Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < January 31 | February 2 > |
|---|
February 1
[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: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:I'll Always Remember You.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DisneyFriends (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Non-free episode screenshot, not embedded in analytical commentary, not needed for understanding the article, vague FUR. One user argues that the scene depicted is "a critical turning point in the episode" [1]. That may be true (the caption says "Miley realizes that Lilly and Jesse hate what the secret has done to their lives."), but there is nothing in the visual material of the picture that tells me anything more about this fact than the caption itself does: the image just shows four unremarkable persons standing in an unremarkable room and talking in an unremarkable way, just like they presumably stand and talk in countless other scenes (presumably the main characters, it's in fact not even clear to the outside reader who is who.) Fails NFCC#8, purely decorative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This image was originally tagged as an "apparently random TV episode screenshot", despite the image description and license indicating it was a promotional image, not a screenshot at all. The uploader is also the creator of I'll Always Remember You, an article about one of two significant episodes in the final season of Hannah Montana (the other being the finale), in which the image is used. The editor, who is relatively inexperienced (537 edits), sought advice about creating the article before he did so,[2] and has done a reasonable job in building the article over the past week. Yes, the article is only a week old, the image even less. The article is far from finished, which is why the nominator may not see what he wants to see just yet. I could fix this myself, but I think it's a better idea to encourage the article's creator to do the work so he can learn. We seem to have a lot of people who can add poor content to articles, or randomly tag them, but we don't seem to have an awful lot of contributors who can create good articles and I think this editor has the potential to be one of them. We need to encourage editors like that, not delete their contributions. The article needs to be given time to be finished and since the world will not end tomorrow if this image isn't deleted, there should be no problem giving the editor time to do that. As for the image being of "four unremarkable persons", three of these just happen to be main characters in the series. Perhaps the reason that the nominator can't see what is being conveyed, or the significance of the scene, is that he is completely unfamiliar with the subject, not that the image doesn't convey the information. Give the article some time to be completed and then pass juudgement on whether or not the image is needed. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you see potential for expanding the article in such a way that it will contain well-sourced critical commentary about the artistic choices made in staging that particular scene, which will then be in need of visual support to be understood, by all means do so; you will indeed be teaching the new contributor a valuable thing. However, since about 99% of our TV episode never reach such a stage, no matter if they are written by new or by experienced contributors, I'm not holding my breath. (Seriously, do reliable sources containing such critical analysis exist?) – If such a quality expansion happens within the next seven days, I'll be happy to withdraw this nomination; if not, the world won't end if somebody just has to undelete the pic once the expansion should happen at some later date. In the meantime, the most valuable thing the new editor can learn from this is to understand the non-free content criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is a promotional photo and shows the characters. It seems to me that those who want to delete the image want to apply a higher standard than WP policy requires. KeptSouth (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, there is general consensus that notable TV episodes can have one screenshot. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not. There is policy that NFCC8 must be tested in every single case. There is no blanket allowance, and there are dozens if not hundreds of precedents for that at FFD and speedy deletions. Episode images are only legitimate where they are the object of analytical commentary and needed for the understanding of that commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC#8 is the weakest, and most impractical, of all the criteria. If rigidly applied there would be virtually no non-free images in Wikipedia. "Analytical commentary" isn't even mentioned in the criteria. However, the image in question is of a critcial point in the episode and the caption explains that. --23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. There is policy that NFCC8 must be tested in every single case. There is no blanket allowance, and there are dozens if not hundreds of precedents for that at FFD and speedy deletions. Episode images are only legitimate where they are the object of analytical commentary and needed for the understanding of that commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 7 February 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.
- 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Heathergorman1's house.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Heathergorman1 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Unencyclopedic. An unremarkable house. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Heathergorman1. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:33, 1 February 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.
