Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 19

< June 18	June 20 >

June 19

File:Nomoregod.svg

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 ⚡ 10:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This potentially offensive image (read:)"However, images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner" is not used in any articles and is similar to File:Nomoregod.jpg, especially as more than 100 images link to that file. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is no more potentially offensive than any other statement of personal belief. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orphaned and redundant to the existing image on Commons. — ξ ^xplicit 00:43, 27 June 2012 (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:Salsali Private Museum Interior.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this non-free image is replaceable, as the artworks hanging on the walls fall under de minimis. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 11:42, 19 June 2012 (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:Students group shot.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

uploaded as "own work" but appears to be copyvio of http://sspnyc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/About-SSP.jpg Hairhorn (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2012 (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:Mike Patton-bungle.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not critically discussed. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2012 (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:FoundationSeries.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 - and now for the long winded explanation of why I found Gohst rebuttal to not prove the images met the criteria: The generic argument that because there are many books we need many images has never held sway in deletion arguments, and does not address this specific collage in it's current use. There is no difference, as far as the non-free criteria are concerned, with multiple images in a gallery or a table, and multiple images joined in a collage. If the images cannot be justified as separate images then they likewise cannot be justified in this form - Peripitus (Talk) 08:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive: no need for a gallery with all images. Just one is enough. Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not excessive. One image of one cover would be suitable for the one page on that novel. One picture showing all the covers would be suitable for an article which discusses all the novels. The image in question is being used in Foundation Series, which discusses all the novels at the same time. -Gohst (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Showing multiple covers isn't consistent with WP:NFCC#3a or WP:NFG. If you want to see the individual covers, I assume that they are available in articles about the individual books anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quote "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." - One cover of one of the books in the series does not convey the same information as all seven covers *when you're in the context of the entire series." To quote your second rule: "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis." The images are not arranged in "gallery" or "tabular" format and eitherway convey information that is relevant to the series *as a whole* that cannot be expressed with one image. To continue the second rule "alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." again, I put it to you that one cover image would be sufficient for the article on that book. The series as a whole however does not - as of yet - have one singular cover. When that happens, I'd be glad to see it replaced. Until then, I believe that the image as it stands suits the article best. -Gohst (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2012 (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:Alexia Vassiliou in the film noir, Sacred Whispers.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot from copyrighted film used for article on living person-violates NFCC. We hope (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2012 (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:Soul Decision Band Picture.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd image. Seemingly a photoshopped version of this with an "extra member"; the image was added into several articles. I am assuming that this is a joke and/or a copyvio. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was just going to add {{db-f9|url=http://offmybirdchest.blogspot.se/2010/09/just-cuz-top-errr-13-millenium-pop.html}} when WP:TW told me that someone has added an {{ffd}} template. However, it is photoshopped: one person has been added. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2012 (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.