Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Files for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hare-Yukai (talk | contribs) at 16:01, 20 August 2007 (→[[:Image:The_Buttle_of_the_China2.jpg]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 18 August 20 >

August 19

Image:Figh2.jpg

Image:Figh2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kenosis (notify | contribs).
Whether a copyright claim has been made is totally irrelevant. It's probably still under copyright. Savidan 03:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An explicit written claim of copyright attached to the image byline is necessary to satisfy US law for any images published prior to 1977. This image was taken in India by an American photographer, not renewed in the U.S. Copyright Office after 28 years as would have been required to maintain any retroactive copyright claim. It's PD-US at absolute minimum. ... Kenosis 04:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How so we know that this image was "published in 1930 without explicit copyright notice"? And how do we know that the copyright was ot renewed? Saying si doesn't make it truth. We need to be able to verify all these claims. --Abu badali (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there is a copy with an explicit copyright notice somewhere in the world, which I doubt, I myself looked through the US Copyright Office records and could not find a renewal. So it's PD in the US unless you or someone can show me a copyright renewal. Photocopies of those records are online these days -- by all means please help yourself. ... Kenosis 19:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:18-08-07 2352 copy.jpg

Image:18-08-07 2352 copy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robertrussell1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Toddy.jpg

Image:Toddy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eaaaaat (notify | contribs).

Image:NDP Maple Leaf.png

Image:NDP Maple Leaf.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nat.tang (notify | contribs).

Image:1148877829550.jpg Image:A DMC-12 drifting in the game Gran Turismo 4.jpg

Image:1148877829550.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 293.xx.xxx.xx (notify | contribs).

Image:Mygreeneyes.JPG

Image:Mygreeneyes.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vlady24april (notify | contribs).

Image:1972-blue-notes-know-me-by-now.ogg

Image:1972-blue-notes-know-me-by-now.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FuriousFreddy (notify | contribs).

Image:Cd1.jpg

Image:Cd1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Devilitself (notify | contribs).

Image:Liebermanbushkiss.gif

Image:Liebermanbushkiss.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The lorax (notify | contribs).
  • I believe that POV-pushing in Senator Lieberman's article should be limited to free images and media. There is no need to use copyrighted television coverage here when it can just as easily be explained in the text that Bush kissed Lieberman. Moreover, the true notability of that incident is not so much in knowing the exact way that Bush kissed him but in knowing the way that it has been talked about and used by pundits and political opponents.- Savidan 03:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I think it is important because of this sentence: Lieberman has since denied the kiss took place. "I don't think he kissed me, he leaned over and gave me a hug and said 'thank you for being a patriotic American,'"SuperElephant 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFCC#8. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DeathofHippolytus.JPG

Image:DeathofHippolytus.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Polylerus (notify | contribs).

Image:Moms camera 9 072.jpg2.jpg

Image:Moms camera 9 072.jpg2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Guru 07 (notify | contribs).

Image:Mos-GUM-interrior.jpg

Image:Mos-GUM-interrior.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nixer (notify | contribs).

Image:QHMB.JPG

Image:QHMB.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JackOfHearts (notify | contribs).

Image:Flag of Kasnia.png

Image:Flag of Kasnia.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Senix (notify | contribs).
  • As per concerns raised when {{subst:frn}} was added on August 15, 2005: The original uploader has placed a "Public Domain" tag - {{PD-user}} - and stated "[he] made this image [himself]". The image is based on a visual element of a copyrighted work, specifically a flag seen in an episode of the Superman: The Animated Series television series. As such only the copyright holder of that material can release the show, in whole or in part, which includes the characters, dialogue, story, and the visual elements, to PD, not the creator of a derivative image. The tag used is inappropriate, and a fair use tag cannot be applied since the image is, for all intents, unpublished fan art.- J Greb 08:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason why the uploader chose PD-self is that while, yes the image came from Superman, he drew the flag image himself. Though the question is, which version of Superman did this come from? I am currently playing email tag with the uploader, so any pause on the deletion is appreciated. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:800px-CPI-M-flag.PNG

Image:800px-CPI-M-flag.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soman (notify | contribs).

