Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 28

< October 27	October 29 >

October 28[edit]

File:ANewLowBellaMorte.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, most likely orphaned from the deletion of A New Low Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:48, 28 October 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:GASLIGHT4FORWEB.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyright violations. They are all tagged {{PD-self}}, but the upload summaries credit them to many different sources (Ivan Krause; Bill Williams, Martha Williams; Briana Lopez, Troop 47; William Shear). One of these images is a screenshot from a video game; another is an album cover; a third has credits in the corner that read, "WILLIAM SHEAR PHOTOGRAPHY". —Bkell (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or OTRS: Some claim "with permission" but that alone doesn't cut it. They need an permission OTRS on file. Looking over the history of the user they appear to up others work all the time. One of these images was orphaned by the deletion of Troop 47. The Sinbad screen shot seemed to be a "sister/bother" to File:SinbadandPrince.png, File:SinbadFalcon2.gif and File:BoxcoverSinbad.jpg. First two were deleted for an invalid claim of fair use, the box cover for lack of licensing information. Maybe related, or not, to the spaghetti image but a message left for 66.169.114.224 says they "work with Scott Conant and update his Wikipedia page for him" Check out the gallery of Scott's official website. Nice looking product shots, such as another shot of spaghetti by "WILLIAM SHEAR PHOTOGRAPHY" Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 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:Mgrhopi.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1MGR0011.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Notatnot22.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Anianianiy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:AODAIAeeDre23231MK.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

Images with no source listed, or very vague source. Some declined in the "Anything with a 'self' license is ok because that means they are the copyright holder and the source" debate of a few weeks ago. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 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:Qxz-ad217.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image, families is speleld rong. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:18, 28 October 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:Vell Baria in 2010.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely a copyvio/infringement from facebook; no indication that uploader is actually this girl; "article" soon to be deleted anyways due to WP:N. Subject is a minor, so I'd rather err on the delete-side. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:57, 28 October 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:Oro Olímpico 2010.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - decorative non-free image that does is not crucial to providing encyclopedic and the image itself is not in discussion. Mosmof (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A country only wins its first Olympic gold medal once, that is exactly what "historic" is supposed to be. WP:NFCI includes "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary" under "Acceptable use". The event and the object itself (the medal), not only the subject, is broadly discussed in the article and that image is meant to illustrate that, there is a reason that it is not used in the infobox. Category:Non-free historic Wikipedia files is full of images depicting sport images of events that are less significant than a country's first Olympic Gold medal, such as File:1946 AAGPBL All-Star Team.jpg, File:1948 Dragon Silver Medal.jpg, File:1952 Star I 2958 Gold Medal.jpg (most of which don't depict the actual medal that is discussed in the prose, only the event), several mug shots, etc. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But again, the image itself is not crucial to understanding the article. Looking at the picture tells us nothing about how historic the medal is. This appears to be a typical misunderstanding of what a historic image is. A picture of a historic event is not necessarily historic on its own, just as conversely, a historic image is not necessarily of a historic event. Telling us how the picture shows a historic event or an object doesn't tell us that the image is historic. And if there are other non-free historic images that are not subject of discussion, then they should be nominated for deletion. Mosmof (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Meets WP:NFCC#8. This image significantly increases the readers' understanding of the topic, being Emmanuel Rodríguez. The Historical Event captured in this image is the sole reason why the subject in question is Notable. Thus per WP:NFCC#8: its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The term "understanding" here refering to the notability of said subject. QuAz GaA 20:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This argument would make sense if there were no written records at the time the photograph was taken, or there was no press coverage of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. I'm willing to guess at least one journalist showed up and wrote about this. Could you explain exactly what we wouldn't understand if the picture were missing and we had to rely solely on written sources? --Mosmof (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not whether the article will be understood (or not) with (or without) the Image. The issue here is if the omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It's omission would be detrimental. The Article establishes notability of the subject. An image of this historical event clearly enhances the understanding significantly for its claim of notability, and to readers with an interest in this historic achievement which is clearly described within the article. The argument that does not make sense here is the nominators rationale for deletion. Votes with claims of being decorative and unencyclopedic, or just citing Policy WP:NFCC#8 are really inadequate. Especially since it has been shown to actually meet the WP:NFCC#8 guideline as is clearly stated above. I heard this saying once: A picture is worth a thousand words. Well, IMHO, that applies here as well. QuAz GaA 01:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am still not convinced that this image "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic" and that "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I read in the Emmanuel Rodríguez article that he won "Puerto Rico's first Olympic gold medal" (granted, finding this text in the article is a little difficult, so perhaps the structure of the article needs improvement). Winning this gold medal is an impressive achievement and certainly makes him notable; no one is disputing that. I understand the significance of this event from the text. But what additional understanding do I gain by the photo? Nothing, really. It's just a typical picture of an athlete with a gold medal, and I already knew he won a gold medal from the text. Not even the caption explains the significance ("Rodríguez on the podium while La Borinqueña is played"). All of the understanding about Rodríguez that I get from the article, I get from the text. The photo does not clarify any points of the article or help me to better understand anything about Rodríguez. We are citing WP:NFCC#8 because that is a relevant policy, and I thought we had explained why we think the use of this image does not meet that requirement. Perhaps our viewpoint is clearer now. —Bkell (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Quazgaa, plus the logic behind the rationale which states 1. It is a historically significant photo of a notable event, 2. It illustrates an historic moment, which cannot be possibly replicated once more, 3. The photo is only being used for informational purposes and 4. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the event and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's no evidence that it's a historical significant photo, because there's no sourced discussion of how it's historically significant. Again, showing a historic event does not make a picture historically significant. Since the image is not crucial to the context, it very plainly fails WP:NFCC#8. Mosmof (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Interesting that NFCC#1 was brought in as nothing more than a passing reference. When:

