September 6
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: keep w/license added. Skier Dude (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:15 watterson lgl.jpg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adondai (notify | contribs).
- Living subject, therefore deemed replaceable. However, in this case, the subject is a recluse, so I've declined the speedy, and brought it here for discussion. Also, there isn't a source, and the image lacks a rationale. PhilKnight (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is possibly copied from here (via this page). A cropped version appears in Bill Watterson - Top 10 Most Reclusive Celebrities - TIME. I can't find any mention as to original source, or approx date it was taken (Having checked all the ELs at the article, and done a few cursory google searches). I have little experience writing rationales, so cannot help there. It's definitely not replaceable, unless he suddenly stops being a recluse, or gives permission/copies of old images. A keep based on that, and hope, from me. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've created a rationale, based on Quiddity's information, which means there's no longer a procedural argument for deletion. What's left is the question of if a free replacement could be created... and to that, the answer is almost certainly no. There is precedent to keep non-free images of living recluses, including File:JD_Salinger.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pytom (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 September 2009
- Keep per Quiddity. Watterson is a special exception to the general rule, and therefor I think meets nonfree ctriteria as I understand it. I' mnot sure if it meets the significance criteria, but thats a seperate issue. Martin Raybourne (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets fair use criteria. Sumanch (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The image currently lacks licensing. Unless one is provided, it can be deleted solely on that. — Σxplicit 21:20, 14 September 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⚡ 12:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unencyclopedic personal photo. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 6 September 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⚡ 12:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Wetlands.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dwaipayanc (notify | contribs).
- User states that Seaview99 would have given him the permission. However, this page tells me: "User account "Seaview99" is not registered. If you wish to use "Seaview99" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username." Thus, Seaview99 can't have given him the permission here on Wikipedia. I requested it here on Ffd, because this doesn't fit one of the DI or CSD tags, IMO. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No valid license. This license would require either verification by flickr review or WP:OTRS permission. The IP post provides no justification for the current license.[1][2] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:35, 7 September 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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Com.actelion.research.chem.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nbx909 (notify | contribs).
- Low quality, orphaned. JaGatalk 22:15, 6 September 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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:2006 1127Stuf010003.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Toirtis (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, low encyclopedic value. JaGatalk 22:18, 6 September 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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:2006Kilties.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kristinajo (notify | contribs).
- No encyclopedic value, orphaned. JaGatalk 22:21, 6 September 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⚡ 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Owteen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Owteen.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).
- This image (File:Owteen.jpg) was recently added as an example of "A teenager with Bardet-Biedl syndrome" in the article on the genetic syndrome Bardet-Biedl syndrome. I suspect the image may be vandalism or unauthorized use because 1) there is no verifiable citation that would indicate the person in this image really has BBS, and 2) there is zero descriptive info about the image. Moreover, with no verifiable source, this seems it might be a slander of a potentially living person which, like {{WP:BLP}} is a major Wikipedia no no. N2e (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image was found on a polish medical website dedicated to people suffering from this syndrome. Therefore I assumed that it is suitable for wikipedia. I will supply the link to the website later because I can't find it at the moment. I would also like to point out that I find the accusation of slander abhorrent because a family member of mine is a sufferer of the syndrome. Czlowiek widmo (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should appreciate our concern that a photograph of your family member not appear in Childhood obesity without a valid source and license.[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Czlowiek widmo -- There is no "accusation of slander" in anything I've written, nor in anything I've seen written by other editors about this issue. I assume good faith on the part of other editors, as do most members of the community I've worked with over the years. However, upon finding a jpg image photo of a young woman with 1) a claim that said woman has BBS, with 2) zero verifiable sourcing for that claim, 3) an image with zero documentation on where it came from, and 4) the person who put up the photo (you) being relatively new to Wikipedia, I was concerned that the image or the placing of it in an article could be either "vandalism or unauthorized use" of an image. It appears obvious from your helpful response that the photo placement is explicitly not vandalism, and the issue of whether the image is or is not authorized is yet to be resolved. So enter into the friendly dialog and let's all make Wikipedia a great encyclopedia. N2e (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should appreciate our concern that a photograph of your family member not appear in Childhood obesity without a valid source and license.[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image was found on a polish medical website dedicated to people suffering from this syndrome. Therefore I assumed that it is suitable for wikipedia. I will supply the link to the website later because I can't find it at the moment. I would also like to point out that I find the accusation of slander abhorrent because a family member of mine is a sufferer of the syndrome. Czlowiek widmo (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete; requires a WP:OTRS if the source is supplied and does not explicitly indicate acceptable WP:Licenses. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as per uploader own statement: "The image was 'found' on a polish medical website" - which would require WP:OTRS from the website, since he is not the copyright holder. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Sumanch (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' "A check of the contribution history for the editor who created [the Owteen.jpg file] has a history of frequently adding information which has no sources cited and for which I can find no evidence. Frequently the information is such that I would expect confirmation to be easy to find if it were true, and sometimes the information is clearly false." this quotation is from JamesBWatson on a different AfD involving this editor; link here. Previous text was written by user N2e (full disclosure: I was the one who initiated the FfD on the Owteen file). N2e (talk) 15:38, 17 September 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: kept as reduced. Skier Dude (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair-use images that are used to illustrate are not considered appropriate on Wikipedia. It does not identify or provide critical commentary on the station ID, program, or contents. It serves only as a picture of the characters.
The uploader has repeatedly contested this, so rather than edit-war over the di tag, I have brought it to FfD for discussion.
I I am confused as to why this was placed in PUF previously. I must have hit the wrong button when tagging it. Mea culpa.
{{dfu}} is removed from the page if placed. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: What he hell? Since when have any fair use screen shots been used in this way? Just let the image stay. It is not harming anything, original copyright owner or Wikipedia's reputation in particular.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This picture serves to improve the readers's understanding by helping them to identify the members of the Ohranger team. Removing this picture would make it harder to perform such identification. According to WP:NFLISTS, "In articles ... such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic." and "Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images." A cast image like this is the preferred way to illustrate a list of characters. — PyTom (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, reasonable fair use, but needs to be downsized. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sumanch (talk) 17:17, 14 September 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.