Image:RandyMeeksPic.jpg

Image:RandyMeeksPic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kkbhe (notify | contribs).

Image:Widgets_example_radiobuttons.jpg

Image:Widgets_example_radiobuttons.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by StoatBringer (notify | contribs).

Image:Starszy_Chorazy_Sztabowy.jpg

Image:Starszy_Chorazy_Sztabowy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emax (notify | contribs).

Image:Starszy_Chorazy.jpg

Image:Starszy_Chorazy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emax (notify | contribs).

Image:Chorazy.jpg

Image:Chorazy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emax (notify | contribs).

Image:Tf2old_soldier.jpg

Image:Tf2old_soldier.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tom Edwards (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary video game screenshot. The article contains no sourced commentary on the games style or theme that this image would be required to understand. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The image is a very famous one that has been commonly used to represent TF2 over the years, and furthermore is promotional material. Unless I misunderstand the phrase, there is sourced commentary on game's style and theme in the article; not a lot, but that largely because of the image's helpful presence. Text would struggle to achieve any of these purposes. --Tom Edwards 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KB US-Colemak.svg

Image:KB US-Colemak.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Michaelliberty (notify | contribs).

Image:KB US-Colemak-International.svg

Image:KB US-Colemak-International.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Michaelliberty (notify | contribs).

Image:Rebel.X.edit.JPG

Image:Rebel.X.edit.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bigwig055 (notify | contribs).

Image:Predacons-s2.jpg

Image:Predacons-s2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mathewignash (notify | contribs).

Image:Cher_in_hell_on_wheels.JPG

Image:Cher_in_hell_on_wheels.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Collard (notify | contribs).

Image:Colemak 1024x768.gif

Image:Colemak 1024x768.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vilem l. (notify | contribs).

Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg

Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kenosis (notify | contribs).

Image:Trimedfilm_battleofchina.jpg

Image:Trimedfilm_battleofchina.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rabota (notify | contribs).
  • Interesting but Orphaned with possible copyright issues. Not compiled by a reliable source. See also Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Complex_Image.  But|seriously|folks  17:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Copyright status provided by the image pertains to the film The Battle of China, which is in the public domain. However, the image is a composition of screen captures from The Battle of China and another film. We do not know the copyright status of the other film, and morever, this is a derivative work, and the image could have been created only recently, with the creator still holding the copyright. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You have misunderstanding about the derivative work. In this case, the derivative work was carried out by US government. The credit of this work is being assured by the US government. All of the copyright problems may have been settled by US government. Don't you trust US government? So this reason and viewpoint should be changed. --Hare-Yukai 13:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HQG. Also, this image reeks of OR, and violates WP:NOR and WP:V. nattang 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hong. Blueshirts 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This picture is one scene of the video that I produced and uploaded to YouTube. I approve that this picture belongs to the public domian.
    • This picture was the one scene of the video that I produced in May of 2007, I found the scene resembles the one scene of "the Battle of China" when I watched "the Shangahi Document" in the early of this year. So, I drew the comparison between these two scenes, as a result, these two scenes tuned to be the same one. "The Shaghai Document" was produced in 1928 of USSR and "the Battle of China" was produced in 1944 of the U.S..
    • I produced "The Fake of Nanking" in order to prove that this scene of "The Battle of China" was trimed away by someone and uploaded to YouTube. Before producing "The Fake of Nanking" I produced, almost people that watched "The Battle of China" was Japanese soldiers' atoricity in 1938 in Nanking. So, as soon as "The Fake of Nanking" was uploaded to YouTube, more than 300,000 people that had believed were shocked to know that this scene was not atoricity of Japanese soldiers. "The Fake of Nanking" impacted both on the field of Japan and China relations and both countries' historical societies.
    • Japanese Diet members hold a press conference in the late of June and annonced regarding "The Fake of Nanking" that I uploaded to YouTube. This press conference were joined by UPI, AP, Reuters...etc. [1] (from 5:20 to 6:03, regarding "The Fake of Nanking")
    • This captured picture was carried in this book. [2] You can find the word "THE FAKE OF NANKING" in the table of contents of this book. [3] rabota 22:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd rather not place too much confidence on a circle jerk session by a bunch of Japanese right wing revisionists. Plus the books from amazon are typical massacre denial books. Do you see people quoting "Did Six Million Really Die" when writing about articles regarding the holocaust? Blueshirts 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know whether I am right-wing or not. However, it is the fact that I don't involve in political activities. I just only like to study history. It is certaion that there is the controversy as to whether Nanking Massacre took place in the world. But the controversy stopped after "The Fake of Nanking" was uploaded in recent. rabota 19:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The most important thing is...not whether Nanking Massacre took place or not....I have strong interest in how "The Battle of China" had been produced 63 years ago. rabota 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hong Qi Gong has misunderstanding about the meaning of the derivative work. When it is based on his interpretation, the U.S. government becomes the meaning of not solving a copyright problem. --Hare-Yukai 13:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    • 1) It's been 80 years since "A Shanghai Document" was released in 1928. It is common sense that we should think this film has already become public domain. It turned out that he poster of this film has already become public domain.
    • 2) In addition, To quate for academic research puropose is permitted by the copyright law.
    • 3) If the copyright of this shooting scene belongs to a producer even now, why the U.S. that trimed the original film off 63 years ago should not be criticized?--rabota 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The_Buttle_of_the_China2.jpg

