Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 23

< May 22	May 24 >

May 23

File:Chickpeas in bowl.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting information. Released with PD-self tag, but image cointains copyright symbol and upload says Taken by Alex Milkis © 2007. Unencyclopedic and orphaned. Skier Dude (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2011 (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:DSCF1290.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2011 (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:Xlair.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2011 (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:Powerflods.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, possible copyright problems (see sig on painting) Skier Dude (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2011 (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:Moonjunga1.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, possible copyright problems (see sig on painting) Skier Dude (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2011 (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:Pounder1.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, possible copyright problems (see sig on painting) Skier Dude (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2011 (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:Pulstation1.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, possible copyright problems (no sig as prior, but same issue) Skier Dude (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2011 (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:TheCompressedBear.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, possible copyright problems (no sig as prior, but same issue) Skier Dude (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2011 (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:Flavapic1.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2011 (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:Gumball and Darwin Ninjas.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too low-quality to be of use. Orphaned. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:21, 23 May 2011 (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:Potentialproblem1.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE, subjects/___location not ID'd Skier Dude (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2011 (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:Potentialproblem2.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE, subjects/___location not ID'd Skier Dude (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2011 (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:Birla Tree.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE (no link to an article) Skier Dude (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2011 (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:Woods.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2011 (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:Table Tennis.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, no need for photoshopped image Skier Dude (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2011 (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:Musical doctor2.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE, low quality Skier Dude (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2011 (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:Capisce campus.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2011 (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:Bulgaria.ogg

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 ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant sound file to Media:En-us-Bulgaria.ogg. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:56, 23 May 2011 (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:Picture of Russ in 2006.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE, subject not ID'd Skier Dude (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2011 (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:Hulaol.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2011 (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:Palazzani TSJ23C.jpeg

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 ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the image is the spider lifter, and there is just too much in the way to get a good look at it. The uploader of this image supplied many more images of this subject, most of which are clearer than this. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:34, 23 May 2011 (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:Fifth2.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the photographer's own admission, he has no idea what this is. I can't identify it either, and anyways the quality is rather poor. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:57, 23 May 2011 (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:PICT0084.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry, unknown year/model Perodua Myvi. Better images of the Perodua Myvi are already freely avalible (there are four at the linked article.) Low quality of the image makes it unlikely to be used. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:41, 23 May 2011 (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:NY Times Best Seller List May 25 1980.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: No Consensus, leaning Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The layout of the list as it's published on the NYTimes is not relevant (and as such, is not discussed in the article). This non-free image is an unnecessary decoration to the article. (although, there's a chance it's ineligible for copyright, I don't know). Damiens.rf 10:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nomination is based on a supposition that is simply uninformed personal opinion. The NY Times Bestseller List is the premiere book "chart" in the United States and influential around the world. The format and content of the list (columns, content) is longstanding, and the example helps to illustrate how the list works and provides useful information to the reader that is not easily derived from any other substitute. (Aside from merits, please note that this nominator has some serious issues being raised about his recent editing behavior and image noms, see his contribs or talk page to waste endless time if you wish.).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, used to illustrate typical appearance of list much more effectively than text alone could. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the appearance relevant to the article? --Damiens.rf 19:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is the appearance of the New York Times Best Seller List relevant to the article about The New York Times Best Seller list? The question pretty well answers itself, IMO. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe the list is not about its appearance, but about it's contents. Who gets listed and why, and not how they get laid out once selected to apper in the list. --Damiens.rf 20:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image enhances the reader's understanding of the topic by illustrating and identifying it. No text description could be as effective. Thparkth (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to disagree with Sarek, this seems like something that could be adequately described in prose. So that'll be "doesn't meet NFCC #1" then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really??? There's no way this even remotely passes muster. For one thing, the image is of absolutely terrible quality and even if there weren't a non-free issue, I don't know that I'd want it as a free image. But in any event, NFCC#8 requires that we only use a non-free image where "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Does anyone really not have the ability to comprehend the Best Seller's list without seeing a scan of it? --B (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2011 (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:John Sweeney with Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder.