Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < October 27 | October 29 > |
|---|
October 28
[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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Table showing welfare losses and gains in trading between poluter and fishermen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Xipirho (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, could be rewritten as wiki-table ZooFari 00:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tagged for speedy deletion based on CSD F4--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2009 (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.
- 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:PARTSBG.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LEGOMANVII (notify | contribs).
- Too much blank space; orphaned; no license or source given. ZooFari 00:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tagged for speedy deletion based on CSD F4--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2009 (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.
- 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Christian kill switch-1-.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Therealjasondalauta (notify | contribs).
- Improper File Rationale and published as own work, clearly a Digital image taken from WWE.com Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 04:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tagged for speedy deletion based on CSD F4--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2009 (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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Stkfcnumber26.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BrianBeahr (notify | contribs).
- These files have been created for use on infoboxes such as the one at Nick Dal Santo, for decorative purposes. I can't see any benefit from having these appear in infoboxes (which are supposed to give a quick summary of the footballer) and they just stretch the infobox, thus leaving player statistics etc further down the page. Consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_AFL#Infoboxes is against the inclusion of these images. Other than the one I have listed this nomination under, this user has created a further 49 files, covering player numbers 1-50. Eg File:Stkfcnumber1.jpg .... File:Stkfcnumber25.jpg ... File:Stkfcnumber50.jpg. In other words too many to list, but you can view them all here. Jevansen (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They illustrate the club colours and the number that each player wears (Nick Dal Santo wears number 26). They are valid information. Particularly when you consider the fact that fair use policy means limited use of the club's logo on pages. BrianBeahr.
- The articles are about the players, club colours are irrelevant. Most articles have player pictures anyway, where they're in club colours. As you can see at Andrew Lovett, there is also a field in the infobox for the player's number. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with nom. A complete waste of space. AFL-Cool 07:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, players can change number between seasons, players change clubs... should Dale Kickett have 5 of these boxes in his infobox? Should Tony Lockett have three St Kilda boxes (37, 14 and 4), and two Sydney boxes (4 & 46)? Unworkable, messy and subjective. The-Pope (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. These files are unnecessary decoration that do not add anything of value to the articles. The player's team(s) and number(s) are covered in existing infobox fields. Somno (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:36, 2 November 2009 (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.
- 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 Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:StarAirServiceIreneIrvine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RoyDickson (notify | contribs).
- Fails WP:NFCC#1 because (whatever its encyclopedic purpose is supposed to be) free text could undoubtedly serve the same purpose and WP:NFCC#8 because the article would be perfectly understandable without it. It also fails WP:NFCC#3b because its resolution is way to high for a non-free image and WP:NFCC#6 because of the watermark, but that unlike the other problems those could be corrected. (The OTRS tag merely confirms that the copyright owner has given permission for use on Wikipedia (for whatever that's worth); it does not mean that the photo doesn't have to conform to WP:NFCC.) —teb728 t c 07:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with the nominator that the image is little more than decorative, and that "for Wikipedia only" use generally is not acceptable. But before deleting, I think we should see if the uploader can try and get the picture released with a copyleft license. I assume his original e-mail message to the copyright holder explained that pictures used on Wikipedia will often get copied elsewhere without permission; if the copyright holder knew that and was still willing to give us the picture, I bet they could also be convinced to just release the picture under CC or some other license. On the other hand, if the copyright holder decides they're unwilling to release the picture, then it is still non-free and won't meet the non-free content criteria. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I object to these conclusions. The picture is a lot more than decorative and does add context to the article. It shows the original Fleet 7 aircraft that started the air service, and visually demonstrates the flight training role of the early days of the company. I would not be willing to ask the Univ of Alaska Fairbanks to grant any broader use of the picture. I have step by step adhered to all the many requirements for use of the picture and will appreciate your reconsideration. Old33 (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still considered decorative under Wikipedia policy, as it doesn't illustrate anything that requires an illustration to be understood. It's a nice addition, of course, but not necessary to understanding the issue (i.e., a reader could learn the same facts just from reading). The fact that the picture doesn't meet the non-free use criteria is going to be uncontroversial to just about all experienced editors—you can wait for more input, but they're all going to tell you the same thing. Which is why I'm trying to help you get the picture preserved, through the only means possible, which is getting it released under a free license. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete teb728 has it right. This image might show the Fleet 7 biplane, but there's nothing even mentioned in the prose about this picture. It's not historically significant in any particular way. The Fleet 7 was one of 40 different aircraft operated by the company. Should we include fair use photos of all of them? Irene isn't mentioned either, and was not a pilot of the service, so she apparently is not historically significant to the air service either. If you want to see the historical logo, there's a better example of it in the "Livery and logos" section. What else is it that this photo could possibly depict that's important? Fuzzy background image of the Alaska landscape? There's nothing of significance here. Now, if maybe this image showed the Fleet 7 post-crash which put them out of business temporarily, you might have something. This image? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- The resolution and watermark can easily be corrected. The main concern lies in the fact that the image "doesn't illustrate anything that requires an illustration to be understood". The image illustrates a Star Air Service Flight Instruction airplane. It is ludicrous to propose that images from 40 aircraft be included...from such a perspective, you could also argue that a screenshot is also "decorative" as such a picture could also be describe in words. Also, as it is a historical photograph, there are a limited number of such photographs of star air service. It is not that the image needs to be deleted, but that the article should better reflect its importance. The article should be modified to indicate what Irene Ivine did for Star Air Service. I do not believe that the uploader should seek a copy-left license as it is not necessary. The photograph depicts the flight instruction plane, which was how they started their business, something that is not depicted in any of the other photographs. A reader would not gain the same understanding of what the flight instruction planes/pilots were like without the photograph.Smallman12q (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I (the uploader) continue to disagree with the opinions stated above calling for a deletion. The conclusions seem to me to be quite subjective & arbitrary. It seems obvious to me that the article is more interesting & informative with the picture included that with it removed. What is the purpose in making the article less interesting? If adding more text describing Irene Irvine, flight instruction, etc. would solve your concerns while keeping the pic, let me know. All of this really makes completing the article extremely time consuming for little reason that I can see.Old33 (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2009 (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.
- 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: keep Skier Dude ► 05:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as PD-author, but as an artwork of sorts freedom of panorama doesn't apply. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Why are File:Bugs Bunny Walk of Fame 4-20-06.jpg, File:The Simpsons star.jpg, and File:Spike Jones - Star.jpg in the public domain and this image is not? I'm not completely versed in image public domain criteria, however I can't see that these three images made it to the Commons without being checked against them. Neelix (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As far as I know, no one holds the copyright to these stars or makes money off of their image. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:24, 29 October 2009 (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.
- 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: speedily deleted. In the future, you can use {{db-commons}} for images like this. If there is any copyright issue, it can be resolved at commons. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:John Anstis Garter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Boven (notify | contribs).
- Same painting as the same filename on Commons, which is better quality. In addition, the status of the photograph itself (rather than the painting) is unclear. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further research suggests this is a copy of http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Images/Pictures/Anstis.jpg, and should be {pd-art}. However, this does not solve the main concern that this file is an almost-duplicate of a better file on Commons, and is therefore redundant. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:52, 28 October 2009 (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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Crossbuck en.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Evil saltine (notify | contribs).
- Orphan. Evil saltine (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fare better images already in commons like this one--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2009 (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.