Image:The_Buttle_of_the_China2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hare-Yukai (notify | contribs).
  • Interesting but Orphaned with possible copyright issues. Not compiled by a reliable source. See also Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Complex_Image.  But|seriously|folks  17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Copyright status provided by the image pertains to the film The Battle of China, which is in the public domain. However, the image is a composition of screen captures from The Battle of China and another film. We do not know the copyright status of the other film, and morever, this is a derivative work, and the image could have been created only recently, with the creator still holding the copyright. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You have misunderstanding about the derivative work. In this case, the derivative work was carried out by US government. The credit of this work is being assured by the US government. All of the copyright problems may have been settled by US government. Don't you trust US government? So this reason and viewpoint should be changed. --Hare-Yukai 13:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HQG. Also, this image reeks of OR, and violates WP:NOR and WP:V. nattang 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hong. Blueshirts 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This picture is one scene of the video that I produced and uploaded to YouTube. I approve that this picture belongs to the public domian.
    • 1) This picture was the one scene of the video that I produced in May of 2007, I found the scene resembles the one scene of "the Battle of China" when I watched "the Shangahi Document" in the early of this year. So, I drew the comparison between these two scenes, as a result, these two scenes tuned to be the same one. "The Shaghai Document" was produced in 1928 of USSR and "the Battle of China" was produced in 1944 of the U.S.. I produced "The Fake of Nanking" in order to prove that this scene of "The Battle of China" was trimed away by someone and uploaded to YouTube. Before "The Fake of Nanking" I produced, almost people that watched "The Battle of China" was Japanese soldiers' atoricity in 1938 in Nanking. So, as soon as "The Fake of Nanking" was uploaded to YouTube, more than 300,000 people that had believed were shocked to know that this scene was not atoricity of Japanese soldiers. "The Fake of Nanking" impacted both on the field of Japan and China relations and both countries' historical societies. So, Please understand that this picture is the milestone in the history.
    • 2) Japanese Diet members hold a press conference in the late of June and annonced regarding "The Fake of Nanking" that I uploaded to YouTube. This press conference were joined by UPI, AP, Reuters...etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMbZ0N_Wdc (from 5:20 to 6:03, regarding "The Fake of Nanking")
    • 3) This captured picture was carried in this book. http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/4775509373/kaoru-22/ You can find the word "THE FAKE OF NANKING" in the table of contents of this book. http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/reader/4775509373/ref=sib_rdr_ex/249-1750199-0590720?ie=UTF8&p=S00D&j=0#reader-page rabota 04:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hong Qi Gong has misunderstanding about the meaning of the derivative work. When it is based on his interpretation, the U.S. government becomes the meaning of not solving a copyright problem. --Hare-Yukai 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    • 1) It's been 80 years since "A Shanghai Document" was released in 1928. It is common sense that we should think this film has already become public domain. It turned out that he poster of this film has already become public domain.
    • 2) In addition, To quate for academic research puropose is permitted by the copyright law.
    • 3) If the copyright of this shooting scene belongs to a producer even now, why the U.S. that trimed the original film off 63 years ago should not be criticized?--rabota 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg

Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SFTVLGUY2 (notify | contribs).

