Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 29

< November 28	November 30 >

November 29[edit]

File:Sukumar's untitled project poster.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. Cogent arguments have been put forward for deletion, and no meaningful arguments for keeping. We can ignore arguments which have no connection with Wikipedia policy (e.g. "deletion is unfair") or no connection with the reasons put forward for deletion (e.g. "Because it is still used in the article"). Those arguing for "keep" have provided no evidence to support the claim of public domain release, nor any meaningful attempt to answer the statement that the image fails WP:NFCC#8. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free alleged film poster of an upcoming movie that is slated for release in mid-2013 and hasn't even had its title announced yet. No evidence that it is in any way official; contains no actual information about the movie (just a common portrait photograph of the main actor); most probably just fan art; not found on the official actor's website cited as the source (but on various fan sites and an inofficial Facebook account). In any case, films that are not yet the object of official promotion don't need posters as their "primary means of visual identification", so there is no reason to have one here under NFC, even if it were genuine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator would do well to cease his years-long violation of our stalking policy; it's impossible for me to make edits in the file namespace without him confronting what I do. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Because it is still used in the article and it is an official poster released by 14 reels entertainment studio being untitled and the temporary title is " Production no.3 " released as a birthday special to Mahesh Babu. See this Production no.3 link. It was released into public domain. Raghusri (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a fan page on Facebook. Where do you see that it is an official poster (let alone the official poster) used by the production company to identify the film? Also, where do you see a public domain release? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see this website : Production no.3 This was the official poster/ad released by 14 REELS ENTERTAINMENT (P) LTD on the actor Mahesh Babu birthday. See these for reference : Paper AD by 14Reels, Production no.3 because 14 REELS also released another image on this actor's Birthday. These images were released by 14REELS into Public domain. So deletion is unfair. Please remove the FFD template. Discussion almost reached to consensus stage. Raghusri (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Those are still inofficial Facebook pages. Where's the link to the official site? And even if it's a tribute to the actor released by the production company, it still doesn't serve to visually identify the movie. How can you visually identify something that doesn't even exist yet and hasn't even a name? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image was indeed released by the production company. This was published as a paper advertisement in regional news papers across Andhra Pradesh, India. I see the logo of the company with the names of the director, producers, executive producer, music director and the cinematographer mentioned on the poster. The lead actor's photo with the title "Production No: 3" (common practice to name the untitled movie using the number of movies produced by the studio as a reference) and the director's name on it makes this poster easier for anyone who knows a bit about Telugu cinema to identify the movie. I vote to keep this poster until a better alternative comes out. Thanks, krZna (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The "names of the director, producers, executive producer, music director and the cinematographer" are easily conveyed in text. What the lead actor looks like can easily be shown with a free photograph. Beyond this, what does the poster actually tell us about the movie? Nothing. It doesn't show us anything about the movie's plot, its setting, its character, its atmosphere, nothing at all. In what sense, then, does the image contribute to our understanding of the article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Deletion of the image is totally unfair per the above reason i have stated. Raghusri (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Not unofficial. It's the official poster. So consensus for the above is Keep the image. Raghusri (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Official or unofficial, images used under Non-free content policy if not suitable under the basic criteria of "significance" should be deleted. The image used here is not the "actual" poster of the film. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to User:Raghusri: Do not move files while they are at FFD. Do not rename them while they are here. And if it really is a live or die situation that needs renaming of files that very instant, keep the FFD tags intact. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I said so many times it's an official poster released by 14 REELS into newspapers, public domain on that actor's Birthday. So deletion is unfair. Raghusri (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain? Prove it so and move it to Commons and remove the fair-use banner then. Dont just say it so many times. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the links above at the top of this discussion. Aren't they public domain's??? Deletion is unfair. Raghusri (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No link listed in this discussion provides any information about the copyright status of this poster. Without any indication of the opposite, we have to assume that the poster is protected by copyright. However, the issue is whether the image complies with WP:NFCC#8 or not, not whether it is protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check the discussion once again thoroughly from top to bottom. There are three external links. On those posters 14REELS Copyright status exists. Actually they only released those posters in Newspapers and in the Internet as a Birthday gift to their favourite actor Mahesh Babu. Those are not fan made posters. They wished that actor. So it is copyrighted. Deletion is unfair. Raghusri (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! So it is not in public domain, as you have been saying it for so many time. That thing is clear.
Now you have to argue for WP:NFCC#8. How does this image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:19, 18 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.

File:Eco-ogle.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 ⚡ 03:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan & Unencyclopedic

Move to Commons: Assuming the info is correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 5 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.

File:Obama.wins.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 ⚡ 03:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC#8, non-free media must significantly enhance readers' understanding and its omission decrease said understanding. This image is not critical or necessary for understanding, but is used in a decorative fashion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands, the image does not significantly add to the article and it is not incorporated into the text. Additionally, the NFUR notes that it shows a pivotal scene, but the scene is adequately described in the text to the point where the image does not increase readers' understanding of the story. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:49, 2 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.

File:Caveguy.png[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 ⚡ 03:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8: not significant for understanding the topic —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single image of a minor character does not meet nfcc#8. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:58, 2 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.