| < January 27 | January 29 > |
|---|
January 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 as I9 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:IMG_4902.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fredler_Brave (notify | contribs).
- This image is currently tagged as PD-self, but it is a television screen capture, and a very poor quality one at that, so it should be tagged as non-free. Its's current use is simply to identify the individual and as such is in violation of the non-free criteria. I had previously tagged the image as a non-free orphan (as it was at the time of tagging) but once the 7 days had expired it had been placed back in the article and as such did not qualify for speedy deletion. Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 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 as I9 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Elit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fredler_Brave (notify | contribs).
- This image is currently tagged as PD-self, but it is a television screen capture, actually its a photograph of a television screent. It should be tagged as non-free. It is current used to identify the individual and is a violation of the non-free criteria. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Viking 1 Dunes.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tablizer (notify | contribs).
- OR and OB. A (larger) higher quality image of the same composition is available at File:Mars Viking 11a097.png. Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:42, 28 January 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: Wrong forum. The image is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obsolete and orphaned version of File:NPVMapKey2.png, with redundant "pending currently". » Swpbτ • ¢ 15:12, 28 January 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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SharonTateValleyoftheDollswithheaddress.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rossrs (notify | contribs).
- Bullshit rationale states "No free or public ___domain images have been located to illustrate the subject, Sharon Tate." when there are dozens of free images of Sharon Tate in the article. Damiens.rf 15:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You do not need to be so hostile in your comments. At the time this image was uploaded there were no free images, and fair enough that part of the comment should have been updated. It does go on further to explain why the image was chosen to represent a particular aspect of her career and image which is supported by discussion within the article. This aspect is not covered by any free images. Further, there are not "dozens" of free images. They are very limited. Please try counting. Last time you nominated an image for deletion from this article, your complaint was that there were "dozens" of unfree images. Now there are "dozens" of free? Please assume good faith in making nominations here. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above. This image illustrates a pivotal role for Sharon Tate, which brought her fame. No free images are likely to be found that would be usable to illustrate a role from over 40 years ago by someone who died two years later. By the way, there are eight images in the article, not the "dozens" as stated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article already has a non-free image of her in the same movie. There is nothing in the text of the article that shows this is a pivotal scene from the movie so the lead image is adequate. Fails significance to the reader and is excessive use of non-free content - Peripitus (Talk) 06:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we at least be accurate in comments here, please. There are not "dozens" of unfree images available, and the "bullshit" rationale is only part of the fair use rationale given, and whether that rationale is weak, strong, right or wrong it hasn't actually been discussed. Please assume good faith and read the entire rationale, rather than just the first sentence. Also the other image from the film is not unfree - it is a free image. The fair use rationale for this image attempts to explain why it is being used in addition to the free image. It may still fail significance to the reader, and it may even fail it to a stronger degree, but the rationale attempts to explain its relevance. It does not automatically fail excessive use because it's the only unfree image of its type and from this source. Again, it gets back to the rationale which may be right or wrong, but which has not been discussed. If the fair use rationale isn't even discussed as part of this process, I don't understand what purpose the fair use rationale possibly serves. If the image gets deleted, it gets deleted. It's not the end of the world, but in fairness any comments should be accurate. I've removed the "bullshit" part of the rationale which I already indicated above was incorrect. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My issue is that the rationale states that the image is intended to represent a significant scene but there is nothing in the article mentioning the scene or why it is significant. The other non-free images in the article, to me, adequately illustrate points made about Tate's stereotyping as a "sex symbol" which is much of the remainder of this image's rationale. While the rationale may be correct, we already have, I see, a sufficiency of images to convey that which the image is trying to. If there was sourced commentary about the scene being depicted then I may have seen this differently - Peripitus (Talk) 05:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification. I now see what you mean, and it's a fair comment. Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as replaceable by a free image or by text. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 3 February 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 - consensus seems that it meets NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 00:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:GeorgeBushwithTateFamily.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rossrs (notify | contribs).
- Non-free picture showing an old woman meeting senior Bush, just to make the point that they once met. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Damiens.rf 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Again, you could assume good faith and be less hostile in your comments. There is a fair use rationale given that explains why this image was chosen. It show more than "an old woman". Rossrs (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The image used is specifically of the victim's mother and sisters, who became well-known in their own right as victim advocates, the mother who was recognized for her efforts, as is covered in the article. The event was also part of a documentary, which is also covered in the article. These circumstances are well covered in the article and this image is used to illustrate that. No free images are available to illustrate this, and two of the Tate women in the image are now dead, so no free image can be expected to be found. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:40, 29 January 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SATI coat of arms.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Leuce (notify | contribs).
- Scan of a hand-drawn (pen and paper) coat of arms which is not linked from any article. Has no possible use on Wikipedia that I can see (which doesn't seem to be a speedy delete criterion?). Zunaid 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Zunaid 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This image used to be on the SATI wiki page until it was removed:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_African_Translators%27_Institute&diff=next&oldid=216870424
- Since the person who deleted it, did not give a reason and did not initiate a discussion about it in the talk page, I'll re-add it to that page. -- leuce (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, poor quality, unused, duplicate of File:SATI coat of arms2.jpg. —Angr 16:41, 29 January 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 - not only poor quality but does not match that on the groups website - Peripitus (Talk) 00:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SATI coat of arms2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Leuce (notify | contribs).
- Exact duplicate of SATI coat of arms.jpg (see above). Zunaid 16:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, poor quality. There are Wikipedians who are good at rendering coats of arms, so it should be possible to get a high-quality SVG of this one. —Angr 16:42, 29 January 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.