Image:Globevalve.jpg

Image:Globevalve.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jfreyre (notify | contribs).

Image:MHWGOphoto10.jpg

Image:MHWGOphoto10.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Max24 (notify | contribs).
  • Keep This is the screen from Dion's biggest hit song "My Heart Will Go On." It's also one of the biggest hits worldwide ever. Why can't we let this picture illustrate the article? Max24 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Myheartwillgoon.jpg

Image:Myheartwillgoon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Collard (notify | contribs).

Image:Bjlata1.jpg

Image:Bjlata1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Susanlesch (notify | contribs).

Also Image:Bjlata3.jpg.

Comment from major contributor Per rationale provided, these two images depict a non-repeatable historically significant appearance of a famous individual; showing Bradley Joseph as a featured instrumentalist during the recorded version of Yanni Live at the Acropolis, recorded in 1993. My question is how can this be replaceable? Also, there is extensive commentary about the concert in question directly adjacent to the images. I would like to be shown which, of the 10 criteria per WP:FU, do these images violate. ♫ Cricket02 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion would be WP:NFCC#8 - a reader can understand perfectly well that he played at this event without non-free images to show that. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not what he looked like then. I worked very hard on this article to bring it up to FA standards, and of course I would like to be compliant with all guidelines. So I thank you for pointing out any FU criterion that I may not have completely understood. But I do believe at least one of these screenshots should be kept within the article to depict this nonrepeatable event. Would the removal of one be a fair compromise? ♫ Cricket02 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I answered my own question per WP:NFC 3a, minimal use. Therefore, I removed Image:bjlata3.jpg from the article, and propose to keep Image:bjlata1.jpg intact within the article, as depiction of a historically significant nonrepeatable event that took place in the life of this composer, and this event being discussed extensively within the article and adjacent to the image. ♫ Cricket02 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from uploader Excellent solution. I agree the appearance of the artist (who simply can't go back in time) and the event are historic and need to be pictured. There is no way to go back for a reshoot--half a billion people in a third of the world's countries know this video first hand. -Susanlesch 23:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - I really appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but I still don't see how the remaining image complies with WP:NFCC#8. It's not like he's doing anything historic in the photo, he's standing by his keyboard. Why is it necessary for the reader to see what he looked like back then, in order to understand what the article is saying about the concert? I don't get it. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the event is historic, and by extension all band members and orchestra participation is historic as well. ♫ Cricket02 00:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that the event was not historic, but that the image is not historic. There's a difference. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I too wasn't convinced that this was needed, and the pic was of such poor quality, I thought it wouldn't improve the article. But then I looked at the article, and he looks totally different now! It is difficult to say in words how different he looks, but I think it would be enough to put something in the article (if a source can be found) saying that he had long hair and no goatee/moustache, (the changing looks of celebrities is definitely encyclopedic - think Andre Agassi and his change from long hair to shaven head - if we can't get a free pic of Agassi as he used to look, we should be able to justify non-free use of one). Getting back to Bradley Joseph, I can't find anything online about his hairstyle, but if there is something in a print biography, then some commentary could justify the image. Hmm. If this argument works, there could be a flood of pics of "long-haired 60s musicians" back onto Wikipedia! Seriously, though, "what people looked like during their career" (though only if a secondary source chooses to dwell on the changing appearance) is a difficult thing to put into words. A picture does it so much better. Carcharoth 00:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Agassi example would be that a picture is needed for a reader to make sense of: "As a young up-and-coming player, Agassi embraced a rebel image. He grew his hair to rocker length, sported an earring, and wore colorful shirts that pushed tennis' still-strict sartorial boundaries. He boasted of a cheeseburger diet and endorsed the Canon "Rebel" camera. "Image is everything" was the ad's line, and it became Agassi's as well." - that would be justification enough, IMO, for a non-free rationale for a pic of Agassi like this one. See here for an example of a news site comparing the two looks. Carcharoth 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to above. Hi, Videmus Omnia. Would it help if we thought in this context about other copyrighted media? Would you propose album covers, sound samples, and movie stills for deletion, too? Because the reader can imagine history? (For most of history, imagination is all we have.) Thanks for your thoughts. -Susanlesch 00:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any of the above examples would qualify for deletion if they failed any of the non-free content criteria, including #8, which is the one under discussion here. As a sidebar - it seems that we've obtained one free image of him (the one in the infobox); would it be possible to obtain one of him from the '90s? Videmus Omnia Talk 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a source that specifically discusses his appearance then. But I do have a concert program from that 1993/1994 tour with his picture in it. Anything I can do with that? ♫ Cricket02
