Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 27

< January 26	January 28 >

January 27[edit]

File:John Cassavetes in Johnny Staccato.jpg[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 as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No critical commentary is provided. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I noticed you're both the nominator and the uploader. You may want to know that you can bypass the bureaucracy with {{db-author}}. --Damiens.rf 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Damiens.rf. I'm new in this business. Don't plan to stay long either. Just liquidating some of my old files. BTW I got reverted by Abie a while back when I removed the pic from the article and he requested a discussion so I thought I'd give him a chance to discuss it. Isn't it so Abie? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, doubly so, in fact. I reverted you twice.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - My previous comment was in jest, of course. You are a very decent person Abie :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As no other fair use image exists on the page, and as a matter of fact, no other image exists on the page, I think this image would qualify under "fair use" policy.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not that hard to produce a free image of this actor. Trailers for movies released before 1964 are in the Public Domain because they were never separately copyrighted. Some research will reveal usable images of this actor. --Damiens.rf 15:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I agree, once a free image is found and agreed upon, then this image will no longer be necessary. But until then, it serves a valid purpose.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not how we work here. --Damiens.rf 03:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok people. Action! I went out and got a pre-1964 screen shot because of the discussion here. File:John Cassavetes Edge of the City trailer 1957.jpg Now this one can safely be removed with no grief. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work, Nesnad! I'm lagging on learning how to upload photos, I know. Anyway. I'm fine with deleting this image now. Dr.K, what do you think?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dr. K. is the nominator! He's the one who asked for deletion to begin with. Nesnad, we need more people like you here. --Damiens.rf 12:54, 1 February 2010 (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:Sali Berisha.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no reason given that this is PD, uploader is not copyright holder Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2010 (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:Kerrydoonesbury.png[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free comic strip panel is not discussed in the article where it's displayed. And even if a discussion were to be added, the image would most likely still be unnecessary, since the "joke" on the strip relies more on it's text than on the drawing itself. We could thus just quote the non-free text (minimal usage). Damiens.rf 15:27, 27 January 2010 (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:Cassavetes life magazine cover.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image of this magazine cover is not relevant for the two articles where it's displayed. One of the article not even mentions the magazine. The other, just discuss the cover story, what can be done in this case without the visual aid of the cover image. Damiens.rf 15:39, 27 January 2010 (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:2423224277 396dbc2811.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image uploaded in 2008, not being utilized within any articles or user space. Wikipedia search under brief description of watermarking does not shown article that exist in which it could be used. Also concerns with copy right watermark on image without significant description that editor is either the one whom took photo or retains copyright. Calmer Waters 15:42, 27 January 2010 (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:357941787 l.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image from 2006 not utilized within any current article or user space. Lacks any description to reduce ambitiousness for use in any future articles. No EV Calmer Waters 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image was uploaded for autobiography which was moved to user's page [1]. User page was later blanked by the user. No need to keep this file. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:08, 1 February 2010 (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:David Carradine and Barbara Hershey in Boxcar Bertha.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free movie screenshot that is actually used to illustrate the information that the couple depicted had an affair on real life. This information can be passed without the aid of visual media. Damiens.rf 16:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your reason. The purpose of the inclusion of the picture in the article was to depict a now deceased person at a particular stage in his life and career. This particular picture not only shows him with and actress whom he had a long standing domestic relationship which included a child, but also in one of his earliest and most enduring roles. I also believe that this and the other images that you have tagged for deletion in that article are important to the understanding of the subject. Without the pictures that I have included, one gets an image of a man who was perpetually aged. There were other stages of his life that should be illustrated within an article on his life. Are there free images that would do the same?-I have not found them and I have researched the subject very thoroughly. If you and I cannot solve this I do plan to contest it further.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2010 (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:Americana Toast 2.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free picture of an actor in Cannes, used just to make the point he was went to Cannes. Damiens.rf 16:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your reason. The purpose of the inclusion of the picture in the article was to depict a now deceased person at a particular stage in his life and career. This particular picture not only shows him at Cannes, but at a point in his life when it appeared that he would gain some measure of success as a director and a producer. He won an award at that event making it historical. I also believe that this and the other images that you have tagged for deletion in that article are important to the understanding of the subject. Without the pictures that I have included, one gets an image of a man who was perpetually aged. There were other stages of his life that should be illustrated within an article on his life. Are there free images that would do the same?-I have not found them and I have researched the subject very thoroughly. If you and I cannot solve this I do plan to contest it further.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (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:David and Anne Carradine at Kill Bill II opening.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely decorative image of actors. Damiens.rf 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your reason. The purpose of the inclusion of the picture in the article was to depict a now deceased person at a particular stage in his life and career. This particular picture not only shows him with his latest wife, but at a point in his life when it appeared that he might gain some measure of success as an actor that he had not known in many years. I believe that is the context of this person's life, the event was historical. I also believe that this and the other images that you have tagged for deletion in that article are important to the understanding of the subject. Without the pictures that I have included, one gets an image of a man who was perpetually aged. There were other stages of his life that should be illustrated within an article on his life. Are there free images that would do the same?-I have not found them and I have researched the subject very thoroughly. If you and I cannot solve this I do plan to contest it further.