October 4
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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Landmarinerange.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Audiology6 (notify | contribs).
- Original research with incorrect frequencies. No sources quoted. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 4 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Landrange.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Audiology6 (notify | contribs).
- Original research with wrong numbers. Human hearing range, for instance, is not 64 Hz to 23kHz. It is usually given as 20 Hz to 20 kHz, and frequencies as low as 12 Hz can be heard as tones under ideal laboratory conditions. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 4 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 for use in Barack Obama "Joker" poster Skier Dude (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Obama Joker Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MetricSuperstar (notify | contribs).
- Neither Time Magazine nor the artist gave us permission to use their work, so copyright problem. Borock (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This image is not used out of an ilustrative context. - RUL3R*trolling*vandalism 06:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose we have a policy where we accept fair uses of copyrighted material on the English Wikipedia. For such uses we do not require permission of the copyright holders. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a difference between illustrating something and reproducing a work of art. Borock (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read fair use and and our Non-free content policy and elaborate on why this specific image cannot be used in the article Barack Obama "Joker" poster. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just read the two guidelines. From the one on fair use: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" is given as an example where fair use would not give permission to use an image. This would seem to apply here. Borock (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That means the image should not be used in an article passage (section) about the image, eg. it should not be used in the main Barack Obama article. However, the image is used as the main topic of Barack Obama "Joker" poster. Jpatokal (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. I misread that sentence. However I still think this image should be deleted. It is just not important enough that WP readers need to see it rather than just read about it and the controversy involving it. If anyone wants to know what it looks like they can Google it in about half a minute. Borock (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole point of an encyclopedia is not having to waste time looking for simple information on outside sources. - RUL3R*trolling*vandalism 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with you on that, in a friendly way. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to give basic information on a topic and point interested readers to sources where they can learn more.Borock (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TheDJ opens his Enc. Brittanica, looking for pointers towards sources where he can learn more..... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would expect that sources are given for each article, as on WP. Borock (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TheDJ opens his Enc. Brittanica, looking for pointers towards sources where he can learn more..... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with you on that, in a friendly way. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to give basic information on a topic and point interested readers to sources where they can learn more.Borock (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole point of an encyclopedia is not having to waste time looking for simple information on outside sources. - RUL3R*trolling*vandalism 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. I misread that sentence. However I still think this image should be deleted. It is just not important enough that WP readers need to see it rather than just read about it and the controversy involving it. If anyone wants to know what it looks like they can Google it in about half a minute. Borock (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That means the image should not be used in an article passage (section) about the image, eg. it should not be used in the main Barack Obama article. However, the image is used as the main topic of Barack Obama "Joker" poster. Jpatokal (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just read the two guidelines. From the one on fair use: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" is given as an example where fair use would not give permission to use an image. This would seem to apply here. Borock (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read fair use and and our Non-free content policy and elaborate on why this specific image cannot be used in the article Barack Obama "Joker" poster. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Appropriate fair use for an article specifically covering the poster. APK say that you love me 22:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per fair use, as above - Draeco (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Fair use is explicitly permitted for "images with iconic status or historical importance" and "Paintings and other works of visual art", and the DRV for Barack Obama "Joker" poster has already established that this is a noteworthy image. Jpatokal (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you can jump A-->B-->C like that, as the discussions took place to determine if the article was notable. An article's notability does not confer same on an image illustrating the article, which is why we have WP:NONFREE and this current FfD venue. I'm not arguing for deletion, and it is looking like the image will be kept anyways, but just pointing out that this particular point of "inherited support via DRV" is probably not a sound one. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about the image. If the image is not notable, then the article would not be notable either. At any rate, this discussion is not about the image's notability, but about whether fair use is permitted for it: one of the fair use criteria is that the image has "iconic status or historical importance", and — despite your opposition — a consensus that it has such status was established in the AFD/DRV. Jpatokal (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Appropriate fair use used within appropriate context. Happyme22 (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - A good example of fair use. — neuro 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see any good use for this crappy drawn over image other than POV pushing. There are many better free images of our president.--Windowasher (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately it is being used to illustrate an equally crappy article, which against all logic was kept at a recent AfD discussion. The two are joined at the hip. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see any good use for this crappy drawn over image other than POV pushing. There are many better free images of our president.--Windowasher (talk) 12:54, 11 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.