  • Besides, everything has been done by the book with regards to rationale and trying to do everything right to justify fair use including extensive sourced commentary of his participation in this historic concert. Not any concert photo would do. This one event is what is being discussed. Period. It is not being used for decorative purposes nor to specifically show what he looked like for that matter. It is used to show his participation. I counted 1,000 screen shot images in the A's alone in the Category:Screenshots of films. Why is this one, which is probably one of the most compliant screen shot out there, being picked on?
Because it enhances the discussion. Featured article criteria #3 states, It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. This image complies completely. Other than sound files, images were kept to a minimum. I've already removed the two album covers, which leaves this one measely free-use image. And on another note, regarding FAs, unless you've contributed to one, you have no idea the time and effort editors put forth to bring them up. That said, and while I appreciate the work you are trying to do, it would be the more considerate thing to do to discuss reasons why you want to tag an FA, and give contributors an opportunity to resolve issues, before tagging one with no explanation. ♫ Cricket02
I'm sorry, but enhancement is not enough - it must be necessary - i.e. "omission would be detrimental to...understanding", per WP:NFCC#8. I do appreciate the work that goes into featured articles, honestly. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, the artist is playing with the Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra at the Acropolis in Greece in a concert video that is so famous this conversation stands out as peculiar. -Susanlesch 03:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With that reasoning, then no film screenshot would qualify for fair use, even when accompanied by sourced critical commentary, including the Agassi example above, because their ommission would not be detrimental to understanding. So...why are film screenshots not banned, why allow them at all. ♫ Cricket02 11:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many film screenshots are noncompliant and will undoubtedly be eventually deleted. However, many are justifiable under non-free use because they portray fictional characters (such as Palpatine) for which no free equivalent can be created, and the uploaders have made a case that the reader cannot identify the subject of the article without a screenshot. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that we can have one non-free image to illustrate the subject of the article, if no free image is available and it is not possible to take one (eg. living person). Here, a free image is available to illustrate who this person is (and even if there wasn't one, he is alive so non-free use for that 'topic image' is not possible). The criteria for other non-free images within an article are stricter, in that after the initial one for the whole article, the others have to be justified to provide understanding. And yes, that can be very difficult. Many of the current film screenshots would fail that criterion. The idea is "possibly use one non free image for a film, but use a range of screenshots from the film throughout the article" - that is known as excessive use of non-free images. Carcharoth 11:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hard-and-fast rule on the number of images...whether an article contains one non-free image or twenty, each image, both individually and taken as part of the set, must be needed for reader comprehension of the article. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P6060282.JPG

Image:P6060282.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by L33t455 (notify | contribs).

Image:The bead game.JPG

Image:The bead game.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by L33t455 (notify | contribs).

Image:300px-La_Tourne.jpg

Image:300px-La_Tourne.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ksnow (notify | contribs).

Image:007FRWLvg3.jpg

Image:007FRWLvg3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K1Bond007 (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary video game screenshot. The article already has another screenshot to show the appearance of the the game. Delete per WP:NFCC#8. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why this should be deleted. While it may not be specifically stated in the article the screenshot is significant in that it shows both James Bond and the Bond girl digitally recreated - it is displayed in the "Cast" section. It could be used for that purpose. Just because an article has 1 screenshot does not mean it can't have another. K1Bond007 00:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zolder.gif

Image:Zolder.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by WikiPino (notify | contribs).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_August_19&oldid=152487336"