Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 5

< May 4	May 6 >

May 5

File:Aizad Sayid being presented with an award.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 without comment on the value of the deletion request - the item has been moved to commons, and a deletion request now must take place there. If the item is deleted on commons, it can be retagged here for deletion as WP:CSD#G4. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion. No encyclopedic value. Sreejith K (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. See for instance File:Tony_and_Clintons2.jpg, File:Tony_and_McClintock.jpg, File:Tony and McClintock gift2.jpg, File:Tony with Representatives2.jpg, File:2Resolution 3603.jpg, File:Certificate JTF Guantanamo.jpg, File:Press_Release2.jpg, File:Speech_by_Luis_Fortuno.jpg and File:Memorial_Day_(2008)_Speech.jpg. Using Wikimedia servers for user-page self-promotion is common practice. --Damiens.rf 16:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Damiens.rf. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:21, 6 May 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:Aizad Sayid giving Award to Player of the Match.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: see above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion. No encyclopedic value. Sreejith K (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. --Damiens.rf 16:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Damiens.rf. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:22, 6 May 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:Tonyintherapy.png

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 ⚡ 01:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free episode screenshot. See earlier Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 May 28#Image:Ep01 tony.jpg for a previous deletion case regarding the exact same article. Same uploader simply replaced the deleted image with another that had the same problem, just a few days later. Generic image merely showing the main protagonist sitting somewhere in what is apparently a random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, no appreciable identificatory value, not needed to understand the article, still fails NFCC#8 as blatantly as the previous one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was told to replace it with a more relevant image from the episode, which I did. The image is of Tony sitting in therapy for the first time, a significant moment for the character and for the entire series' main plot. It's hardly a "generic image" of a "random scene". This is clearly described on the subtitle on the main page. I am also extending the Keep for the other images for similar reasons. Given the notability of The Sopranos, I'm honestly a bit baffled that Fut.Perf. is going after the episode articles in light of nearly every other episode article for less notable series having similar images for identification --CyberGhostface (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were most certainly not "told to replace it with a more relevant image". You were told that you could use an image if one was needed, and only then [1]. And the "notability" of the series is of no relevance whatsoever. The only criterion is: does the article contain some information that is in need of visual illustration to be understood? No, it is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is an image of a relevant plot point of the series' pilot and by extent the entire series not necessary for identification in the article? Again, Tony going in therapy was a major part of the series, and you're deliberately attempting to undermine it with "generic image of someone sitting somewhere" when the article clearly states its of Tony sitting in therapy for the first time.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would also point to Trapped in the Closet (South Park) and Damien (South Park), some of many featured articles of television episodes, which has an image of the episode demonstrating a key plot point that by your standards should be deleted as they do not contain information that is needed to be "understood"--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do we really have to repeat every detail of the debate of three years ago, complete with every possible red herring that was already dealt with back then? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS never works as an argument. And at least in the South Park case I can see at a fairly quick glance that the case is in fact much better than the present one, because the satirical presentation of the Xenu/Scientology stuff obviously is a central object of a very substantial amount of analysis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 5 May 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:Ep03 brendan bathtub.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free episode screenshot. Not embedded in analytical commentary, not even a caption saying what it shows, no visible relation to plot summary. Article consists almost entirely of plot renarration and character lists; nothing in the article is in need of visual support to be understood. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 5 May 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:Sopranos ep104.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 5 May 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:Sopranos ep105.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above (though this one at least has a caption) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 5 May 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:Image006.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mess. Different images have been uploaded under this generic filename and, as a result, the file is inconsistently used in Battle of Ba Gia (as a map) and Casa Presidencial (El Salvador) (as a picture of a presidential meeting). If the individual images are really necessary and can be sourced (currently, none is), they should be uploaded under more descriptive names. Damiens.rf 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against reuploading with a descriptive filename. Protect filename to prevent recreation. —teb728 t c 23:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move the original (presidential palace) version to a more descriptive filename, iff the PD-USGov source can be verified (it currently lacks a direct link). Delete the other versions, which never had a proper copyright declaration and description. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, unless a higher resolution copy can be located, it would hardly be worth moving. —teb728 t c 08:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split apart, is that possible to split it into two different file names with histories? 184.144.163.181 (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In principle it could be done if the map were free. But this translation of the source page does not seem to indicate the copyright status of the map; so we probably need to assume it is non-free. If it is non-free, we can't use it because a free replacement could be created. —teb728 t c 03:14, 9 May 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:Aaliyahtoigmht.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative shot of a music video. The image supports no sourced commentary about the video. Damiens.rf 15:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. The statement that she performs outside during a rain shower is perfectly understandable without being illustrated by the image. —teb728 t c 09:21, 6 May 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:Black-HeadedGrosBeak-compos.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. Also, it's said to be a composite image but the component parts are not attributed. Damiens.rf 15:57, 5 May 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:Osama Dead Photo.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons to delete this image:

It is an orphaned fair use image no longer used in its target article;
It is a fake photoshopped image from 2009, for example see this article;
The US government already announced it is unlikely to release any photos or video of the killing. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:16, 5 May 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:Peroxy.png

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 ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file. Really needs R1 and R2 at the end of the bonds to signify a group, this looks more like dimethyl peroxide (Which IIRC does not exist) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:34, 5 May 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:Mini Broad striped Mongoose Andringitra.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free picture of a non-extinct mammal. Damiens.rf 20:57, 5 May 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:HUMANCENTiPAD.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: Keep. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cartoon episode screenshot being used for infobox decoration. The details of the scene shown are not discussed in the article in a way that needs imagery to be fairly understood. The stated purpose of use is failed "'This image depicts a frame which helps illustrate text which describes the subject's parody of male celebrities who are self-confessed former sex addicts or have been proclaimed as such by the popular media and public". No such thing is found on the article. Damiens.rf 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally I agree with you on these delete the useless infobox image things. In this case, however, there really isn't any way to describe what's being depicted. I know of the movie this is a rip off of, and that's pretty hard to describe too. What is needed is for this to be shrunk and the FUR to be fixed. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, this case is honestly one of the few times that an image is extremely necessary for audiences' comprehension. How the hell does one explain a "HumancentiPad", after all? It's an odd concept that's difficult to imagine, thus necessitating the need for an image. Also, the episode's plotline deals directly with what is depicted in the image. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 01:20, 12 May 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:LostDrLinus.png

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 ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random tv series screenshot used to decorate an infobox. Not sure how this headshot is helping the readers understanding of the article. Damiens.rf 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a reason why you're singling my uploads out with the Lost/South Park image deletions as opposed to any other ones? Is it because I brought up South Park earlier?--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask it here and in my talk page (where it actually belongs)? --Damiens.rf 22:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of seven different sentences using that same number of words or less that are nicer to CyberGhostface and communicate the same meaning. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read mine again. I tried to be nice. And I think I did. --Damiens.rf 10:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second Sven’s comment. In case you don’t realize it, you have a tendency to be abrasive. Although what you do here is necessary, it is inevitably disheartening to uploaders who don’t understand image policy. It is important therefore to be as kind to them as possible to avoid compounding the hurt. —teb728 t c 11:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I note how the uploader is now asking [2] for advice which other image he should try next instead of this one. The very fact that he is asking that question is proof that the image rationale is invalid. You use an image if and when a need for an image arises from the text. If such a need actually existed, he'd know about it and there'd be no need to ask. What this uploader wants is simply an image for the sake of having an image. He hasn't got an actual need for one, he's merely searching for a pretext for one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm flattered that you've decided to go through my contributions and are now attempting to speak for me. Yes, I think there should be an image. It's a notable episode of a notable television series. The image itself demonstrates not only a key moment of the episode itself but one of the defining moments for character depicted. I find this apparent criteria for episode guide photos to be absurd considering how many featured episode articles have the exact same type of photo such as Through the Looking Glass (Lost)--I.E. a screenshot of a significant part of the episode that showcases what the episode is about. (I assume WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't extend to the criteria of how featured articles are presented, right?) By this criteria, it seems that no fair use image is good enough for Wikipedia as there's next to nothing that can't be described without a visual aid for understanding. Perhaps you could redirect me to some episode articles where the main image is satisfied by your standards? I would very much appreciate that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - FurPerf pretty much nailed it. The link to your post to the Lost Wikiproject shows that you're trying to elaborate an excuse to use some nice image on the article. You not knowing which image would fit is the best evidence the article does not need one. --Damiens.rf 15:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know what image would fit because the criteria you've put forward is contradictory to 99.9% of the fair use images currently on Wikipedia and no one has yet to give me a valid example of a fair use image on a similar article that fulfills your criteria or how the current one differs from the infobox images in numerous other similar featured articles. That's why I asked.--18:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
      - I agree with you that the of the infobox images used on of articles about episodes are violating our policy. If I nominate them all at once, I'll probably be gently asked at ANI to set precedents. --Damiens.rf 18:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you be alright then with a free image like File: Michael Emerson.png for the article?--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The use or not of a free image is an editorial decision that can be discussed locally among article editors. I, for one, do not have an opinion. --Damiens.rf 18:35, 11 May 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:RichardBlackRock.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random tv series screenshot used to decorate the plot. The visual details of this scene are not addressed in the article in a way that would ask us to use non-free material. Damiens.rf 21:11, 5 May 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:Obamamccainsouthpark.PNG