1- AIBA personnel was mostly responsible of taking the photos and distributing these images (the IOC did publish a few, including a decent replacement, but those also have "some right reserved").
2- Even when the independent press snaps these photos, they are never released into the public domain (that's not saying that some random photographer actually took a photo of this event, as I have yet to see one).
3- The general public was not allowed anywhere near the podium or the boxers during the ceremony, making the task of actually obtaining a photo of the medal rather difficult.

How are we supposed to find a 'free' replacement for an image of a once-in-a-lifetime-event (that already took place) under those circumstances? Assuming that a 'free' replacement exists is nothing more than speculation; at the moment, all evidence says otherwise. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, perhaps this image does satisfy WP:NFCC#1. That's not enough to say it should be kept—non-free content must satisfy all of the criteria. This image does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8, whether or not it satisfies WP:NFCC#1. —Bkell (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have demonstrated that this image meets WP:NFCC#8, all convincing aside. Editors who just cite the Policy WP:NFCC#8 and provide no further explanation other than repeating their voting rationale do not contribute constructively to this discussion. QuAz GaA 19:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to me. I don't know what kind of "further explanation" you want—I thought that my paragraph of explanation was significantly more than "just citing the policy." But you're right, I shouldn't just repeat what I've already said, so I won't. —Bkell (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The photo gives form to what would otherwise be a mental/imaginary-only idea of this person. This photo-image helps me understand that Emmanuel Rodríguez is a kind man (holding a teddy bear). That he is a humble man (wearing a humble look, not a pompous one). That politically he is middle-of the road (a right-wing penepista would be looking the other way when La Borinqueña is being played, while a left-wing independentista would have his right hand firmly over his heart while the national anthem is playing). Maybe other aspects of his life need better discussion/inclusion in the article, but that would be an issue with the article not meeting certain expectations - not an issue with the image not meeting policy. And in this regard such lack of further textual discussion would not preempt the need to have an image of this person in his article. The only difference I can see with this image is merely the isolated fact that it is a non-free image. Being non-free, however, would not in and of itself be a justification for deletion, which is what I gather seems to be case here from the con arguments presented. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
- That's great. As long as we have this attributed to a reliable, third-party source in the article, the image passes WP:NFCC#8. Awesome. Mosmof (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - While the picture may be witness to probable qualities based on visual perception, such speculation has no place in an encyclopaedia: it may very well be that none of the appearent attributes about this man are, in fact, true. But the photo is also witness to one undisputed fact about this athlete: that he won an Olympic gold medal. And in this regard the photo lends form to what would otherwise be a mental/imaginary-only idea of this person wearing an Olympic gold medal, and is thus a useful instrument in the article. The photo is appropriate as shown in much the same way as an article about a soldier would have a pic of him in his army uniform; one about a clergy, a pic of him in his clergy outfit; a judge, in his black robe, and so on. This photo is, imo, no more decorative in the article than the Olympic gold medal would be a decoration for the athlete's chest. And the picture, in fact, may the most powerful element that the textually incomplete article may currently possess. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
    - If the image is about the one undisputed fact about this athlete: that he won an Olympic gold medal, then it fails WP:NFCC#1, because we have enough newspaper coverage of the event, because facts don't need illustration to be powerful. And without textual sources, the image is pretty meaningless - it's just a guy with a plush doll on a podium with a gold medal. None of that commentary in your previous comment is in the article yet, so it fails WP:NFCC#8, since as it is, there is no contextual significance to the image. And pictures of a soldier in an army uniform or a clergyman in a robe? You'd just use a free image. Mosmof (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is historicaly significant among other things. El Johnson (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "historically significant", then why isn't there any well-sourced discussion of the image in the article? Mosmof (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More and More it appears that this discussion should have taken place on the Article Talk page. There is no argument here that the article in question needs attention to address the issues that are being raised here. But calling fellow Editors liars as you did here may be considered a personal attack and does not