Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 26
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 26
[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BRITNEYOUTRAGEOUS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Rogue Leader (notify | contribs).
- non-free image that is largely just a cropped version of the other non-free image in the same article. The small differences (image cropped and text moved) can easily be described with (free) text and as replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 07:54, 26 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Estradaclinton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Philippinepresidency (notify | contribs).
- copyrighted image just to show that two people met - image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 07:58, 26 June 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⚡ 14:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- press image used for decorative purposes only to show an event. Does not significantly increase reader's understanding (fails WP:NFCC#8) and as a press image I think it fails WP:NFCC#2 as well Peripitus (Talk) 07:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I see no reason why an image of the inauguration of a Filipino president should be considered for deletion, while I see a whole lot of pictures in Wikipedia of American presidents being inaugurated. If this is deleted, I guess we also have to also consider a lot of files for deletion for not significantly increasing reader's understanding of the specific president portrayed.
- Delete: You see images of American presidents being sworn in because the U.S. federal government and its branches release images into the public domain. The image in question here is a news agency photo. There is no critical commentary, no respect for commercial rights. --Mosmof (talk) 05:03, 8 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:ErapInauguration.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Democraticsystem (notify | contribs).
- non-free image used simply to show that someone took an oath. Decorative use only - image fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 08:00, 26 June 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 - fails NFCC#2 - Peripitus (Talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright violation from press agency Getty Images: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/3373035/Hulton-Archive . Damiens.rf 15:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was my understanding that copyrighted content can be claimed as fair use in certain cases, particularly when there's no free/PD/etc. alternative available and the version used on Wikipedia is of inferior quality (these reasons, plus the educational value of the picture, are listed on the image page). There are countless images of this sort on Wikipedia, including those used in FAs such as Olivier Messiaen, to name one. --Jashiin (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't use images from press agencies. It violates NFCC 2. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC 2: "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." - how does a smaller and cropped version of a photograph replace the market role of the original? --Jashiin (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unambiguous NFCC#2 vio. I hope we can find a pic of him that isn't from Getty/AP/AFP. – Quadell (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please answer my question above? The picture is smaller, is only a portion of the original, and is of inferior quality. How can it possibly be a violation of NFCC 2? --Jashiin (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the 9956967th deletion debate about a press-agency image. Someone should write Wikipedia:Image Agencie's Images, explaining why it's not fair to use images from image agencies for free, when they make their money from licensing images for exact the same purpose. It should also explain in which cases we're making a transformative use and in which ones we're simply refusing to pay their fee. --Damiens.rf 19:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for answering. Yes, someone should write that, I've never heard of the issue before. --Jashiin (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the 9956967th deletion debate about a press-agency image. Someone should write Wikipedia:Image Agencie's Images, explaining why it's not fair to use images from image agencies for free, when they make their money from licensing images for exact the same purpose. It should also explain in which cases we're making a transformative use and in which ones we're simply refusing to pay their fee. --Damiens.rf 19:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP! AFP images are all over Wikipedia without contest. Future of the left (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Barkley 1988 SI Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zodiiak (notify | contribs).
- I initially tagged this as a non-free content dispute, but the image uploader let me know that the image has already gone through an Ffd once, and another discussion was appropriate.
The image fails WP:NFCC#8, since there is no actual significance to the image itself. The cover is not mentioned once in the article, and the point about Barkley's emergence as the 76ers' franchise player can be easily made without a visual aid. And there is no evidence that the cover is particularly iconic - the comparison to the Demi Moore Vanity Fair cover is made, but I fail to see the parallel. The Moore cover was the center of a rather big controversy. I don't think there was much fuss made over this one. Mosmof (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note that this is the same argument that came up before and the result of the discussion was keep. First, the cover is actually mentioned in the article -- it's in the 4th paragraph of his first season in the NBA, see here. As was argued before, the cover illustrates the very begining of Charles Barkley's progression into the public eye. Barkley became one of the most outspoken atheletes of the 20th century and was often compared to Muhammad Ali. He stirred multiple controversies in the late 80s and early 90s, such as his I am not a role model declaration that shocked the sports world. He became an ambasador for basketball, a sports icon, and today is one of the most renowned popular figures in the Media. The cover is one of the very first images the media has of him in publication and spawned multiple appearances thereafter. Zodiiak (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if you noticed, but the image appears in Philadelphia 76ers, but not Charles Barkley. Now, that the image is absent in the Barkley article, yet it remains to be adequately informative tells me the text is doing a pretty fine job of providing encyclopedic information without a fair use image, so it appears to fail WP:NFCC#1 as well! The image is clearly not needed there.
- And yes, the first time is always special, but that doesn't necessarily make it notable or significant enough to meet WP:NFCC (after all, every SI cover athlete in the history of the magazine has a "first" cover). You don't need a cover image to inform readers that an athlete appeared on the cover for the very first time.
- Finally, I'm not disputing that Barkley " stirred multiple controversies in the late 80s and early 90s". That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. I'm asking whether the cover image was the center of the controversy (again, refer to the Demi Moore Vanity Fair cover). --Mosmof (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what you fail to realize here is that Vanity Fair and Sports Illustrated are two separate entities here. The value in success and achievement for a Basketball player is reflected by their appearanced on SI. The first appearance nonetheless exemplifies the begining or makings of a breakthrough perfromance. That's the entire reasoning behind having the Charles Barkley on the cover. Also, it appears the image was removed at some point, although it was in the article. I think this occured while the article was undergoing fantastic edits in the last month. But, if it is not deleted, I think it could be added back in. But, if the community decides it should be removed, then it can be deleted. Zodiiak (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - uploader seems unable to accept that the reader can fully understand Barkley's successful career without the image of his first SI cover appearance. Even in the event that it's not original research to state that the 1st SI cover is a testament of an athlete's achievement, we still don't need to see the exact cover to grasp this statement. --Damiens.rf 21:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Damiens.rf's excellent rationale, to which I can't add anything. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rebirth album cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bigweezyfan1 (notify | contribs).
- Unofficial fan-made album cover Taylor Karras (talk) 23:05, 26 June 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.