Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 April 26

< April 25	April 27 >

April 26

File:680065179 m.jpg

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 Blurpeace (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 04:29, 26 April 2010 (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:687980451.jpg

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 Blurpeace (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, low resolution, no context given. — ξ ^xplicit 04:35, 26 April 2010 (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:725675472 l.jpg

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 Blurpeace (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 04:39, 26 April 2010 (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:86810176.jpg

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 Blurpeace (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, possible copyright violation. — ξ ^xplicit 04:41, 26 April 2010 (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:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 May 11.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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: no consensus. — ξ ^xplicit 06:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can easily be replaced by free content (words: a grainy translucent stone angel standing in front of a television set), and not critically-covered in the article ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 05:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A picture is worth 1000 words. This critial moment in the TV episode is covered in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HairyWombat (talk • contribs)
Classic case of WP:JUSTAVOTE. In what way is this (unused) image compliant with our non-free content policies? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 16:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Longer explanation - The Angel in the image is very different from the angels depicted in classical paintings. Without an image, a reader who has not viewed the episode cannot know from a mere handful or two of words what this Angel looks like. (This is what I meant by "A picture is worth 1000 words.") The image, therefore, cannot be adequately conveyed by text, and the image of the Angel significantly increases readers' understanding. HairyWombat (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Worth keeping, gives good visual aid to important plot moment. magnius (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even used at the moment! Are you saying that it is not replaceable by text? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 16:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The only reason it is not used is because User:TreasuryTag deleted it from the article. This can not be a reason for deletion. As I said in the incident report, "This has got to be wrong." HairyWombat (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is looking very good regardless~~, and has a very good image,~~ so this image is clearly not necessary, so to use it is not compliant with our NFC policy. It's really quite simple, if you don't go starting baseless ANI threads! ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I do agree that "It's not even 'used' at the moment" is clearly not a reason for image deletion in this case. This edit probably could have waited until consensus was determined here, but at the very least no one should be claiming it's orphaned. If this discussion were to result in "keep", obviously it would be used again at The Time of Angels. — Satori Son 21:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wknight94 ^talk 18:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— The text actually does a better job than the picture since it describes the emergence of the angel. Hardly a low res image. The idea that this is a somehow significant frame seems to aribtary and merely personal opinion i.e. WP:OR --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs an image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.242.33 (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear WP:ILIKEIT violation. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 17:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that at all; the preceeding vote expressed no opinon about the quality of the image or a preference for any particular image. It merely notes that a visual medium like television is better illustrated rather than not. You seem desperate to delete this image. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am, because it is a clear copyright violation. The article does not need an image unless the image adds substantially and its absence would hurt readers' comprehension. Which doesn't apply in relation to this image. ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 07:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like: visually evoking the terror felt by the audience while watching the episode? It's all very well to say that something is scary or suspenseful, but emotion isn't easily communicated by a dry description. A visual medium, whether drama, dance, film, or television, should always be illustrated with at least one good well-chosen image to present the emotional impact of that medium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's job is not to capture the mood of the episode, nor to evoke terror in readers. We are supposed to be dry; this is an encyclopedia. This image clearly fails the NFCC, especially #1 and #8. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 07:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And all but one person in this discussion has disagreed with you on those points. (I don't count the one "delete" vote that was "just a vote". Why didn't you point that one out?) There is no free equivalent, and the image does provide contextual significance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't believe that the nomination has merit, but do agree that the counterarguments above do have merit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have a reason? ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 07:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the one you commented on above. How did you miss it, when you commented on it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't (and isn't) clear that that is any sort of argument at all. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 07:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, incivility and wiki-lawyering. How quaint. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2010 (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:Kovpak.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tag references pre-1943 but the given source is a broken link and it is quite possible - even likely - that the picture is from after 1943. In 1943, Kovpak was only 56, and he looks older than 56 in that image. Wknight94 ^talk 13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here is an archive of the original archive. :) Rockfang (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2010 (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:Avatar.jpg

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, protected generic file name. — ξ ^xplicit 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too generic a file name, used by four different SPAs to create images for their userspace. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per overly generic. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2010 (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:Cinder.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and unencyclopedic personal artwork by inactive user VernoWhitney (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (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:Fireandice.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and unencyclopedic personal artwork by inactive user VernoWhitney (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2010 (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:City.JPG

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and unencyclopedic personal artwork by inactive user VernoWhitney (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2010 (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:11th Doctor.png

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 Black Kite (t) (c) 18:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting compression, and we have a free image anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete—redundant and awful. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 20:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary, low quality image. Leo 03:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think the "free" images that we'd wind up using aren't. "Backstage" images may indeed be free to use depending on the source. But there may be a point where cropping down to just the actor "in character" or "in costume" steps away from that. Also... when did compression ratio become grounds for deletion? - J Greb (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It renders the image substantially less useful, and since being useful is the requirement for non-free content..... well, you get the idea. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 12:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that isn't ground in and of itself to FfD. It grounds to either load a better scan of the image or uploading a new file and changing the image link in the article(s). - J Greb (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What was the problem with the previous photo? I thought that worked just fine. Update 4/30: Well, it's an improvement but rather pixel-y. I still prefer the picture of Smith on the beach from the "Time of Angels" shoot.

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:Haemophilia table.GIF

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 ⚡ 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image that shouldn't be an image Beao 21:22, 26 April 2010 (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.