contribute to this discussion in the least. QuAzGaA 18:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, I didn't call anyone a liar and that wasn't my intent. Please WP:AGF and all that. I do think people who keep saying "historic event" and "historic image" are mistaken. WP:NFCC does not allow images simply because they depict historic events. It does allow historic images, but that's something completely different and I think you're missing the distinction. And you're looking at it backwards - you shouldn't be wondering what you can do to the article to include the image. If you have to ask that question, then the image clearly isn't needed. Mosmof (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The event is certainly historic. However, this non-free image is not particularly historic; it is replaceable by text describing the historic event. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Shows a person with a medal. Period. In this case the article adds the context to the image, not the other way around. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:48, 4 November 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:TPPEPPM1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pray tell, what is the usefulness of this image? Looks more like schoolchildren scribbles than of any encyclopedic or mathematical value. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 03:20, 28 October 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:Eb2010host.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably from promotional materials for Eat Bulaga since this image a watermark of the TV show. Bluemask (talk) 10:57, 28 October 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:Formic-acid.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, inappropriate file type. Very unusual representation. There are many better alternatives in Commons:Category:Formic acid. Leyo 12:47, 28 October 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:SimpsonsJUST.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image, a screenshot from The Simpsons, is being used in Jordan University of Science and Technology to illustrate a scene in which the university was mentioned. Not only is this entirely replaceable by text, but the image also doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of JUST - it's simply a random dinner scene with two Simpsons characters. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ESkog, thank you for your concern. The scene shown in the screenshot is not a random scene at all; the characters shown were said to have met each other at Jordan University of Science and Technology and this is the scene in which this was said. However, I somewhat agree with you that it doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of JUST, so feel free to act as you see appropriate. As a side note, would you mind checking the article's discussion page and provide some feedback on whether it deserves the ratings stated and how the article can be further improved? Your efforts are appreciated, thank you. Ymousa (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The image is completely unhelpful without a caption, which pretty much explains everything that the reader needs to know without an image. Fails WP:NFCC#1, #8. --Mosmof (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The image is no longer used, feel free to do as you please. Ymousa (talk) 21:52, 28 October 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:Carey flag.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan photo of person, who was campaigning for office, as an independent, in 2003. Image fails WP:BIO, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:NOTADVERTISING, so it is Unencyclopedic. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:22, 28 October 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:Ron Clark Ball3.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image that is almost an exact copy of the image used in the Ron Clark Ball article, File:Ron Clark Ball4.jpg. Appear that images are just brightness adjusted from one another. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:45, 28 October 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:Rei Frani blowjob.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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CV Frionn (talk) 16:05, 28 October 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:Rei Frani Blowjob.ext[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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CV Frionn (talk) 16:11, 28 October 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:Page 48.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Image is an almost exact duplicate of File:Official notes.JPG. I see no reason to have both. I believe that uploader was attempting to remove numbers at bottom of passport, probably for security or privacy reason, however, this is just an assumption. However, if true, then this is another reason for deletion. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:12, 28 October 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:Rei Frani Blowjob.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 JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CV Frionn (talk) 16:12, 28 October 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:Named-graphs-1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Named-graphs-1.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