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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free still screenshot from a documentary used apparently do decorate the two articles that talk about the documentary. It's not clear why exactly the omission of this still scene (showing some man operating a device at a table) would be detrimental do the texts about the documentary. Damiens.rf 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Used to illustrate for the reader a key scene from the film. Fair use rationale provided on image page. Image is of a low resolution. Image fits criteria for fair use. -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Illustrates the movie better than any textual description could. Improves the reader's understanding of the topic by demonstrating (among other things) the cinematographic style, the identity of some of the individuals involved, the degree of formality, the relationships between them, and illustrates that questions were asked about specific items of scientology tech. A moderately-complete textual description of the useful information provided by this image would be several times longer than the current article, and even then would be incomplete. In any case it would be pedagogically less effective, because it is non-controversial that the human brain learns more effectively when complementary textual and graphical information are presented in parallel. Thparkth (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: removed from the parent article, where an image is not needed at all – nothing in the visual layout of this part of the documentary is relevant to the discussion in the article. Didn't have a FUR for that article either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 1 June 2011 (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:Santorum Most Outrageous Word of the Year 2004.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 as G7 by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piece of a non-free document being used just to show what the document contains. This is already achieved by the article's text. Damiens.rf 12:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contributes to reader's understanding of the structure and layout of the winning entry. Significant piece of historical event, which is directly related to subject of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see how structure and layout is relevant in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Use a direct quote, not an image. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Uploading a picture of words over using a [small] quote seems boggling (in the case of fair use). Killiondude (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Deleted, by uploader. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2011 (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:Pope and boniface 1980.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image. We don't need to see a postcard with a picture of the Pope praying at a given time and place to understand the Pope did pray at the given time and place or that a postcard was made out of it. Damiens.rf 13:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens, what a nice way to put it--even the children will understand. Unfortunately you miss the boat completely: it's not about the pope. It's about the very special place Saint Boniface holds in German Catholicism--and the pope is there to pay him special respect. Afterwards, he said in a speech that this (Fulda, the site of the grave of Saint Boniface) is where German Christianity began. That's a pretty big deal. Oh, it's not a postcard. It's a prayer card, and that's a different thing, an entirely different thing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And... how is its omission detrimental to the understanding of the article's text? --Damiens.rf 14:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The image strongly indicates the official status of the Boniface veneration in Fulda and the importance of the Fulda diocese in promoting the pope's interest in the saint, who is the official patron saint of the diocese. Unlike postcards (don't know where you got that from in the first place, but I am sure you didn't intend to make fun of Catholicism), prayer cards indicate official sanction and efficacy. Perhaps you could help me--if I could upload the back of the card, which contains the pope's words and a prayer addressed to Saint Boniface, and add that to the image somehow, the illustration would be more complete. As I'm sure you know, prayer cards in Catholicism are evidence of the special status of the saint, and a pope in 1980 bowing before the grave of a saint is a striking illustration of the ongoing importance of that saint. I look forward to your help. In the meantime, I have contacted the Fulda diocese to ask them to release the image to the free ___domain and would ask the closing administrator for some patience. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All those facts can be, and already are, explained by text. And no, I'm not asking anyone to describe the prayer card (sorry about the post card confusion) in text. I'm saying we don't need to show the card to prove / reinforce facts stated in text and supported by reliable sources. --Damiens.rf 19:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the fact that Boniface veneration is officially promoted in Fulda and that the Pope was there can easily be explained in words and adequately understood. And I very much doubt this card formed any notable part of the affair. The fact that it is now mentioned in the article seems very much like an afterthought, added in order to bolster up the use of the image, rather than the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying that the card is a "notable" part of the affair. Its use was disputed earlier, and if J Milburn had explained a bit more I would have been able to tackle the question earlier. I won't lie: I come to copyright issues with more ignorance than bliss. But Future, the text wasn't added to bolster up anything--the text was there before the image was added. I have a better understanding of the use of non-free content now than I did before so I'll stop arguing. At the same time, the suggestion that there was something underhanded about adding text to bolster up an image has no basis in fact (the image was added 11 minutes after the text was added), and Damiens' condescending words do not contribute to a joyful work atmosphere. I bow to y'all's greater knowledge of those criteria, though, and perhaps the Fulda diocese will release the image, in which case I'll stick it back in when its paperwork is in order. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Drmies' judgment in this matter is unassailable. Nomination misapprehends importance.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As regards Drmies claim that prayer cards are important, that's fine. But is this specific non-free prayer card significant enough that it is necessary to retain it? FPaS has it right I feel. Doesn't meet NFCC #1 and/or #8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:06, 1 June 2011 (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:Waldo McBurney.