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2010 (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:25012007-001.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image from March 2008 not utilized within any current article or user space. Discription is limited to "Jordan (dzan kin) ho". Appears to be a blurry personal photo with no current EV Calmer Waters 16:08, 27 January 2010 (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:Storage.canoe.ca.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative image of an actor holding some prize. No relevant visual information. Damiens.rf 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your reason. The purpose of the inclusion of the picture in the article was to depict a now deceased person at a particular stage in his life and career. This particular photo shows him accepting a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, which is a milestone in an actors career, thus an historical event. The fact that it is a public appearance boosts its status as a "fair use" candidate. I also believe that this and the other images that you have tagged for deletion in that article are important to the understanding of the subject. Without the pictures that I have included, one gets an image of a man who was perpetually aged. There were other stages of his life that should be illustrated within an article on his life. Are there free images that would do the same?-I have not found them and I have researched the subject very thoroughly. If you and I cannot solve this I do plan to contest it further.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (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:David and John Carradine on the set of Boxcar Bertha.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free decorative image copyed from Associated Press. Damiens.rf 16:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your reason. The purpose of the inclusion of the picture in the article was to depict two now deceased people at a particular stage in their lives and careers colaborating with each other, Because both of the people depicted are deceased and famous the event is historical. I also believe that this and the other images that you have tagged for deletion in that article are important to the understanding of the subject. Without the pictures that I have included, one gets an image of a man who was perpetually aged. There were other stages of his life that should be illustrated within an article on his life. Are there free images that would do the same?-I have not found them and I have researched the subject very thoroughly. If you and I cannot solve this I do plan to contest it further.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2010 (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:David-Carradine-Carradine-010.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image copied from image agency Corbis. Damiens.rf 16:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really do not agree with your reason. The purpose of the inclusion of the picture in the article was to depict the actual subject(s) of this article. The article is about the Carradine family. Certainly the photo is owned and copy-written, I doubt the Carradine family owns a photo of this particular grouping of their members at this particular stage of there lives! It includes two now deceased famous people at a particular stage in their lives and careers. This is the elder Carradine's 68th birthday making this photo historical! I also believe that this and the other images that you have tagged for deletion in that article are important to the understanding of the subject. Without the pictures that I have included, one gets an image of a man who was perpetually aged. There were other stages of his life that should be illustrated within an article on his life. Are there free images that would do the same?-I have not found them and I have researched the subject very thoroughly. If you and I cannot solve this I do plan to contest it further.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens.rf, did you have a reason for listing this low resolution, properly tagged fair-use image? If so, would you care to share it with us? APL (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2010 (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:Pink Lady.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to believe this is an "Anonymous photograph" or that it was "published without copyright notice". It could be an image from a newspaper. The file was just downloaded from a site that does not credits anyone. Damiens.rf 16:33, 27 January 2010 (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:Oliver (chimpanzee).jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing known about the copyright holder or status for this image. The file was just copied from a blog (where it can no longer be found). Damiens.rf 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is is pretty much the only image of Oliver and text can't explain his face's resemblance to a human's. Isn't this acceptable under the fair use doctrine? --Beao 18:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. Even when the image is highly useful for us, we must respect copyrights. --Damiens.rf 19:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. This low resolution image meets all of WP's fair-use policies as outlines at WP:FAIR#Policy. APL (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without a source, how do we in fact know that this is Oliver the chimpanzee? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I jest, of course. Looking at Tin Eye, I see that there are a lot of blogs but no single source. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:56, 2 February 2010 (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:Mgm Hoover The Boston Globe.jpg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is known about the copyright status of this picture. The image is no longer found on source and the copyright holder was not documented on the file description page. Fortunately, a harbor seal headshot is not necessary for the understanding of the article where its being used. Damiens.rf 17:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What do you mean nothing is known about the copyright status of the picture? It's obviously a newspaper scan, and it has "The Boston Globe" right there in the file name.

As a low resolution version of a photograph of a now-dead animal, I'm not even sure which of the 10 points of fair use policy you're claiming this violates. Is it the tenth? Are you claiming that the source isn't identified properly? That's a pretty goofy claim with the source right there in the title. If it bothered you that much that it was in the title and not in a proper source tag, couldn't you have copy/pasted it with far less effort than it took you to list it for deletion? APL (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2010 (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:Kenai windowboxed.png[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 per author request. Jafeluv (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of Windowbox can be explained without the aid of non-free material. Damiens.rf 17:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the original uploader, I agree. People are more than capable of understanding what windowboxing means, given the information on the article. At the time I uploaded the image, I wasn't as keen about non-free usage and etc. Deleting the image is the preferable option. ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(「Sumimasen!」「Dochira samaka?」)} 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CSD#G7.--Rockfang (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2010 (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:Big Ben chimes.ogg[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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded from a radio broadcast with implausible rationale for being public domain. Hekerui (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you feel the rationale is implausible then just fix the rationale. HairyWombat (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2010 (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.