Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 3: Difference between revisions
close |
close |
||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
====[[:Image:LeisaSheridan.jpg]]==== |
====[[:Image:LeisaSheridan.jpg]]==== |
||
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|||
The result of the debate was '''delete'''<!--Template:Ifd top--> |
|||
[[Category:Archived image and media for deletion discussions]] --[[User:Undead warrior|Undeath]] ([[User talk:Undead warrior|talk]]) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand lx">[[:Image:{{ucfirst:LeisaSheridan.jpg}}]] ([{{fullurl:Image:LeisaSheridan.jpg|action=delete}} delete] | [[Image talk:{{ucfirst:LeisaSheridan.jpg}}|talk]] | [{{fullurl::Image:{{ucfirst:LeisaSheridan.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode::Image:{{ucfirst:LeisaSheridan.jpg}}}}}} logs])</span> - uploaded by [[User talk:Bob987654333#Image:LeisaSheridan.jpg listed for deletion|Bob987654333]] (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User_talk:Bob987654333|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify]</span><!-- Fix me: The included template outputs a section header, but Mediawiki with "require edit summaries" turned on won't save the page unless a section header is added. Also, if possible please populate the new talk page message with the name of the deleted image.--> | [[Special:Contributions/Bob987654333|contribs]]). |
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand lx">[[:Image:{{ucfirst:LeisaSheridan.jpg}}]] ([{{fullurl:Image:LeisaSheridan.jpg|action=delete}} delete] | [[Image talk:{{ucfirst:LeisaSheridan.jpg}}|talk]] | [{{fullurl::Image:{{ucfirst:LeisaSheridan.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode::Image:{{ucfirst:LeisaSheridan.jpg}}}}}} logs])</span> - uploaded by [[User talk:Bob987654333#Image:LeisaSheridan.jpg listed for deletion|Bob987654333]] (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User_talk:Bob987654333|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify]</span><!-- Fix me: The included template outputs a section header, but Mediawiki with "require edit summaries" turned on won't save the page unless a section header is added. Also, if possible please populate the new talk page message with the name of the deleted image.--> | [[Special:Contributions/Bob987654333|contribs]]). |
||
*No copyright info, no source, no license <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC) |
*No copyright info, no source, no license <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section. <!--Template:Ifd bottom--></div> |
|||
====[[:Image:AlfonsoDoce.ogg]]==== |
====[[:Image:AlfonsoDoce.ogg]]==== |
Revision as of 04:46, 7 August 2008
August 3
- This image was tagged as being self-made, but I think it maybe looks like a screen capture to me. It doesn't look like your average amateur digital camera photo. The uploader seems to be a one-day single purpose account. Rob (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that it looks like a screengrab - if you look carefully you can just see that "squaring" effect you get on phone videos and youtube posts, so I suspect a grab from a digital TV signal. The photoshopping must have been to improve the picture. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Khaosworks (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Nosence FU rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Which one? Maybe you should notify futurehawk about this. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Fair use rationale is extensive and valid, and by no means 'nosence' [sic]. — Edokter • Talk • 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note The image is not tagged, which invalidates this nomination. — Edokter • Talk • 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tentative keep. I am unconvinced that the rationale is "nonsense," but on the other hand I am unconvinced that the content of this - a particular Time Lord costume used in the 70s (that is admittedly iconic) couldn't be handled by an image from a convention of a fan in costume or something. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it is possible that a free photograph of this costume could be taken at, say, the Dr Who exhibition in Blackpool, which has such a costume on display (scroll down and there's a very bad photo). Totnesmartin (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am uncomfortable with deleting because there is a brief period where a photograph could be taken. Unless you or someone else is planning on heading to Blackpool, in which case we can readily replace. But if we're holding a specific prop on a temporary display as our hope, I'm hesitant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Does the fact it's on temporary display negate the freedom of panorama? Sceptre (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- The image (and article) is not about the costume; it is about the Time Lords. — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- What, exactly, does the image illustrate beyond the appearance of the costume, which I will agree is a significant part of the larger subject of the Time Lords? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- The image serves to provide a key cultural aspect of a Time Lord, in this case wearing ceremonial dress. In any case, just showing the costume is akin to depicting humanity by only showing a suit. — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- What, exactly, does the image illustrate beyond the appearance of the costume, which I will agree is a significant part of the larger subject of the Time Lords? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am uncomfortable with deleting because there is a brief period where a photograph could be taken. Unless you or someone else is planning on heading to Blackpool, in which case we can readily replace. But if we're holding a specific prop on a temporary display as our hope, I'm hesitant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As Edokter points out, the image is there to illustrate a character in full costume, not the costume itself. It is therefore not replaceable the way you describe it. So#Why review me! 21:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Image appears to be taken from here, and is copyrighted. Shimgray | talk | 01:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- comment the site is copyrighted, but the pictures it uses might not be - one or two seem to be contemporary (such as the thomas brown picture) - is this image out of copyright, though? Try contacting the website and asking. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Paul Melville Austin (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- A copyright free image of this man is available: Image:BannonHawke.jpg Damiens.rf 04:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#1. In addition to Image:BannonHawke.jpg, another copyright-free replacement exists at Image:BobHawke.JPEG. — Satori Son 15:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Timeshift9 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- A copyrighted picture of a couple of old people does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article. Damiens.rf 04:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep The image is definitely not replaceable by a free image - Bob and Hazel divorced over a decade ago and Bob remarried. The image reflects how the two were seen and presented together by both themselves and the media at the time Bob Hawke was Prime Minister of Australia. Its presence therefore significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding per NFCC#8. Orderinchaos 15:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Question Shouldn't the article discuss his first wife if the picture is be used? She barely gets a mention. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- It definitely should. I'm surprised it doesn't, on looking, actually (her own article is also quite deficient and a bit UNDUEish). Will let the Politics subproject know. Orderinchaos 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Since the article already contains several photographs of the subject, this use of a copyrighted image does not comply with WP:NFCC#1. If the subject of the article was Marriage of Bob and Hazel Hawke or some such, it might qualify. But as an illustration of the subject Bob Hawke, it not only is replaceable, but in fact already has been. — Satori Son 15:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- No encyclopedic purpose; Wikipedia is not a webhost for images of the pretend army of a pretend nation. May also violate the copyright on the miniature figures. Sandstein 08:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete too poor quality to be used in an encylopedia. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- No encyclopedic purpose; Wikipedia is not a webhost for images of the pretend army of a pretend nation. May also violate the copyright on the miniature figures. Sandstein 08:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. IceUnshattered (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Silly, original research, no encyclopedic purpose. Does not aid in understanding the Aerican Empire article. Sandstein 08:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- No encyclopedic purpose; Wikipedia is not a webhost for images of the pretend army of a pretend nation. May also violate the copyright on the miniature figures. Sandstein 08:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- While many claim that this flag has been seen out once, no reliable source for its existence has ever been offered. Within the islands, this flag is not recognised - the only recognised flag being the one of the local council - there are numerous discussions on this in the talk pages for various articles in the wiki-project Scottish Islands.
- Delete - this is fanciful, and is unknown to many people in the Western Isles. In addition, the flag used by the teams in the Island Games tends to be the traditional one, with three longships (birlinn) on it.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - please note, another version of this flag exists on commons.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Its existence would seem to be virtual. Ben MacDui 15:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- a better image exists [Image:Waterfallinhortanplains.jpg] Chanakal (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned fairuse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note that Pepso has unorphaned it now - part of George Woodbridge - Peripitus (Talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track - in this case 26.3 seconds). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- To the nominator: wouldn't it be more easily resolved if the uploader was directly contacted rather than going through with all these bureaucratic hoops? Anyways, since when do we follow policies and guidelines to the letter rather than to the essence it embodies? The file is a short, reduced quality sample - isn't that enough to comply with the spirit of the guideline? Oh noes, we now have to cut it midway through a paragraph just because its a freaking sixteen seconds longer! Bravo! Way to go! --soum talk 19:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: music sample shortened to meet guideline, nomination withdrawn ~ BigrTex 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Done The clip is now 29 seconds long. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- George Slivinsky (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 22:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Robertcathles (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fergie forever (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Unnotable non-free use music video capture. Nothing notable about this image, just an image of Rihanna, and this aspect of the video is not discussed. Replace with an image that suits the discussion of the video perhaps Ejfetters (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Almonopiniano (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Unnotable non-free use music video capture. Nothing notable about this image, just an image of Rihanna, and this aspect of the video is not discussed. Replace with an image that suits the discussion of the video perhaps - Also, this is a duplicate of the above image. Ejfetters (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- CoolMan 1981 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Unnotable alternate cover, with same image as other cover, this isn't needed, doesn't conform to non-free use policy, redundant. Ejfetters (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not fair use. ——Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- CoolMan 1981 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Cover is an image with a watermark of another site - against policy, and is spam, replace with cover without watermark Ejfetters (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly violates fair use. ——Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fergie forever (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Unnotable non-free use music video cap, claimed as album cover, which does not exist. I am not claiming the video isn't notable and doesn't need a screen cap, but this screen cap doesn't do the video justice in its own, we need a better clip that shows notability - this is not notable, its just Rihanna close-up. Should be notable. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're going to need to move this to the August 3 section since that's when you listed it. Vickser (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)