Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legolas2186 (talk | contribs) at 07:44, 17 June 2009 (Papadontpreach-whosthatgirltour.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

June 9

File:Paparazzimusicvideo2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
  • Unjustified FU image. There is already an image of the video in the article. There is zero justification for two. ÷seresin 01:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Seeing the epic proportions of such a long video, there are numerous instances which are not exactly describable by word. This image portrays the death of Gaga by her boyfriend, however portraying the death in style is not entirely describable by word, hence the justification of the this image. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The music video is rather long and is sometimes said to be a short-film, therefore I find more than one image necessary. It has improved the quality and encyclopedic value of the article illustrating something not clearly describable by words. • вяαdcяochat 06:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is true (the above) therefore I believe keeping the picture is needed. It is twice as long as a normal music video. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 06:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above votes are spurious. Articles about feature length films rarely have more than one FU image (the poster), much less three. So the argument that two images are necessary because the video is of "epic proportions" and "sometimes said to be a short-film [sic]" is ridiculous on its face. In addition, the argument that the death is not clearly describable by words is absurd. As it stands, the image is purely decorative. ÷seresin 22:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please donot call other's comments as ridiculous. They have given their judgement and you have given yours. Let others say what they feel like. Given your other nominations I can call them also as ridiculous. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. People are entilted to their view and that their views are ot critzied. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 05:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not abuse your administrative privileges by putting down another's opinion. I believe Wiki is open to the views of all and not to one particular party. Would you enjoy it if I were to call your perceptions ridiculous? I don't think you would. You are just in greif because there have been three valid points to keep the image resulting in you not being able to get your own way. Read this source stating that the video is an 8 minute, NSFW epic. Rolling Stone, a highly reliable source also states the video as being an epic short film and that it deserved a red carpet opposed to a leak on the internet. This music video is massive. The length of the section in the article makes that pretty obvious. It's one of the biggest i've seen. Two screenshots are necessary. • вяαdcяochat 06:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#3a is only justified when multiple images added whence only a single one would be enough to increase understanding. Which is not the case in this one. So many different aspects are not justifiable and both the pics are encyclopedic in the sens that they increase the undertansing of the varied instances of the video: one, the death of the artist in a fashinable way and teh recovering, that too incorporating fashion and new imagery. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care if it is wiki, wikia, wikipeida-it's a name, you do need to be PC (polictcally correct, thi is wiki, it is commonly refered to as this. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 06:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with PC, and everything to do with proper naming. By your logic, you could call this "website". Stifle (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that any member of this "website" as you refer to it can be called wiki--it is commonly refered to this, it is logical and common sense. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 04:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy is being violated. When asserting that an article image should be deleted, it is important to explain why. Sparks Fly 00:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Byron M. Baer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alansohn (notify | contribs).
  • Byron Baer was a famous politician who has been photographed professionally and informally thousands of times. It should not be very difficult to find a photo and get it released under a free license. Damiens.rf 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My wife and I received an award from Senator Byron Baer at a point in time when he was clearly suffering the effects of Parkinson's Disease. It was this misfortune that led to his resignation from the New Jersey Senate just a few years later. He died in 2007 and I was unable to obtain a licensable photo from any third party and would have been sure to take a photo with a digital camera at the time I met him though I did not have a camera with me and didn't know that Wikipedia existed. While I cannot complain -- and have not complained -- about the deletion of photos of living legislators, the fact that Mr. Baer is dead and buried makes it that much more challenging to find a picture for which it would be possible to obtain clearance to meet Wikipedia standards. While I would love to find such a picture and would hope to do so in the future, the article and Wikipedia are worse off without the picture, one that captures a small amount of what Senator Baer was like when he was alive before his affliction with Parkinson's. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even in the case that the article and Wikipedia are worse off without the picture, our police wouldn't allow us to use a non free image if we hope to find a free picture in the future. --Damiens.rf 03:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see why there is an issue with the claim of fair use for this image under Wikipedia policy. I will be more than happy to search far and wide for a free image of the rather-deceased Baer (and all other living New Jersey Legislators) to replace the existing fair use image, but until then the challenge would appear to be unjustified. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as reasonable use, on the unlikelihood there's a replacement. Oddly enough, I do not find the cited no.1 rule on the page linked. It reads "in no free content is available," so since it is not yet available, the rule is met. Therule would apply, properly, to our continuing to use the image agter a free one was found to be available. Damiens, find the text you paraphrased. DGG (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Thommie Walsh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emerson7 (notify | contribs).
File:Liane bahler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Knurftendans (notify | contribs).
File:Batch 167.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Candlewicke (notify | contribs).
Comment: It is not generally impossible to have a free example of a TV show, especially one where new episodes have not been filmed for over a decade and the main actor is dead... it shows a character who is central to the episode. --candlewicke 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:4minutessticky.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
  • Unjustifiable fair use image. Subjects of image are living people; this image is absolutely replaceable by a free equivalent. ÷seresin 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Illustrates an important part of the choreography and the whole dress and drama. The nominators explanation is unjustified because then music video images should also be nominated. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it was needed to illustrate an important part of the choreography and the whole mess and drama (a claim which I also reject as false), there is no basis for using a non-free image. Hundreds of people have seen this performance. Free images exist. While they do, we cannot use a non-free image. ÷seresin 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a as there is already a non-free image on the page, that from the music video, which serves the same purpose. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images don't serve teh same purpose. The music video iamge shows an important part of the video where a screen devours everything, while the live performance video exemplifies on the costume, drama and performance of the artist. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Giveit2melive.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
Same reason as the one above. Also WP:NFCC#3a is utterly not justified here since the images portray two different meanings. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Openwourheartwhosthatgirl.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
File:Papadontpreach-whosthatgirltour.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Frcm1988 (notify | contribs).
  • Unjustifiable fair use image. Subject of image is a living person; this image is absolutely replaceable by a free equivalent as it has no historical significance. ÷seresin 22:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Illustrates an important part of the choreography and the whole dress and drama. It passed its GA nomination where the reviewer didnot find any problem with it. The nominators explanation is unjustified because then music video images should also be nominated. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it is needed to illustrate an important part of the choreography and the whole mess and drama (a claim which I also reject as false), there is no basis for using a non-free image. Hundreds of people have seen this performance. Free images exist. While they do, we cannot use a non-free image. As for the GA, you'll note that the NFCC violations were cited as grounds for failing at FAC—GA reviews are practically useless for legimitacy. (As for your argument about music video images, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.) ÷seresin 03:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have told you before also please donot call others reviews and comments as useless. If free images exists, then why is it not available in commons? It is perfectly legitimate to use a non-free image untill a free equivalent exists. As pointed out, your basis of calling the image as failing NFCC#8 has also been counter-answered. Only text doesnot improve the readers understanding. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Madonnaliveearth.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
That is not a music video iamge and is ofa live performance where Madonna's dress and children like the Hogwarts choir are not merely describabale by words. 171.161.160.10 (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gagamaericanidol.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
Just expiain to me how it is describabale by words to be visualising the imagery. 171.161.160.10 (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have you even watched the performance? No bubble dress is evident. The image is clearly her performance on American Idol. Watch it here! • вяαdcяochat 07:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It doesn't really add anything to the Poker Face article, which is the only page it's linked to. Besides, it was deleted from Lady Gaga. Clem (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]