Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 19

< July 18	July 20 >

July 19

File:Death Certificate of Randall Jason Sherman.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 as G3 by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn

caption states "Eddie August Schneider (1911-1940) New York State death certificate". There's nothing in the article to show any alias, and the uploader should get his act together and either support this image in its article, or lose it. Rodhull andemu 00:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep Some clueless person named User:Rodhullandemu appears to have changed the name of the file to Randall Jason Sherman for the death certificate of Eddie August Schneider, maybe you can find out why from him if you have a chance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- As long ago as March, 2009, this image was stated to be the death certificate of Eddie August Schneider, and that is what it should be. However, it isn't. Look at the image; it isn't a death certificate for Randall Jason Sherman. Clueless? No thanks; you explain it, but it's your upload, and your responsibility. End of. Rodhull andemu 00:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems I missed the vandalism here. Accordingly, I'll close this, with a reminder to WP:AGF. Rodhull andemu 01:12, 19 July 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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:Semen2.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image is non-encyclopedic, and makes Wikipedia look silly. It is not scientific, or even artistic, it is simply the result of a guy ejaculating on a piece of furniture and taking a picture of it. ☠ Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 07:42, 19 July 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:Alice Cullen.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in a list-of article where the character is already depicted (by the same actor) in the image File:Newmoon cullens.jpg. Fails NFCC#3a in that it is excessive use of non-free content. the extant group image displays sufficient for reader understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put these images to identify each character as they do not have any articles themselves in the film. (Is very different the real actor and charecter) In that case, those pictures would be delete as well:Bella Swan,Edward Cullen, Jacob Black, where the character is already depicted,right?! is the same thing!! I think this picture would attend if they had a separate article and does not inflict current rules of Wikipedia. I do not see any problem with this... but if you have trouble, please correct me. Thanks. Light Warrior ^{Conspiracy?!?} 16:16, 20 July 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:Carlisle Cullen.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in a list-of article where the character is already depicted (by the same actor) in the image File:Newmoon cullens.jpg. Fails NFCC#3a in that it is excessive use of non-free content. the extant group image displays sufficient for reader understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put these images to identify each character as they do not have any articles themselves in the film. (Is very different the real actor and charecter) In that case, those pictures would be delete as well:Bella Swan,Edward Cullen, Jacob Black, where the character is already depicted,right?! is the same thing!! I think this picture would attend if they had a separate article and does not inflict current rules of Wikipedia. I do not see any problem with this... but if you have trouble, please correct me. Thanks. Light Warrior ^{Conspiracy?!?} 16:16, 20 July 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:Esme Cullen.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in a list-of article where the character is already depicted (by the same actor) in the image File:Newmoon cullens.jpg. Fails NFCC#3a in that it is excessive use of non-free content. the extant group image displays sufficient for reader understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put these images to identify each character as they do not have any articles themselves in the film. (Is very different the real actor and charecter) In that case, those pictures would be delete as well:Bella Swan,Edward Cullen, Jacob Black, where the character is already depicted,right?! is the same thing!! I think this picture would attend if they had a separate article and does not inflict current rules of Wikipedia. I do not see any problem with this... but if you have trouble, please correct me. Thanks. Light Warrior ^{Conspiracy?!?} 16:16, 20 July 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:Rosalie Hale.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in a list-of article where the character is already depicted (by the same actor) in the image File:Newmoon cullens.jpg. Fails NFCC#3a in that it is excessive use of non-free content. the extant group image displays sufficient for reader understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put these images to identify each character as they do not have any articles themselves in the film. (Is very different the real actor and charecter) In that case, those pictures would be delete as well:Bella Swan,Edward Cullen, Jacob Black, where the character is already depicted,right?! is the same thing!! I think this picture would attend if they had a separate article and does not inflict current rules of Wikipedia. I do not see any problem with this... but if you have trouble, please correct me. Thanks. Light Warrior ^{Conspiracy?!?} 16:16, 20 July 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:Emmett Cullen.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in a list-of article where the character is already depicted (by the same actor) in the image File:Newmoon cullens.jpg. Fails NFCC#3a in that it is excessive use of non-free content. the extant group image displays sufficient for reader understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 11:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put these images to identify each character as they do not have any articles themselves in the film. (Is very different the real actor and charecter) In that case, those pictures would be delete as well:Bella Swan,Edward Cullen, Jacob Black, where the character is already depicted,right?! is the same thing!! I think this picture would attend if they had a separate article and does not inflict current rules of Wikipedia. I do not see any problem with this... but if you have trouble, please correct me. Thanks. Light Warrior ^{Conspiracy?!?} 16:16, 20 July 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:Jasper Hale.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in a list-of article where the character is already depicted (by the same actor) in the image File:Newmoon cullens.jpg. Fails NFCC#3a in that it is excessive use of non-free content. the extant group image displays sufficient for reader understanding of the topic. Peripitus (Talk) 11:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put these images to identify each character as they do not have any articles themselves in the film. (Is very different the real actor and charecter) In that case, those pictures would be delete as well:Bella Swan,Edward Cullen, Jacob Black, where the character is already depicted,right?! is the same thing!! I think this picture would attend if they had a separate article and does not inflict current rules of Wikipedia. I do not see any problem with this... but if you have trouble, please correct me. Thanks. Light Warrior ^{Conspiracy?!?} 16:16, 20 July 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:LFairchild.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image deprecated by higher quality version now hosted on Commons (File:Lucius_Fairchild_Crop.jpg). Although thus moot points, local file has a dead source and incorrect license tag. Эlcobbola _talk 18:25, 19 July 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:Indigo Walker.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replaceable fair use. While the image is of a character in Home and Away - it is just a simple headshot of the actress. A free image (that could be created) of the actress would suffice. There is no special background, hairstyle or costume shown in this image that would be lost in a free image. I can see no evidence that anyone has seriously attempted to get or create a free image.....she's not exactly a private person - Peripitus (Talk) 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Peripitus (Talk) 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we've had this one before that's for sure. Image of the actress? Wouldn't be the fictional character in question, tbh aswell, the actress in question dyed her hair just for the role of this fictional character. So therefore - Not replacable.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that readers have sufficient imagination to see a headshot of the actress, the words describing the character's hair colour, and join the dots. How does having this specific non-free image significantly add to reader's understanding in a way that a similar headshot of the actress not acting in character would not ? How in fact does this image then pass WP:NFCC#8 ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:57, 19 July 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:Kottakkal Sivaraman.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

poorly sourced image of a recently deceased person. He was, from what I can see, very widely photographed. A diligent effort may well show up a free image, or one that could be released as free, and I cannot see that any such effort has occurred. Just because someone has died does not automatically make grabbing a non-free image meet the non-free content criteria Peripitus (Talk) 21:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As stated in the non-free rationale, the subject of the photograph is dead and so no new photographs can be generated. The image can/must be deleted as soon as a free replacement is available. For the time being, I recommend keeping the image as it is. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been often shown here, a subject being dead does not prevent a free image being created or found. He is such a widely photographed person that it is very likely one of those photographers has, or is willing to, release an image under a free licence. They simply need to be found and asked. We do not host non-free images just because we don't have a free one at hand. Where is the evidence that a free image is unobtainable ? Also whom is the copyright holder of this image. The given source has just taken the image from elsewhere. Hosting an image with such poor source detail is the exception here - Peripitus (Talk) 11:02, 20 July 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.