Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 27

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27

File:FairlyOddParents.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file was created from a Deviantart user and is not an official logo but an edited one. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:21, 27 July 2010 (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:Jose 1990s.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screen capture. Obviously not the work of the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2010 (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:Kimiko Matsuzaka.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probable CV. First, does not meet NFCC requirements. No basis for claim that image is "highly relevant to the subject's career" and "contributes highly significant information"; nothing in article indicates that subject's appearance is appreciably more distinctive than that of other performers in visual media. Fact that subject is retired does not create an exception to NFCC, and the claim that subject is "hiding from publicity" is entirely unsupported; in any event, the fact that a subject may shun publicity is not recognized exception to NFCC requirements. Second, image fails NFCC attribution requirements. There is no reason to believe that the image is a publicity photo or comes from a press kit, as is required; it was taken from a retailer site of undetermined reliability which provides no attribution for the photos it uses when hawking products. Third, there's been no attempt to secure a free equivalent; assuming that publicity/presskit photos do exist, NFCC principles require that, at a minimum, a good faith effort be made to secure a freely licensed photo from an authorized, as has often been done with other subjects. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fair use is the law. CV does not apply. Matsuzaka was a model/actress whose appearance could not possibly have been more relevant to her career. She has been retired for nearly 20 years and zealously guards her privacy. Clearly meets the exception given at Wikipedia:NFC#UULP, "...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." Dekkappai (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the claim that nothing in the article claims her appearance was noteworthy and relevant to her career is false. Reliable sources in the article indicate that she is the model who set "on fire" the "Big Bust Boom" (巨乳ブーム, "Kyonyū Boom") which is still going in Japanese adult entertainment 20 years later. I took some pains to select a publicity photo which showed her assets without purposely breaching good taste. Dekkappai (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As long as the subject is alive, we can't say that we can not obtain a free picture of her. Which is the main point of fair use law of US.--AM ^(talk) 13:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Does anyone of you deletionist guys even read WP:NFC#UULP?! Or was the addition just made for fun and has actually no meaning? Also see here what strange arguments have already been discussed. Testales (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFCC#1 (replaceable) and NFCC#8 (as knowing the details of her appearance is not necessary to understand that she is a porn actress or what being a porn actress entails).—Kww(talk) 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Claiming that an erotic actress or model's physical appearance is irrelevant to her notability is one of the most ludicrous arguments I've ever seen made at Wikipedia. And I've seen some doozies. If this criterion is going to be ignored, why not take it out? That would remove the need to outright lie about it. Dekkappai (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This shoulda just had a {{subst:rfu}} slapped on it. howcheng {chat} 03:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Images of living persons are always replaceable. --DAJF (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what makes you believing this and why you are completely ignoring WP:NFC#UULP? Testales (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please also have a look at the ongoing discussion at the policy talk page here and here.

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:Pluto2.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader claimed that the source image is in PD, but it is not. This image used only in userboxes and may be replaced by commons:File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-b90.jpg or so. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2010 (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:Nikonos sekonic meter.xcf

