Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 18

< May 17	May 19 >

May 18[edit]

File:Internet Usage Charts.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 ⚡ 05:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an orphaned, outdated browser marketshare chart — from 2006. PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Commons, an historical image for sure but that means it has a historical value, archive at Commons against the day someone decides to write a history of the internet.KTo288 (talk) 11:52, 19 May 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:Internet Explorer usage share.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 ⚡ 05:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost orphaned, outdated Internet Explorer usage share graph — from 2006. Note that this file is part of the history of the SVG version, so that would have to be copied over. PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Commons, an historical image for sure but that means it has a historical value, archive at Commons against the day someone decides to write a history of the internet.KTo288 (talk) 11:53, 19 May 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:InternetExplorer2forMac.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is tagged as public domain, but it clearly is an orphaned fair use screenshot. PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:30, 18 May 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:Internet-explorers-apcalculusexam.gif[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file is orphaned and out of scope of our project. PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transfer to Commons, could go in Commons:category:doodles and Commons:category:emotions. Also a possible illustration for Frustration~~KTo288 (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it does have a College Board copyrighted exam page in the background. PleaseStand ^(talk) 01:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats true. Sorry didn't look beyond the surface.--KTo288 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 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:Internationalvol1.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image that is out of scope of our project PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:33, 18 May 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:International accumulation of foreign reserve currencies.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, outdated graph from 2007 PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:43, 18 May 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:ArticlesForCreationEntry.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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an orphaned screenshot of how to submit an AfC submission. The new article wizard, which all AfC submissions now go through, does not look like this, since the AfC process has changed. PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like a no-brainer to me :) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 15:43, 19 May 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:ArticlesForCreationRedirect.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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an orphaned screenshot of how to submit an AfC submission. The new article wizard, which all AfC submissions now go through, does not look like this, since the AfC process has changed. PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like a no-brainer to me :) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 15:44, 19 May 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:Recoverycover.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. On top of the below discussion it is now explicitly shown not to be the official cover (http://www.eminem.com/recovery/default.html), no matter where it originated from. Closing this despite having opined below, it can't get much more uncontroversial. Amalthea 16:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed validity of cover, image found at this source but nowhere does it state that it is the official cover. Delete. Taylor Karras (talk | contribs | Rcool35) 05:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm glad you brought it up; I reduced the size and sort of questioned its source, but I saw it several weeks ago elsewhere and thought nothing of it. However, Tineye doesn't bring up any immediate matches, and Google images returns a slew of covers that I don't think have any connection to Eminem. Simply for lack of verifiability, I'd say remove it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've given enough reasons to prove that the Cover is fake in the discussion page . I hope it gets deleted .Asid12345678 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to point out on the talk page that there was no source for this, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 01:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had enough of this fake art cover, but...it's clearly from the calendar so please, wait another 2 weeks and Eminem will release the cover. Delete this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogomkd123 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rap-up used to have the aforementioned post listed in their "album covers" category. That they don't any more is a bad sign, and the image has lost it's verifiability. I agree that it shouldn't be used in the article any longer, and consequentially should be deleted. Amalthea 08:48, 20 May 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:RUeyegouge.jpg[edit]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 May 29.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 10, which was closed as overturn and list at FfD. The primary arguments for deletion appear to be the image failing WP:NFCC#8 as merely decorative and failing WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable. Procedural nomination; I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it should be kept as it's not really decorative if it's showing you what an eye-gouge can do to people which is helpful in describing in context of the page in which it was on. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not satisfied that this is irreplaceable by any other free photo of the consequences of an eye gouge. Image is unnecessary to show the consequences of an eye gouge. Presumably eye gouges cause different consequences: some severe, some not severe. All this photo does is show the consequences of this particular eye gouging incident, and that's not what the article is about. It is about eye gouging generally. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Any replacement would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose Gnevin (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep As per Gnevin, plus it could be hardly said to be decorative, its awful, but I can't think of a better image to highlight the dangers of gouging. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 08:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata. Image fails WP:NFCC#1. The image is used to illustrate an eye-gouge. Even if this one is particularly bad, any such image could replace this since the image is not used to illustrate a particular incident. Rettetast (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does, the image is showing what happenened to a player named Clarence Harding after being gouged (which is mentioned on the page) and is used to illustate what happened to him as a result of that gouge causing him to lose sight in that eye. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you suggest any such image could replace this since the image be found. I've got thru 15 pages of google images and haven't seen one image of the damage caused by gouging let alone a free one, let alone a free RU one, let alone one that serves the same encyclopedic purpose Gnevin (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No words in bold from me, just a remark: if kept, then out of courtesy to Clarence Harding, who's the subject, this image should be cropped so as to anonymise it as far as possible.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would actually destroy any contextual relevance. If it's just a picture of an eye gouge, without respect to whose it is, then it can be replaced by any generic picture. ÷seresin 23:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of this image is not detrimental to understanding of the article for which its FUR is written. We do not need to see any particular eye gouge to understand that it has happened. A picture of an eye gouge may be mildly informative in Eye contact in rugby union, but this specific image is not so relevant as to warrant fair use. ÷seresin 23:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As deleting admin, why was I not notified about the DRV or this discussion? But as I stated on my talk-page, there was no actual prose about this particular player's eye-gouging that I see in the articles, so any other picture of major eye-gouging would suffice to illustrate the idea. "I can't find it on google" doesn't mean some free replacement doesn't or couldn't reasonably exist (not everything is available on google and/or your inability to find it isn't our problem). So it fails both "quick-test" prongs of Fair Use policy #1: No free equivalent. I therefore stand by my original Delete of this image. DMacks (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've read the current state of the article I assume people want to use it in (Eye contact in rugby union?), there is some actual content about this particular injury. I'm still unconvinced we need to see a picture of it in particular. A free picture of an eye-gouging injury would suffice for the article to illustrate the idea, and an image of this particular injury would not add enough to overcome the fact that this particular image of this particular case is not free. DMacks (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awe yes the legendary free version that people claim exists but patently doesn't Gnevin (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can the people claiming a free image exist even link us to a non free eye gouge that has caused viable damage to the eye or eye area ? As I can't even find this Gnevin (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Rettetast (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth do you create that image? Gouging is extremely dangerous. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This particular image doesn't seem to really serve an encyclopediac purpose here...although we know this particular injury is serious and the event causing it is directly related to the article, the image doesn't actually show the event, and the injury doesn't look that serious in the realm of eye injuries. I mean, it's just puffy and discolored...I've seen worse from bar-fights with no permanent damage. If we're going to have a single non-free image representing eye-gouging in rugby, there are hundreds of action-shots with some guy's finger in some other guy's eye. DMacks (talk) 15:35, 25 May 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:HTC Droid Incredible.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replaceable non-free image Ejfetters (talk) 20:52, 18 May 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.