- 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 per consensus, though I personally disagree with this result. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bigfin squid May 2001.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mgiganteus1 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Disputed semi-speedy. This is an extant (though rare) species, and we already have a free illustration of it. Seems wholly replaceable. J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It clearly adds information beyond what's in the other image. Also seems like something we could trivially get permission to use. Is it enough to meet WP:NFCC#8? I think so. The NFCC justification was "is intended to show the appearance of the live adult form (of which only film footage exists) and the unusual morphology of this specimen, particularly its greatly expanded fins and unusual bent-arm posture" which it seems to do. keep Hobit (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I said nothing about NFCC#8 in the nomination. As used, it seems fairly clear to me that this fails NFCC#1. As for your argument that "we could trivially get permission to use" the image- that's great; get the image released under a free license, and I will drop all objection to its use. (As an aside, merely adding something that no other image does and being "something we could trivially get permission to use" does not mean the image meets NFCC#8; criterion 8 is "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". Not really anything to do with either of those points.) J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. The question is if fails NFCC#1. It it replaceable by a free image? You seem to claim (if I understand correctly) that the current free image in the article is enough to replace it. I disagree. The original claim of use was, "is intended to show the appearance of the live adult form (of which only film footage exists) and the unusual morphology of this specimen, particularly its greatly expanded fins and unusual bent-arm posture". If you have a free image that does the same thing, great. If not, it would seem to pass NFCC#1. My point about getting permission is that it was probably as easy to write and ask then to send it to FfD, and asking would be a better outcome... Hobit (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than getting permission to use the existing image, which is not necessarily possible, how would one create a free version, as required by WP:NFCC#1? These rare (according to the article) creatures have only been photographed on limited occasions at depths of 7,200-15,500 ft. There aren't a lot of subs in the world that can dive that deep, and it's prohibitively expensive for any editor to do so, so it's practically impossible to obtain a free image that way. The image in the infobox doesn't demonstrate the "bigfin" aspect (which is part of the title of the article), only the long arms, so there's justification for this image. There seems more chance of getting a free image of this bloke but the community has said it's just not possible. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. The question is if fails NFCC#1. It it replaceable by a free image? You seem to claim (if I understand correctly) that the current free image in the article is enough to replace it. I disagree. The original claim of use was, "is intended to show the appearance of the live adult form (of which only film footage exists) and the unusual morphology of this specimen, particularly its greatly expanded fins and unusual bent-arm posture". If you have a free image that does the same thing, great. If not, it would seem to pass NFCC#1. My point about getting permission is that it was probably as easy to write and ask then to send it to FfD, and asking would be a better outcome... Hobit (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I said nothing about NFCC#8 in the nomination. As used, it seems fairly clear to me that this fails NFCC#1. As for your argument that "we could trivially get permission to use" the image- that's great; get the image released under a free license, and I will drop all objection to its use. (As an aside, merely adding something that no other image does and being "something we could trivially get permission to use" does not mean the image meets NFCC#8; criterion 8 is "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". Not really anything to do with either of those points.) J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. The image is a small portion of the original work, being a single still from a ~10 minute video. It is a low resolution reproduction in .jpg format. It shows the oversized fins that give these squid their name (see bigfin squid) and are their most characteristic feature. The filming of this particular specimen received considerable worldwide media attention at the time and this image (or ones similar to it) was reproduced countless times on the internet and elsewhere. The image is irreplaceable as no free alternatives are known to exist or could realistically be created. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above.-- Novus Orator 10:56, 4 February 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.
- 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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Said Nursî's Tomb.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OnurtheAgha (notify | contribs | uploads).
- No source Vssun (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FIle has been tagged with {{di-no source}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:29, 1 February 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.
- 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Wexner.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pgunn (notify | contribs | uploads).
The most recent version has been transwikied to commons:File:Wexner-external.jpg. Frankly, the other versions are off low and poor enough quality that they don't much seem worth keeping. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:45, 1 February 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.
- 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⚡ 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pulheim in Germany.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs | uploads).
Orphaned PNG map. Kelly hi! 22:02, 1 February 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.
- 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⚡ 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Westerburg in Germany.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs | uploads).
Orphaned PNG map. Kelly hi! 22:03, 1 February 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.
- 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⚡ 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Map-huerth in germany.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tobias Wolter (notify | contribs | uploads).
Orphaned PNG map. Kelly hi! 22:03, 1 February 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.
- 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⚡ 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Karte-reichs.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mrfinch (notify | contribs | uploads).
Orphaned PNG map. Kelly hi! 22:04, 1 February 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.
- 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⚡ 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Map Freiburg in Germany.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sky (notify | contribs | uploads).
Orphaned PNG map. Kelly hi! 22:06, 1 February 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.