Orphaned with almost duplicate images on commons, Named-graphs-1.jpg and Named-graphs-2.jpg--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:46, 28 October 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:Mohammed21.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 Bkell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I realize that Wikipedia is not censored, etc. But do we really need this intentionally antagonistic and inflammatory cartoon? It is not being used in any articles, and it was apparently drawn by the uploader. There seems to be no encyclopedic use for it. (We shouldn't include it in an article unless we can verify that it was published or commented upon outside Wikipedia—an article like Everybody Draw Mohammed Day shouldn't be a gallery of drawings of Mohammed made by random Wikipedia editors, even though that's what it appears to be at the moment. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought, including previously unpublished political cartoons. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.) Keeping this image in some non-article page seems to violate the spirit of the guideline on user pages prohibiting "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons." —Bkell (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It appears this image is a copyright violation to boot. It appears at [1], which was published in May 2010, a month before the image was uploaded here. I'm going to speedy it as a copyvio before this FFD discussion gets out of hand. —Bkell (talk) 18:16, 28 October 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:Brenden Matthews.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image of unknown person, left over from page deletion here. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:34, 28 October 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:CareyChetCampbellatOneNation.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan photo of person, who was once campaigning for office. Image fails WP:BIO, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:NOTADVERTISING, so it is Unencyclopedic. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 28 October 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:Cat breastfeeding a random adult cat.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: Withdrawn--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality: These images are extremely distorted, out of focus and have other physical image quality concerns. Are we sure the image is what it is described as? Since it so out of focus, its hard to tell. The images are also almost Orphans, in that they are only used in an "archive page" for the Science Reference desk. They are not used in an article at all. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete these—they're part of the science reference desk archives. —Bkell (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy to withdraw my {{ffd}} if you would explain why being part of the "science reference desk" negated the reason I listed above, ie. extremely distorted, out of focus ... and Are we sure the image is what it is described as? I am honestly unsure why just being part of a reference desk archive makes it "no reason to delete these". The archive text wont suffer at all without the image.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these are very poor photographs from a technical perspective, and they should not be used in articles. But there's no reason to tear them out of the reference desk archives just because of that. There is a lot of very badly written text in the archives, too, but we don't delete it for that reason. What gain do you foresee from deleting these images? —Bkell (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a reason to keep distorted images just because they are part of the reference desk. However, you seem to have a strong opinion on the matter and I don't, so I am Withdrawing this nom.

Okay. I don't actually have a super strong opinion on the matter, and I apologize if what I said made it sound that way—I just didn't see any reason that deleting these images would be an improvement. Reference desk archives, like talk page archives, are generally considered rather static, and shouldn't be changed without good reason. I just don't think that coming back to an archive two months after the discussion and noticing that some photographs are of poor quality is a good reason to be deleting things from the archive. That's all. —Bkell (talk) 20:59, 28 October 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:Me and torrin.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image of completely unknown people, so is Unencyclopedic. Image also appears to be photoshoped and could be a wp:hoax image --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:14, 28 October 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:Dickipedia logo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly non-free and derived from the wiki logo; I can't see how fair-use applies for the article as I don't think it adds to comprehension of the topic, specifically that the article is about a website, and this logo is a particular portion of that website; it does not seem particularly noteworthy or 'special' - so, we seem to be merely using FUR to claim usage of a non-free image which, in itself, is a copyright violation as a derived image. In sum, I just do not feel that this image adds to the educational nature of our project. My reasoning is not related to the fact that it happens to be a Wikipedia logo - I'd say the same if it was a parody logo of McDonalds, Microsoft, or whatever else. It's not a notable parody. Chzz ► 21:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

despite nominator's offended sensibilities, the article and related image are in compliance with all wikipedia policies. --emerson7 21:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the one hand, I don't quite see the need for this logo in a section about a subordinate entity. This issue would be different if Dickipedia had its own article. Then logos seem to be fair game for mere illustration purposes. On the second issue of copyright infringement I see no valid point not to use it as we, i.e. the Wikimedia Foundation, are the copyright holders of the original image. __meco (talk) 11:21, 29 October 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.