Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 21
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 21
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Julian the pornstar.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dunkalax (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Appears to be a hoax or possibly an attack or joke on someone. Eeekster (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Suggest speedy since it is possibly an attack page -- Raziman T V (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No encyclopedic value indicated. Julian who? Apteva (talk) 19:44, 27 November 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:Roshan Bano and Kitu Gidwani, as the Master and the student, in Dance of the Wind, 1997.jpg
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Roshan Bano and Kitu Gidwani, as the Master and the student, in Dance of the Wind, 1997.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ekabhishek (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No significance and unnecessary with DVD cover image File:Dance of the Wind, 1997, DVD.jpg present for infobox. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Duplicates the DVD cover. Not needed. Apteva (talk) 19:46, 27 November 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.
- 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⚡ 02:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Novemberinte Nashtam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arfaz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Non-free image. Even though it is claimed as a poster, from the original webpage it is stated that it is just a photograph from the set. A poster, screenshot or movie cover wouldbe apt as fair use in this page, but not this. Raziman T V (talk) 13:18, 21 November 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.
- 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⚡ 02:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nellu (1974)2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arfaz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
2.jpg){kind=link}
One poster is already present in the infobox of the article. The second poster does not serve any particular purpose and is hence a redundant fair use image. Raziman T V (talk) 13:33, 21 November 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.
- 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⚡ 02:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Iruttinte Athmavu.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arfaz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
One poster is already present in the infobox of the article. The second poster does not serve any particular purpose and is hence a redundant fair use image. Raziman T V (talk) 13:39, 21 November 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.
- 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. Dianna (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:The Perfect Game.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Betty Logan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Image fails WP:NFCC#8, as it's inclusion in the article doesn't significantly increase the readers understanding of the topic and it's omission isn't detrimental to that. Article also doesn't (and shouldn't) have critical commentary about this {{non-free 2D art}}. Armbrust The Homonculus 13:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Contest – Images that depict the subject matter of an article and are used as the primary visual identification of the topic are readily accepted across Wikipedia to be compliant with NFCC#8; in short, it adds to a readers understanding of the article as much as the film poster at The Avengers (2012 film) which is standard practice across film articles, music albums, books, computer games etc. Also, the non-free media does not itself have to be the subject of critical commentary, it just has to be used in the context of critical commentary (again see film posters/album covers which themselves are not the subject of commetary within the article that uses them), which is the case here, since there is a lot of third party secondary coverage of the topic of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But in this case the article isn't about the 2D artwork, but a concept it depicts. Similarly if an album cover isn't allowed on the musicians article, event if it depicts the musician. Also I don't see, what kind of extra is added with the inclusion of the image. Armbrust The Homonculus 14:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the same token, an album article isn't about the album artwork but the subject matter of the album artwork. The subject matter of the album artwork is the album, which is why it can be used on album articles but not on an article about the musician who created the album, or teh artist who created the artwork. Similarly, given that the maximum break is the subject matter of the artwork then it is qualified for use on an article about maximum breaks, but not for instance, on Cliff Thorburn's article who made the maxium break or Michael Neal's article as the creator of the artwork. An artist creating a painting depicting a particular snooker break is essentially no different to an artist designing a cover for a particular album. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nonsense. Also {{non-free 2D art}} isn't applicable for this file, as the article Maximum break is neither about the work depicted on the image, the artistic genre or technique of the work or the school to which the artist belongs. Armbrust The Homonculus 15:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the same token, an album article isn't about the album artwork but the subject matter of the album artwork. The subject matter of the album artwork is the album, which is why it can be used on album articles but not on an article about the musician who created the album, or teh artist who created the artwork. Similarly, given that the maximum break is the subject matter of the artwork then it is qualified for use on an article about maximum breaks, but not for instance, on Cliff Thorburn's article who made the maxium break or Michael Neal's article as the creator of the artwork. An artist creating a painting depicting a particular snooker break is essentially no different to an artist designing a cover for a particular album. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But in this case the article isn't about the 2D artwork, but a concept it depicts. Similarly if an album cover isn't allowed on the musicians article, event if it depicts the musician. Also I don't see, what kind of extra is added with the inclusion of the image. Armbrust The Homonculus 14:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The licence was automatically added when I uploaded the file; anyway I've replaced it with a more appropriate one. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update The image in question has been removed from the article by Armbrust, despite the fact that the image's licensing has not been reviewed as yet: [1]. I feel this is a disingenuous attempt at revoking the FUR, since if the image is not used in the article it is no longer compliant with the FUR. Obviously, the inclusion of the image is a matter of article consensus, so should the FUR be legitimate for including the image in the article for this purpose I would like that to be taken into account, and would appreciate a sufficient grace period after the conclusion of the review to discuss the image's inclusion on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want I can add it back, but the the parts of the image, that are not part of the artwork, need to be cropped. And this remains. An image, which has not the needed resolution, to convey anything.Armbrust The Homonculus 17:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about what I want in the article, Armbrust, this review is specifically about the interpretation of the FUR guidelines. I suggest we just let a reviewer take a look and come to a decision. If it violates the copyright licensing then it will be deleted anyway, if it's compliant then it's just a matter of article consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the current NFUR and direct applicability to the article topic. Yes, a free photo image can be shot at the hotel but it will still be of the copyrighted artwork, so that's a wash. I do encourage prose discussing the significance of the work in the article. Reliable sources include this Snooker news source, reliable for its topic area: [2] and this Toronto Star obit [3]. --Lexein (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Non of the sources you have given discuss the artwork at all. Also the work has no significance for the topic at all. Armbrust The Homonculus 13:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're apparently reading different things. My browser says this:
- From Global-Snooker.com (2010): "In recent years, the game of snooker has been the subject of numerous works of art, many of them featured on the BBC during major televised tournaments. None more so, than Michael’s “The Perfect Game”, a transcription of Cliff Thorburn’s 147 maximum break at The Crucible in 1983. Cliff, himself came over to the world championship in 2007 when the 12 foot by six foot painting was unveiled in Sheffield where it has remained ever since, and can be seen on display in the lobby of the city’s St. Paul’s Hotel.[1] Further works include Ronnie O’Sullivan’s five minute twenty second maximum break[2] and arguably the most famous Crucible frame of them all, the 35th frame of the 1985 world final between Dennis Taylor and Steve Davis with all 111 shots illustrated in fine detail."[1]
- From the Toronto Star (Nov 2010), "His most recent works were celebrated transcriptions of world championship Snooker games, with every move played out in sequence on life-size canvases. The precision, complexity and beauty of these works captivate all who see them, crowning an exceptional career of visual innovation."[3]
- From the Globe and Mail (Feb 2011), "His pièce de résistance was a series of recent paintings depicting world championship snooker games, with every move played out in sequence on life-size canvases. In 2006, he completed a 13-by-7-foot painting called The Perfect Game. The painting depicts Canadian Cliff Thorburn's historic perfect score during the 1985 world championships. It was unveiled during the 2006 championships in Sheffield, U.K., and featured prominently in the BBC's live coverage of that year's meet."(goes into more detail)[4]
- From the Sheffield Today News(Apr 2006):"It looks like a painting of lines and splodges but this is actually a map of one of the greatest frames of snooker ever played. The lifesize work by the artist and sculptor Michael Myers is a celebration of a televised game in 1983 between two World Champions, Cliff Thorburn and Terry Griffiths. The Perfect Game painting details the precise geometry of how Thorburn made the first televised maximum break of 147 and will be unveiled at a ceremony in Sheffield on Wednesday. Michael created the artwork after being inspired by a Jackson Pollock exhibition many years ago in New York."(long, many details)[5]
- We're apparently reading different things. My browser says this:
- ^ a b "Michael Neal Myers (1939-2010) - Global Snooker pays tribute to Michael Myers". global-snooker.com. 2010.