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 ⚡ 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image copied from a news source. While the man is dead we our policy would most probably allow a non-free image, I believe it can't be this one. Damiens.rf 13:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated and closed as "no consensus" quite recently (Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 22). Might be not such a good idea to re-nominate so quickly. For the record, I voted delete the last time. (BTW, there was also another FFD on this filename back in 2009, which closed as delete, but that was a different file.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my statements last time. Why did I have to find this only from my watchlist? Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like I argued last time. This should be treated as a press agency image. If the New York Times wanted to run this picture, do you think they'd rely on fair use? No, they'd expect to pay a royalty. Thparkth (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A news paper created this image and licences it to other newpapers/places with a view to receiving consideration in return for use. The use it gets licensed for is essentially identical to the use we put for it. I cannot see how this image can be regarded to pass NFCC#2. We've now had 3 debates about press images of the same person, though the first in 2009 was a different image that is not relevant. We do not host in-copyright images of this type unless the image itself is the point of discussion. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was ridiculous that this was kept last time ... it should be speedy deleted, but I'll settle with a belated delete. --B (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2011 (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:Hundred billion dollars and eggs.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 as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free image copied from Reuters news agency. Damiens.rf 13:24, 23 May 2011 (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:Robet Dyer Tesco bomber.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 as G7 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image. There's no point in using an illustration a tv station did for an event in our article about that event. Damiens.rf 13:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not being used because it's the BBC's illustration, it's being used ebcause it's the only image of the perpetrator of the crime covered by the article. The image meets the NFCC, as is explained in the fair-use rationale. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But why using the Tesco logo? There are versions of the same portrait out there without that combination. This is actually not one non-free file, it's two of them combined, and the logo component seems purely decorative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find any others except one that's so small it would be nearly useless. I considered cropping the logo out, but wouldn't that make it a derivative work, which would be a copyvio if all rights are reserved? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's a standalone version of the same pic here and here. This leaves us with the question of whether his photograph should still be counted as replaceable under the "almost every living person" rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even more, we still have the question of whether the omission of an image of this man's face would be detrimental to the understanding of an text about the Tesco bomb campaign. --Damiens.rf 16:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean the omission of the face of the man responsible for the campaign. That's very different to a photo of some random bloke.
        @Fut.Perf., I believe this satisifies the criteria. He wasn't a public person and was completely unheard of until his crime gained media attention and he's not a public person now, and he's spent 6 of the last 9 years in prison os there is no free alternative that could be found or created. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any discussion of the image itself, it's use is decorative. A better option would be one of the links provided above by Fut.Perf. But, I doubt even those are necessary. He's no longer imprisoned. He's a living individual, which makes it a pretty automatic failure of NFCC unless a specific image is historically significant and crucial to understand the article. This isn't, as proven by the fact the image isn't discussed, and there's nothing particularly notable about his appearance. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2011 (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:Parks and recreation road trip.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free screenshot shows a couple kissing. There's nothing unusual about this kissing, so, I don't think the exclusion of imagery would be prejudicial to the understanding of the text discussing the scene. Damiens.rf 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again, the disclaimer I described above about these mass deletion attempts applies here as well. The scene in question here is an important one for this episode, as well as the season and series in general. It's part of the critical commentary of the article, not a random scene or purely decorative image. I don't the fact that there is nothing unusual about the kissing itself precludes its inclusion and, while it may only add a marginal amount of value to the understanding of the reader, it still adds understanding, so I believe it's use is appropriate. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see why we would need the visual presence of this kissing scene in order to understand its role in the story arch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 1 June 2011 (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:Desperate housewives the chase.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free still of a tv series shows the face of two women really close. It's fair use rationale says this image serves to illustrate "growing romantic interest" between the two characters, that is a major topic from that episode onwards. While I don't dispute the "romantic interest" is an important topic about the series and should be discussed, I fail to see why we need this image (or any image I can think of) to properly get an understanding about the characters "romantic interest" and its development on the series. Damiens.rf 15:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't want to assume bad faith, but I feel I would be remiss if I did not point out that many images from articles I've worked on have been nominated for deletion in recent days (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here), and it always appears to be the same people making the arguments for deletion each time. At the very least, it seems to indicate a philosophical disagreement with television screenshot images regardless of the fair use rationale provided. But when I constantly see two or three new deletion notifications in my talk page every day, it's hard for me not to also conclude that they have developed some sort of personal vendetta against me or my work, especially with a nomination like this one, which has existed for some time without any issue. In fact, this article is a WP:GA, and the image was discussed in that review and passed.