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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cartoon episode screenshot being used for infobox decoration. The details of the scene shown are not discussed in the article in a way that needs imagery to be fairly understood. Damiens.rf 21:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've seen the episode in question, there are much better images that could be used in place of this one. For an image to meet the fair-use criteria, it needs to have a strong tie in with the article itself. How about one with Obama holding the diamond instead? Sven Manguard Wha? 07:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is not strictly correct: "For an image to meet the fair-use criteria, it needs to have a strong tie in with the article itself.". --Damiens.rf 10:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it was a paraphrase. NFCC#8 says "Contextual significance. 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. Purely decorative images are not appropriate." Better? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Waaaaaay better! --Damiens.rf 02:41, 7 May 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:AboutLastNightAiredVersionClip.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cartoon episode screenshot being used for plot decoration. The details of the scene shown are not discussed in the article in a way that needs imagery to be fairly understood. Damiens.rf 21:21, 5 May 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:1205 how reached kids.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cartoon episode screenshot being used for infobox decoration. The details of the scene shown are not discussed in the article in a way that needs imagery to be fairly understood. Damiens.rf 21:21, 5 May 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:10GUI at 807.png

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 ⚡ 00:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably not necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So please speedy it yourself per {{db-author}}. --Damiens.rf 22:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah, I'll wait and see what plays out here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a free diagram showing much the same thing. —teb728 t c 10:30, 6 May 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:10GUI at 656.png