- ^ "Michael Myers @ ArtScape open studio event". YouTube.com. Christopher Healey, November 22, 2009.
- ^ "Michael Neal Myers Obituary". Toronto Star. December 13, 2010. Via legacy.com.
- ^ "Renaissance man went where the inspiration took him". Globe and Mail. Noreen Shanahan. February 2, 2011.PDF with excellent photo
- ^ "Artist puts a perfect frame on the map...". Sheffield Today News. April 15, 2006. Archived March 4, 2007. Retrieved November 24, 2012.
- I dunno, seems highly relevant to the culture surrounding snooker and 147s. --Lexein (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced. Most of the sources only mention the painting, and describe what it depicts. Only the last contains some analysis, which is not enough. The Toronto Star article doesn't mention it at all and Youtube isn't a reliable source. Also the article doesn't (and shouldn't) contain critical commentary about artwork. Also if the would have this, they should have critical commentary about the image in relation to maximum break to make it worth including it this specific article. Maybe create a standalone article for it, and place the artwork on it. Armbrust The Homonculus 20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, seems highly relevant to the culture surrounding snooker and 147s. --Lexein (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The question is not whether the image is the subject of critical discussion in external sources but whether the image is subject to critical discussion in the Wikipedia article using the image. The image is not subject to critical discussion in the article Maximum break (at least not anywhere near the section it illustrates), so it does indeed fail WP:NFCC#8 in that section of the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Image depicts a key moment in both the history of the game, and the history of maximum breaks, therefore it is very relevant IMO. No less relevant than a picture of the mushroom cloud from the Nagasaki bomb being on the nuclear weapon page. Note: I do think that improvement of the article would help to avoid this issue coming up again. douts (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Improve? How? This article shouldn't be about the artwork, and therefore shouldn't contain critical commentary about the image in question (which doesn't enhance the readers understanding of the article at all). Also the picture of the mushroom cloud is a free image, not comparable to this. It also doesn't depict a "key moment in both the history of the game", for that the video of the maximum break would more useful. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. If there was an article about the piece it might pass for that article, but not for the article it is currently used in. Also, as someone who has no horse in the race, the image does not increase my understanding of the Maximum break article or topic nor would removing it be detrimental. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:54, 12 December 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.
- 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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:IMG 1555.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Matthieu149 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
unneeded image of taken apart computer parts -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Transfer to commons, but rename to a useful name. Apteva (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want images moved to Commons, please feel free to do so, but "move to commons" sincerely is not a good reason to keep. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:58, 27 November 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.
- 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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:IMG 1553.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Matthieu149 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
unneeded image of taken apart computer parts -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Transfer to commons, but rename to a useful name, such as computer fan grill. Apteva (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want images moved to Commons, please feel free to do so, but "move to commons" sincerely is not a good reason to keep. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:58, 27 November 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.
- 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⚡ 02:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:IMG 1628 - Yellow.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mister Safetytoes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphan poor quality photo of safety shoes. Image is taken at odd angle that illustrates no part of the shoe except a yellow dot. Not encyclopedic -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Transfer to commons, but rename to a useful name, such as yellow dot safety toe shoes. Apteva (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not even a useful picture in anyway. It is extremely difficult to tell what the subject is, even more so as a thumb. If you want images moved to Commons, please feel free to do so, but "move to commons" sincerely is not a good reason to keep. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like it is a flipped copy of an official pictures, so likely either copyvio or COI. See this page. The picture with the various shoes at the right appears to have the same background, layout and shadows. Given the name of the uploader matching the name of the business and the comment at their talk page seems like it was used for a promotional article that was deleted under G11. PaleAqua (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch PaleAqua! Most definitely delete. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:59, 28 November 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.