September 7
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⚡ 12:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-free usage rationale for this image is that it "directly highlights [...] a quote from War of the Worlds Director Steven Spielberg". The quote in question is:
Mr. Spielberg makes no reference to Ms. Fanning's appearance in this film, nor does her appearance have any relation to her acting capacity; furthermore, no reference (sourced or not) to this specific image/sequence from the film was made in connection to the quote. It serves the purpose of illustrating the actress' appearance which fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is no requisite reliably sourced critical commentary for such.Steven Spielberg praised "how quickly she understands the situation in a sequence, how quickly she sizes it up, measures it up and how she would really react in a real situation."
Full disclosure: I previously tagged this image with {{rfu}} in January 2007, at which time I engaged in discourse with two editors over this same issue (File talk:WotW pub.jpg). This tag was ultimately improperly removed by a non-administrator, and I elected not to pursue it at that time. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:33, 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- orphaned, low-quality image Skier Dude (talk) 02:34, 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Opec-reservers.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pixel ;-) (notify | contribs).
- OB, replaced by updated vector version File:OPEC declared reserves 1980-now BP.svg Iorsh (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 18:37, 8 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:IntelliStar2004.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MikeM2011 (notify | contribs).
- File:IntelliStar2005.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MikeM2011 (notify | contribs).
- File:IntelliStar corner forecast.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TrackerTV (notify | contribs).
- File:IntelliStar2006.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MikeM2011 (notify | contribs).
- File:ISCC.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TRAiNER4 (notify | contribs).
- File:Intellistar v2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Beanboy89 (notify | contribs).
- File:The weather channel intellistar july 1 2008 359pm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Beanboy89 (notify | contribs).
- File:IntelliStar-New-Blue-LDL-v3.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TRAiNER4 (notify | contribs).
- File:The weather channel intellistar nov 16 2008 808pm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Beanboy89 (notify | contribs).
- Non-free images. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. There is no sourced critical commentary on theese images. There is a total of 11 screenshots in the article. The one in the infobox is enough. Rettetast (talk) 09:54, 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: - Keep - Creative commons licences are not revocable - Peripitus (Talk) 04:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:NeilBarrett.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ChrisTheDude (notify | contribs).
- No evidence for Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license, website states: "Copyright © 2009 Ebbsfleet United FC Official Website. All Rights Reserved." Hekerui (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time I uploaded the image the site was tagged CC but they appear to have gotten a bit less charitable in the intervening period..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Check out this link. The site was indeed CC-BY-SA 2.5 at one point. There is a section on that page called "Barrett homes in on Fleet midfield" and it contained a file called "barrett1.jpg". The date of that entry is semi-close to when this file was uploaded. Assuming good faith they are the same files until the uploader has a chance to respond.--Rockfang (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't honestly remember. I struggle to remember what I had for lunch yesterday, let alone what I uploaded to WP over two years ago :-) It was probably the same image, but I won't lose too much sleep if it's deleted. The other image on the page could be moved into the infobox in its place.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 8 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⚡ 21:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Uploaded by a sockpuppet of a WP:TEND and banned prolific sockpuppeteer. 2. Upload summary indicates that it's a c. 1870 passport photo, but it's clearly been retouched or modified. 3. It's not used anywhere. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:16, 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 as G7 by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Intown.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shaliya waya (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, superseded by images in Intown Suites, lacking quality and detail for encyclopedic use. ZooFari 23:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't see this ever being any use to anyone Little Professor (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per uploader's request. This was not a very good image to begin with. I had only intended for it to be temporary until it was replaced with a better one, and since then, it has. Shaliya waya (talk) 19:37, 8 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nero Vision Configure Export dialog box.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FleetCommand (notify | contribs).
- Easily replaceable by any number of open source alternatives. There appears to be little justification for its use in the article cited. Little Professor (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Registering objection: If there any open-source alternatives, please prove it (i.e. show me).Fleet Command (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not necessary at all. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Registering objection: It is required to demonstrate an application that requests the vague parameter as described in the article. Fleet Command (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it necessary to even show the use of the parameter in software in the first place? It's just showing a labeled field; doesn't seem to contribute to the article. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Registering objection: It is required to demonstrate an application that requests the vague parameter as described in the article. Fleet Command (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obviously fails WP:NFCC#1, but also WP:NFCC#8 as this is not needed at all. Rettetast (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Registering objection: If you think it fails WP:NFCC#1, please show proof, i.e., a none-free example. It does not fail WP:NFCC#8 because this photo gives credibility to its accompanying paragraph which otherwise will be reduced into a weasel-word sentence. The omission of this photo would have a detrimental effect on the understanding of the issue. Fleet Command (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am constantly told that there are free equivalents available but when I ask "where?" and "what?", there is no answer. So, unless proven otherwise, I think it is correct to assume that a free alternative does not exist. Fleet Command (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8 as not improving understanding of the article. I don't know if there is free software that does the same thing, but readers do not need to see this to understand what pixel aspect ratio means. It could be valid fair use in an article about the software itself, but not the article it's in. And FleetCommand: you don't need to say "registering objection" when you reply to every comment (and you should consider not replying to every comment). Stifle (talk) 11:30, 19 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.