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 ⚡ 00:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of 10/GUI can be explained with free text and, when needed free diagrams. We don't need to use non-free diagrams or video screenshots. Damiens.rf 21:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, that's really hard to get across with text. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reason for using a non-free diagram? --Damiens.rf 22:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a diagram, it's a screenshot, in this case, it's a screenshot of copyrighted software where a) the image has a significant contribution to the understanding of the article, and b) there is no freeware th take a screenshot of in it's place. I'd say this does meet the NFCC. Mind you it needs to be resized and the moment a freeware of this comes out it needs to be replaced, but right now, it's good, IMO. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even a mock software screenshot could be used to convey the idea, if one is incapable to do without images. --Damiens.rf 10:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that that currently does not exist, and it would be very difficult to make a mock up that captures all the essential elements and is not a copyright violation in and of itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It's only a split software screen with an strip in the right. In any case, maybe we don't need to use a mock one. What about the open source community preview of the Con10uum window manager the article talks about? --Damiens.rf 15:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I agree that 10/GUI would be hard to explain with just text. The video explains it well, but IMO this screenshot is of little or no value. Free diagrams could be created which would do a much better job. At least they would not suffer from low contrast. —teb728 t c 10:27, 6 May 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:Allendorist74.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad source. Image downloaded from some copyright infringing website. It lists a lot of images and says only "Scanned on by Adam Blatner, from a directory published by the Moreno Institute in 1974". Damiens.rf 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep, as obtaining a free-licence picture 9 years after her death will be difficult. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her death certificate is not a blanket ticket for copyright infringement. While it could allow us to use some non-free image here, it will need to full fill all of our criteria. When we don't know much about the image's real source, it's hard to do that. --Damiens.rf 22:18, 5 May 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:Obama portrait check.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: Keep Movement to commons is encouraged. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. Not found on source url. Damiens.rf 21:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, PD, it was really easy to find where they had moved it to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it's not useful here. Consider moving it to commons. --Damiens.rf 22:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens, then move it to commons. It's really simple to do. I'd do it, but my TUSC is hopelessly broken and no one can figure out what's wrong with it. I own MM an email over that. My TUSC issues aside, you're the one that voiced a concern, you should be the one to fix it. Deletion isn't the same as making problems go away. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sven, do you think it would be appropriate do so while the FfD is open? I would have thought not. —teb728 t c 09:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to "Deletion isn't the same as making problems go away.", I can think of seven different sentences using that same number of words or less that are nicer to me and communicate the same meaning. --Damiens.rf 10:52, 6 May 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:Typical-serp.png

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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we really need, we can illustrate the concept and workings of Search engine optimization and Search engine results page without the use of non-free material. Damiens.rf 21:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a bad faith nomination by an editor I recently blocked. The image has a perfectly good fair use rationale, and no suitable free replacement exists. Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8 January 2010 is hardly recent. —teb728 t c 00:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC) And please see WP:AOBF. —teb728 t c 06:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that search engine optimization is a featured article. It's not cool to nominate the lead image for deletion without any basis. Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you mean by "without any basis"? I've stated my case clearly on the nomination. --Damiens.rf 22:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a search screenshot that does not include a Google map. (The map is the only thing that is not free here—the Google logo being un-copyrightable.) —teb728 t c 06:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The map is there to illustrate that search results are not just text. There can be maps, images and videos. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But then this is no longer a "typical results page". But in any case, if you want to illustrate an untypical google results page, try a query that will return free images. --Damiens.rf 17:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And this is a lead image. As such its purpose is to identify the article, not to show all possibilities. —teb728 t c 22:11, 6 May 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:Flickr-screenshot.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we really need, we can illustrate the typical characteristics of Web 2.0 without the use of non-free material. This screenshot, for instance, is being used for noting. Damiens.rf 21:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only free image I can think of would be an image of Wikipedia. Per WP:NAVEL we shouldn't decorate Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia screen shots when other suitable fair use images exist. Also, it looks bad for you to be stalking my image contributions after I blocked your account. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but surely NFCC beats NAVEL in this consideration. If we have the choice between a non-free file and a free file, we must choose the free one; there's very little wiggle room there. Also, I don't believe Wikipedia is the only freely licensed website out there that qualifies as an example of a Web 2.0 application (even though maybe not many that are in the same league in terms of popularity and familiarity as either Flickr or Wikipedia). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand why Jehochman thinks NAVEL would discourage use of a Wikipedia example. NAVEL says explicitly that reference to Wikipedia is appropriate in articles “where Wikipedia is illustrative of the subject.” What NAVEL discourages is references that assume the reader is reading Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 06:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As it is, the use is purely decorative and does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. The article does not discuss the screenshot; ironically the caption is the only mention of Flickr. Indeed the screenshot tells readers nothing about Web 2.0. I feel confident, however, that if we think outside the box, one or more free screenshots could be created which show Web 2.0 user interfaces, thereby illustrating Web 2.0 and increasing reader understanding. —teb728 t c 07:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TEB. I can think of a dozen different sites that are totally free and would illustrate collaboration. If using Wikipedia isn't going to fly, use one of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please go fix it if you've got such great ideas. It is not collegial to go around deleting other people's useful work and not bother to even name or better yet install the replacement. Why do you think so many editors get turned off on Wikipedia? Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Generally I believe it is the nominator's job to fix the issue, but since I said that it was easy to replace, I replaced it with File:Mass Effect Wiki Collaboration.png. Hope that helps. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added File:How to edit a page Edit box.png as another example of a Web 2.0 interface. But I emphatically disagree with the notion that a “fix” is a nominator’s job: a nominator, after all, will typically believe that no fix is needed but the deletion of the file (which a nominator is not permitted to do). Rather a fix is the job of the closer and/or of editors who believe the fix is needed. —teb728 t c 06:26, 7 May 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:Goose House Doha.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: Boldly moved to commons —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used and not useful. Damiens.rf 21:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kick it to commons There isn't an article on Goose House, or that lake, so this isn't useful here, but I'd rather kick it to commons on the off chance that it does become useful one day. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Sven said There are plenty of options other than "delete" for an unused image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:57, 6 May 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:How to be really interesting by Steve Davis book cover.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free book cover for a book that's just barely mentioned in the author's biography. Damiens.rf 22:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is used to illustrate the fact he is "interesting". Reasonable fair use rationale in place too. The Rambling Man (talk)

