Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 October 7

< October 6	October 8 >

October 7[edit]

File:Aardia Logo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 00:15, 7 October 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:James Dearing.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality (where are his eyes???), source site is a dead link. Replaced by File:James Dearing cph.3a03749.jpg. —howcheng {chat} 01:03, 7 October 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:Steven-Kerzner-Ed-The-Sock.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 as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the photo, Steven Kerzner, is still alive, so it is a replaceable photograph of a living person and therefore not permitted under NFCC guidelines. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 7 October 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:Izzie Crying on Denny.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: no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image doesn't pass WP:NFCC. Doesn't help the reader understand the topic or subject at all. TBr and ley 17:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. There are some good rationales on the image's description page; however, none of them (like the critical acclaim of the dress) are mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are numerous critical reviews given, commenting on the dress. It seems the nominator does not understand NFCC, which allows for the use of non-free images for "critical commentary". TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, C.Fred, all the reviews mentioned in the rationale are included in the article; please reread #Reception, you must have missed them. Two critics commented on the dress; the image is essential in allowing the reader to understand what it looked like. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not extensive reviews, but in there. In which regard, the image should be moved from the infobox to the Reception section, to place it closer to the relevant discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the image, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with a better more clearer image of the "pink dress". The image should also be moved back to the infobox and put as the caption; "Critics liked the dress...." — M.Mario (T/C) 18:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because critics also commented on Alex intervening; the pink dress is visible. I think the image is best next to the critical reviews. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Upon further reading, Delete, I can understand the article without the image, the only reason I would need it as a reader is to see the dress, which I personally cannot really see in the image above. — M.Mario (T/C) 21:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't make sense. If you click on the image, you can see the dress. The reader needs to understand what the dress look like, since multiple critics commented on it. You seem to be spiting me since I don't think the image needs to be replaced. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not at all. All I am saying is that I do not think the image is neccessary in the article. — M.Mario (T/C)
        How is a reader supposed to understand what the dress looks like without a visual? Impossible. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        As in X-Files episode articles, basically all of them, state why that image is used in the caption itself, like "Her red dress was critically examined, and was in production." stuff like that. TBr and ley 18:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm still not clear on the purpose of this image's inclusion. The caption says the dress was critically examined -- how? And how does image help the viewer understand that fact? Let me give you a hypothetical scenario where this image can be used. Suppose the article text read, "Heigl complained during shooting that the large bow on the side of the dress kept crawling up her armpit, making it very uncomfortable." If you had this accompanied by a shot of said bow in said armpit, that would be good. Here, the most we have is that critics liked the dress, and we don't even have a picture where you can see the whole thing. Even if you did, I still don't think that would warrant the inclusion of the pic, unless the costume designer won an Emmy or something for the dress. Then it actually makes sense to have such a picture. —howcheng {chat} 20:31, 11 October 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.