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: Speedy delete per G7 (NAC) Fleet Command (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wrong format, jpg uploaded as Nikonos housing sekonic meter.jpg John Bessa (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2010 (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:WLHome.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image is in violation of the following:
1. Wikipedia:Non-Free Content Criteria clause 10: Image description page: This image lacks a proper fair-use rationale.
2. Wikipedia:Non-Free Content Criteria clause 3b: Minimal extent of use: This image is too high resolution while contains very little significant information.
3. Wikipedia:Non-Free Content Criteria clause 3a: Minimal usage: There is already one File:Windows Live Home.jpg which is uploaded before and has none of the problems mentioned above.
Fleet Command (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the image is now orphaned so needs to be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2010 (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:Comics geronimo and his apache murderers.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free comic book cover used without any discussion of the book or the cover itself. howcheng {chat} 19:49, 27 July 2010 (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:GoldeneyewiiDam.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 00:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a synthesis of two images that is merely comparing two scenes from two versions of this game. Argument has been advanced that a high resolution is needed for this arbitrary comparison. Image is really just gratuitous. Jack Merridew 20:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rationales for NFC are only for use in article space and have nothing to do with the size of the image in file space. As such, any argument in favour of a size significantly greater than a size appropriate for article space is discardable. Oni's edit war over the file's dimensions is having no effect on the rendered size of the image in the article, which is the default thumbnail size. Given this, any image bugging together multiple images is an implicit attempt to evade our NFC policy. See also: WP:FANCRUFT. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment Image illustrates a comparison of the two versions which compliments description of the changes between this and the earlier title, aiding the reader in understanding these differences. Jack Merridew appears to be acting in bad faith, based on his hostile responses to friendly attempts at discussion and previous history of harassment. This deletion request is a retaliatory attempt with no merit, and attempts at discussion have been denied. The current resolution of the image is sufficient to convey the message, but is still significantly lower than the gameplay footage it was designed for and has no potential for copyright infringement or abuse. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. I think an image comparing the two versions can easily be justified under the NFCC - the article already includes some discussion of the differences. The primary problem here is that, the way the article is laid out, it's very difficult to include a copy of the image at high-enough resolution to actually appreciate what it's showing. The thumbnail in the article serves very little purpose because it's so tiny; but when you do click and view the high-res version it actually demonstrates the difference very clearly and encyclopedically. But, again, if we do include the image at a substantially larger size it completely won't fit in the article. A possible compromise solution here is to replace this landscape image with a portrait one - place the comparative images one above the other, producing an image that's perhaps ~250px across by ~400px high. This image will thereby fit in the article at a resolution sufficient to actually illustrate the point being made, while simultaneously allowing us to reduce the size of the actual image stored. ~ mazca ^talk 09:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, 250 × 347, although it's still a poor image. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image actually does the job fairly well in that form; you can certainly see the point it's making on the page itself now without drowning the page in a massive nonfree image. In my view this solves the concerns raised. ~ mazca ^talk 10:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I forgot a detail 'upright'. The images amount to a sow's ear; dark, grainy, rainy... And how is this even needed? Scene-by-scene the different games would be different; so what? This is a job for wikia:goldeneye. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, as far as I'm concerned it appears to show these specific differences better than text would - perhaps different screenshots of a less grey level would do so even better, but it certainly seems a justified non-free image from my FFD perspective. Never been a fan of GoldenEye in either version, so I can't exactly say whether this could be shown better - but from my angle as someone who doesn't really know either game very well, it aided understanding. ~ mazca ^talk 14:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apparently no one had noticed, but it doesn't have a copyright tag.--Rockfang (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did ;) Thanks for adding the {{di-no license}}. Jack Merridew 02:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to solve a good portion of the issues with it. As for the copyright info, I'm pretty sure the justification from the previous version would suffice. It looks like User:1wolfblake has added that info to it. I understand the desire to reduce cruft in the article space. Many of the articles focused on games, TV shows, comics, etc, are absolutely full of it, but this is minimal and adds significant value. Just by looking at it I can see significant obvious differences. For one, the rain itself, which was pointed out as a concern, is new, and it's fairly obvious right from the start that the level of detail is much higher. Just the fact that the layout is different, too, is a significant detail for readers as it helps further illustrate that this version is at least in part a new game not just a carbon-copy port of the original.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC) PS: I apparently misread at least a part of the conversation and it was the actual tag that is missing, not the justification. I have since added the tag {{Non-free game screenshot}} to alleviate this, and thus removed the speedy tag, as that is all it is used for.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@[reply]
Speedy Keep as a suitable image for the Development section. Comparison adds to the article by showing the great changes in one of the top games ever to be released.. I'm really not seeing why this was taken to FfD. Would be very open to clearer images as newer screenshots are released if a user can create a clearer, easier to discern image, however the comparison, the changes to the core game, the visual upgrade, is a large part of the notability of the remake itself. --Teancum (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2010 (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:MSN-2.0-anna-faris.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does little to add to the MSN article. Cloudbound (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - images currently in article (minus this one) are sufficient for the reader. The 'tiled' format is also unnecessary. A single still would have been sufficient if the image would have been needed at all. Image is also ridiculously huge, violating WP:NFCC --Teancum (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2010 (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.