Delete The boilerplate responses that are inserted in FURs when those fields are left blank in the initial FUR creation do not stand up to scrutiny in an FfD. A specific explanation as to why this should be kept and why it does not go afoul of the NFCC is needed. In the mean time, the book itself does not appear notable (notability is not inherited) and does not have an article, the image is only used in the article of the person who wrote it. The "this is a non-free image of a living person" arguement could be made, but is weak. Instead, I'd just go with that it fails NFCC#1 in my opinion. The article loses little to nothing without that image, and the cover image itself is too generic in and of itself for me to accept the argument that it would be hard to describe. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's a useful image to show Davis can self-deprecate (and is now known for it) and this image illustrates it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The cover itself is not the subject of sourced discussion in the article, so the use fails WP:NFC#UUI#9. —teb728 t c 07:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is discussed and it is sourced to the publication of the book. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The book is mentioned not discussed, and there is not even a mention of the cover. Basically the problem is that the use of the cover does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 for non-free content. —teb728 t c 18:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The cover is now mentioned in the prose as the one-and-only visible item in the article showing clearly that Davis is fine with taking the piss out of himself. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The text now describes the cover in free text which is perfectly understandable without seeing the cover. So actually showing the cover does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 for non-free content. —teb728 t c 21:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not at all keen on FUR, but in this inst, I think the book helps convey the specific discussion, viz. His initial lack of emotional expression and somewhat monotonous interviewing style earned him a reputation as boring. As a result, the satirical television series Spitting Image gave him the ironic nickname "Interesting",[98][99] and Davis went so far as to play upon this image by co-authoring the comedic book, How to Be Really Interesting (1988) with Geoff Atkinson and indeed shows his self-deprecation more clearly (via the cover image) than could otherwise be conveyed; it gives the reader an understanding of the 'interesting' moniker (which originated via the TV show), and shows he embraced it. I feel the quoted sentence is enough to satisfy #9. Chzz ► 20:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable source talking enough about the cover's image to have sourced commentary on it. Certainly not commentary that would require this image for the "significant understanding" bit of NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 08:57, 13 May 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:BKandSno.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 as G7 by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. Not useful. Wikipedia is not a free image hosting service. Damiens.rf 22:11, 5 May 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:Budgiekiller.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 as G7 by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. Not useful. Wikipedia is not a free image hosting service. Damiens.rf 22:11, 5 May 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:Hunter Allan Cold Case.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline speedy on the grounds that "some rationale" had been given for fair use. The FU claim appears insufficient ("illustration of given article") and is clearly replaceable as the article in question is about the actor but the image used is from a show the actor was in (hence copyright). QU ^TalkQu 22:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-free image of a living person. Even though getting free images of child actors as children after they are no longer children is difficult, it's still possible. Also, the "sourcing" of this image is unacceptable. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:11, 6 May 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:RuneScape process.PNG

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 ⚡ 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related article deleted Pliigi (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uhh... Sven Manguard Wha? 08:04, 6 May 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.