not specifically pertaining to the current situation, but being used as an example.
- By the same token, you already have a non-free picture including all the people who started the band (including Steve Fossen, Roger Fisher, Mike Fisher) and you already have a free, dated picture of Nancy and Anne. This is more than enough to identify all the members of the band and appropriate for this article.
- As for "...for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable," you already have images of the members of this group, which isn't known for an earlier visual appearance. If they were, we'd already have a photo (non-free or otherwise) or text showing it (like KISS...which currently maintains their visual appearance anyway...).
- Try not to take this so personally. It isn't directed at you, but at content on Wikipedia. I've had images deleted too, despite convincing/heated arguments otherwise. Our non-free content criteria, much to the consternation of many editors on Wikipedia, rookies and veterans alike, is more restrictive than U.S. law. This also doesn't preclude you from creating your own website and posting these photos in a (though I'm not advocating breaking any laws, make sure you are using fair use images appropriately). Wikipedia isn't designed to be a repository of every single detail, but an encyclopedia. Hell, I don't have a problem with you making your own website and referencing it here, provided it meets our criteria as a reliable source. My point is, losing this single image on Wikipedia isn't a big deal as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It doesn't need to be a big deal for you either. — BQZip01 — talk 02:58, 19 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:00610007.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Drashishsarkar (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, while this is a good photo, without any details on the subject it really is not usable. Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 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: Kept, and moved to Commons as File:Sandviken, Norway.jpg
- File:01-02-06_1516.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sausenebb (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, it is likely a photo of Sandviken, Norway given the uploaders only contributions but its low quality and conformation of subject make it likely unencyclopedic Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/rename Seems like a reasonably well-formed image to me and certainly could be used to illustrate sunsets or reflections. Transfer to commons. — BQZip01 — talk 00:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Commons has thousands of such pictures, including 35 in Norway. And all 35 are better than this one. – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...but not one of those shows a sunset with Mammatus clouds like this one... — BQZip01 — talk 21:09, 16 April 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⚡ 20:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:066.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nickembleton (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, poor quality and does not adequatly display the subject bus Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With no context about this image, there is no way to appropriately use this image in an encyclopedia. Perhaps if we had more details... — BQZip01 — talk 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no context. Local to where? Low quality, not worth renaming and transeferring. – Quadell (talk) 20:54, 16 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:07-44_00.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paulaner77 (notify | contribs).
- File:TX2_3D.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paulaner77 (notify | contribs).
- File:Benevelli_Marchio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paulaner77 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, given the user's talk page it was likely used on a deleted page and I also question the free license applied Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All appear to be from the delete page's website. — BQZip01 — talk 00:56, 16 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- orphaned image, sole contribution of user, unlikley to be GFDL-self given copyright notice and website watermarking Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Copyvio — BQZip01 — talk 00:58, 16 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1,4-Cyclohexanedione.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Neparis (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, replaced on subject page by Commons version File:1,4-Cyclohexanedione.png Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete already a commons image. — BQZip01 — talk 00:58, 16 April 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: Kept
- File:100_0195.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Originalhandy (notify | contribs).
- orphaned iamge, absent uploader, no information provided to identify an encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Image in use, adequate description (albeit sloppy...by me...) recommend renaming with a more appropriate title. — BQZip01 — talk 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I guess this could be useful. – Quadell (talk) 20:58, 16 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:100_0927.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scooter7391 (notify | contribs).
- File:S7300178.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scooter7391 (notify | contribs).
- File:KArlz19.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scooter7391 (notify | contribs).
- File:S7300142.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scooter7391 (notify | contribs).
- File:KarlzDrumHead.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scooter7391 (notify | contribs).
- File:Dancing_Days_(Dave).ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scooter7391 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned file, absent uploader, likely used on band's deleted article per user's talk page Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spot on assessment. — BQZip01 — talk 01:02, 16 April 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:100_1314.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tarantinoisgod (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, likely used on deleted band article per user's talk page Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete See above. — BQZip01 — talk 01:02, 16 April 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image is sourced from freeimages.co.uk, but their definition of free is free as in beer, not free as in information. Have a look at their terms: 2) forbids us to archive the images, 3) forbids us to redistribute images for reuse, 4) wants us to credit on the page the image is used on (meaning the article page), 5) makes the license effectively revocable, 9) wants us to join their mailing list. This is not sufficiently free for use on Wikipedia, Fair Use does not apply as there are free alternatives (e.g. File:Tipp-Ex-Aqua-based.jpg) available. ChrisiPK (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Free as in beer!?!? Where do you live so I can go there!?!? Agree this is not our definition of "free" and should not be in use, especially considering there are alternatives available. — BQZip01 — talk 01:09, 16 April 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: Withdrawn by nominator; uploader requested deletion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Karen perfume launch.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jaeljojo (notify | contribs).
- Image is claimed to be "taken at the perfume launch of Karen Mok in October 2008". This is a lie, the image is from a Hong Kong film festival (see File:KarenMok HKfestival2009.jpg, an identical image). This uploader has uploaded copyvio images in the past (see User talk:Jaeljojo) and the other file I mentioned here has no source or licensing information, so I have no reason to believe the uploader actually took this photo or holds the copyright. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:00, 10 April 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.