Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

September 24[edit]

File:AFGonesseMemorial.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The result of the discussion was: Nomination withdrawn. Diannaa (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No contextual significance in the article. Memorial does not receive in-depth discussion in the article, particularly discussion which would require a photograph to understand — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that there were two memorials at Air_France_Flight_4590#Legacy - This is the Gonesse memorial so I will try to find more info on it. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a USA Today article that talks about the Gonesse monument. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - This is a bit better context. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found evidence for the picture. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2013 (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:Air France Flight 4590.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credited to Associated Press, image is not discussed in detail in the article as required for images from press agencies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Not discussed in detail? Isn't the entire article about that image? I'm surprised at the detailed rational there instead of using just a generic one. « Ryūkotsusei » 04:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is about the incident, not the photograph itself (contrast, for instance, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, which is about the photograph). See WP:NFC#UUI #7 for why this should not be allowed, unless you can find sources discussing this particular photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are cases where an image can depict an event, and there is no possibility of getting a free image of the said event, and so therefore we use a copyrighted image to depict the event. There is a clause that prohibits "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." so you can see if there is a non-free image from another group WhisperToMe (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely aware that we can use FU images to depict an event (think Bus Man and the Boston bombings, amongst others). Agree, if there is an amateur image or another such image that is not owned by AP or another press group, we would have a better chance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant violation of WP:NFC#UUI §7: the article only discusses the event, not the photo of the event. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2013 (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:LP Underground 3.0.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: Kept one, deleted one Diannaa (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the files should be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#F1, unclear which one. Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the one that's not used in an article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2013 (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:Larry Karen 1977.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purely illustrative. Only shows a photo of a couple who would have been the main topic of the article. However, it is used in Larry Wolek, who is one of the couple and the main topic. Karen Wolek is already illustrated. Unsure why keeping this image helps, and maybe others find omitting it unhelpful. Nevertheless, too extraneous per "minimal use" criterion. George Ho (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2013 (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.