With regard to the nominator's argument, he already freely admits the "romantic interest" is an important component of the article. WP:FUC says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate." This image meets muster. It is not purely decorative, because it illustrates an element of the article the nominator himself agrees is important. And it contributes to the understanding of the reader in multiple ways. For one, it illustrates the characters themselves, something that could not happen for the reader without the image. It also illustrates the performance of the two actors, the intensity of their emotions, and a scene that received strong positive critical commentary from reviewers (as described in the article). — Hun ter Ka hn 17:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that the uploader didn't even bother to adapt the image caption to the new file version, making the infobox text downright nonsensical [1], just goes to prove the image is not as crucial to the article as he wants us to believe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~What new file version are you talking about? I haven't uploaded a new file version.~~ — Hun ter Ka hn 19:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You uploaded two: one with a character sitting up in bed, one with two women face-to-face. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahh, I see, you mean from back in April 2010, when the old image was replaced. The reason for that is the old image was identified as not meeting the WP:FUC standard, so it was replaced with one that did, which is the current one. If you'll take a look at the GAN review, you'll see the reviewer there not only felt the new image met the standard, but was the one who made the suggestion that led to this picture in the first place. In my opinion, the fact that an outside party suggested a picture of these two women would help his understanding only bolsters the argument that the current image is helpful. The fact that the caption wasn't updated isn't a "gotcha", it was just an oversight on my part, and one that's now been fixed. — Hun ter Ka hn 20:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did the article pass the GA review with the wrong caption in the infobox image? --Damiens.rf 20:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yup. Looks like it was just a simple oversight. The review was otherwise thorough. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure. Frankly, I can't give much credit to such review now, at least in what refers to non-free content usage. --Damiens.rf 09:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems to me one has nothing to do with the other. You can judge the review for itself simply by reading it, where you'll see why it was their comments that led to the selection of this image. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:20, 30 May 2011 (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:Homicide life on the street black and blue.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free screenshot showing two man talking. It's omission would not be detrimental of the readers understanding of the text about the scene this shot was taken from. Damiens.rf 15:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously, the disclaimer I described above about these mass deletion attempts applies here as well. In fact, it applies even more so here, because this image not only passed a review to become WP:GA but an additional review to be part of a WP:GT, and yet the many eyes that have been on this article never flagged the image. That being said, I have strengthened the wording in the fair use rationale. I'd also like to point out that the nominator's dismissal of this image as one of "showing two man talking" seems to indicate his belief that if the image can be described in text, it shouldn't be used. (This type of argument was also used in previous deletion nominations.) That's not the threshold for inclusion. WP:FUC says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate." As the new fair use rationale shows, this image is of a crucial scene for the episode and series, and one of critical commentary within the article on multiple aspects. If it were just some random image, it would be purely decorative, but it's not, and to say that the fact that it's describable by text alone justifies it's removal is ludicrous because ANYTHING can be described it text, and thus by your standards nothing would be acceptable under WP:FUC. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a random scene of two talking heads. About as far remote from NFCC#8 compliance as it gets. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a random scene? Did you even bother to read the fair use rationale, or the argument above? Honestly, the complete lack of interest some users here are showing in arguing the merits of these screenshot images is becoming more and more transparent by the minute. It's not just some random scene, it's described in critical commentary within the article and has been identified as important for several reasons by several parties (Yoshimura, Braugher, reviewers, etc.) — Hun ter Ka hn 19:54, 23 May 2011 (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:Jack Meadows Repsect.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free screenshot of an episode of a tv series is used just to "identify a key scene in the episode". It just shows the face of one of the series characters. It fails WP:NFCC#8 in that the omission of this close up of this characters would in no way be detrimental to the understanding of the article about the episode this scene is from. There's nothing unusual about this scene that would make its commentary need an image to be complete. Damiens.rf 18:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Jheald (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2011 (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:Photo of Bismil909.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Low quality blurry photograph whose source cannot be checked and even though the image is in the possession of the uploader, we don't know the copyright status of the image and who is the copyright holder. With more information we may determine that is is actually in the public ___domain but until them it should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2011 (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:Sweet Treat.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2011 (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:Ascension Proposal.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; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to lack of description (requested for about half a year). Possible copyright problems. Acather96 (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2011 (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:Asianmaleexample.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 as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to lack of description (requested for 3 years). Acather96 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Curtis (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2011 (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:Beatles The White Album Embossed Cover .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; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (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:Barry Wiki.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, unidentifiable subject, low quality, no description (requested for 3 years). Acather96 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2011 (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.