Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 13

< March 12	March 14 >

March 13[edit]

File:1pictureitookinrome29.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While subject is a detail of a public domain artwork, it is, however, orphaned, and of such low quality to make it useless. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as low quality. If a close-up of this detail of The School of Athens were needed, it could be created as a crop from our high-resolution File:Sanzio 01.jpg, which would be much clearer and much less distorted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- This detail is notable for being used as the cover image for Guns'n Roses album Use Your Illusion I and II, but yes, a cropped version is available since early 2007. Delete.

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 Farragut 1995 issue-32c.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-free US postage stamp image is copyright and fails WP:NFCC#8 because it is not necessary to the reader's understanding of the article to show a non-free image when the fact that such a stamp was produced is already well described in the prose and two freely licenced stamp images are already present in the article David Farragut. ww2censor (talk) 05:30, 13 March 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.

File:Vanna Venturi House Postage Stamp 2005.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. The only discussion of the stamp in the article's text is, "In 2005, The United States Postal Service featured the house on a postage stamp in a series of 'Twelve masterworks of modern American architecture.'" Such a short statement does not cause the file to pass WP:NFCC#8, because there is no discussion of any elements in the stamp that would require a visual aid. A simple statement that a stamp was produced does not necessitate the inclusion of a non-free visual aid. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: US postage stamp issued in 2005 is still copyright and fails WP:NFCC#8 because the fact that it was issued and what is depicted on it is already well described well in the prose. The use of a non-free image is unnecessary because will not detract from the reader's understanding of the article if it is removed. The main image of the stamp is also shown in the article with a freely licenced image. ww2censor (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seems to be something of a Catch-22 that is being invoked here - if a non-free image is NOT mentioned in the article, then it may not be used, but if it IS mentioned in the article then it also may not be used. This image is specifically mentioned in the article (as is required), yet it cannot be replaced by text alone. The US Postal Service honored the house by the postage stamp, along with 11 other modern buildings. The house is a work of art, and in its own way the stamp is a work of art that shows the house as a work of art. This cannot be shown (and the honor cannot be shown) by simply saying "The USPS issued a stamp showing the building." The argument that the house can still be photographed is irrelevant, the honor conveyed by the stamp cannot be fully described by text and cannot be conveyed at all by another image. Smallbones (talk) 16:36, 13 March 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.

File:Munozmarinstamp.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: US postage stamp issued in 1990 is still copyright and fails WP:NFCC#8 because the fact that it was issued is already well described well in the prose. The use of a non-free image is unnecessary because will not detract from the reader's understanding of the article if it is removed. Also fails WP:NFC#Images #3. ww2censor (talk) 05:56, 13 March 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.

File:Rafi Stamp.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indian postage stamps are copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates issued in 2003 and fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8 because the fact that it was issued is could be well described well in the prose but there is no commentary at all, so the use of this non-free image is unnecessary because it will not detract from the reader's understanding of the article. ww2censor (talk) 06:23, 13 March 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.

File:Rupee Stamp.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indian postage stamp are copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates; it fails WP:NFCC#8 because the fact that the Rupee sign is used on modern postage stamps is already well described well in the prose. The use of a non-free image is unnecessary and its removal will not detract from the reader's understanding of the article. ww2censor (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This stamp is very much required to confirm that the Indian Government has started to implement the new Indian Rupee sign. The sign has not yet found place in coins and currency notes, so this stamp is very important in making users understand that the Indian Government is really serious in bring the new rupee sign to use. The image will be easier to understand than prose. So I strongly oppose the deletion.-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 17:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that readers thought processes are so poor they will not understand the statement that tells them the symbol, which has a nice large illustration in the infobox at the top of the article, is being used on Indian postage stamps and on that basis it is necessary to use a non-free image to convey that information? Clearly readers do not need the stamp to understand this. Many similar uses of non-free stamps in non-stamp articles have been deleted for the same reasons over the years as failing WP:NFCC#8 but WP:NFC#Images #3 also applies. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —innotata 02:33, 16 March 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.

File:St John of God Irish postage stamp 1979.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. Fails WP:NFCC#8. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Irish postage stamps are copyright for 50 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and fails WP:NFCC#8 because the fact that it was issued and what is illustrates could be described well in prose but there is no commentary of any kind about the stamp itself, so also fails WP:NFC#Images #3. The use of a non-free image is unnecessary because will not detract from the reader's understanding of the article if it is removed. ww2censor (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has been amended to make explicit the image's compliance with WP:NFCC#8. It demonstrates official recognition of the order by the state and is an integral part of the narrative of the order's history. — O'Dea (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the information introduced by the prose are not sufficient to comply with NFCC#8 because those facts do not require the use of a non-free image for the reader to understand the honour commemorated by the issuance of a stamp. There is no sourced critical commentary about the stamp itself that merits its inclusion that prose alone cannot explain. ww2censor (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the stamp is self-documenting. It is unreasonable to expect every postage stamp to attract critical commentary. The argument that prose can replace an image can be applied to all images. — O'Dea (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You are of course correct that stamps are self-documenting but each one is not notable which is why we have WP:NFC#Images #3 so that notable stamps are used in articles about the stamp itself and generally not just to show a stamp was issued to commemorate some occasion, person, organisation or suchlike, in articles about the subject. So critical commentary about the stamp must be there to justify it inclusion is such articles. The mere fact that it was issued, what it shows and who issued it are not sufficient as commentary to justify its inclusion and can easily be described in prose. Due to these guidelines and the WP:NFCC policy there are very few proper uses of non-free stamps in non-stamp articles. ww2censor (talk) 22:46, 15 March 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.

File:Rutten vs tk.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a martial arts fight, used in the article about one of the athletes (now retired). While the specific fight event pictured in the photograph is mentioned in the text, there is no explanation why this particular scene should be necessary to understand the article – indeed, it isn't. Fails NFCC#8. FUR consists of meaningless abstract boilerplate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - unnecessary abusive use of non-free content. --Damiens.rf 16:57, 14 March 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.

File:Pepsicup.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned as derivative work of non-free material that is not the subject of critical commentary within the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:13, 13 March 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.