Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 May 4

< May 3	May 5 >

May 4[edit]

File:Super Sonic.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to get leery of including so many Sonics in Sonic the Hedgehog (character). The fair use rationale for the image is fairly brief, and states that the purpose of this image is "to add a visual description to the Sonic the Hedgehog (character) article." This image adds nothing to the article except another version of the same Sonic in the infobox. This form of Sonic can be adequately conveyed using words alone and with the presence of the other non-free images in the article (i.e. he turns yellow and his eyes turn red). Thus, the image fails WP:NFCC#3. Mz7 (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Yellow body, red eyes. There you go, its been summed up by text. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 10 May 2014 (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:Swimsuit01.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This cover fails WP:NFCC#8. It is used in an article about the photographer and is not critically discussed. It also fails because any reader would still understand (with sources) that the photographer took photos of SI's cover girl. TLSuda (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I looked at the article, the image is discussed and is one of his most notable contributions. It is minimally used, conveys essential information about notability, and therefore is well within fair use guidelines on Wikipedia. I am One of Many (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is of the cover, not just the photo. And it is actually not within WP:NFCC#8 as the image is not required to be seen to be understood. The only sourced commentary states that he took the picture that was on the cover. There is nothing about the cover itself that requires the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delelte no third party commentary about the image -merely a statement that he took it and it was used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 12 May 2014 (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:People Magazine Drew Barrymore 210.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This cover fails WP:NFCC#8. It is used in an article about the photographer and is not critically discussed. It also fails because any reader would still understand (with sources) that the photographer took photos of SI's cover girl. TLSuda (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I looked at the article, the image is discussed and is one of his most notable contributions. It is minimally used, conveys essential information about notability, and therefore is well within fair use guidelines on Wikipedia. I am One of Many (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is of the cover, not just the photo. And it is actually not within WP:NFCC#8 as the image is not required to be seen to be understood. The only sourced commentary states that he took the picture that was on the cover. There is nothing about the cover itself that requires the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking about the article and magazine covers is that he is not notable as a photographer per se. We are not going to see his photographs in museum exhibitions. He is notable because he is very good at taking photos that appear well on magazine covers. That is why I interpret their use as satisfying WP:NFCC#8. If his notability was not so dependent on his taking photos for magazine covers (and I think we see why he is when we look at the covers), I would certainly have come down on the side of failing NFCC#8. I am One of Many (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His notability doesn't matter when it comes to these photos and our non-free policies. What matters is there is no sourced critical commentary about the photos. They are being used purely for identification and eye candy. Neither image is required for any average reader to understand that he was, in fact, a photographer known for photographing models that end up on covers. The article says that directly. Therefore the files both fail WP:NFCC#8 as they do not have to be seen to be understood. This is the same reason we don't show movie covers on directors or actors articles, cd covers for musicians, etc. TLSuda (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, but when you look at how he poses models (google image using his name), there is a very distinctive style that is captured in the magazine covers. I do a agree that neither image is required, but NFCC#8 uses the term "detrimental," which is less stringent than "required." When I first saw the images in the article, read the article, then thought about removing them, I thought "That would be a shame." That's how I came to the opinion that it would be detrimental to delete them. I am One of Many (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could make the argument that removing any image would be the same. It may be distinctive of his style to take photos like this, once again, that information is not sourced in the article. You keep giving extremely specific reasons as to why you believe it should be kept, but nothing is covered in the article. There has to be critical contextual significance that is sourced that describes this style, and there frankly isn't. Also, the word detrimental, used in this context, means the average reader would not be able to understand the article (or section) and in this case that simply isn't true. You also forgot the first part of WP:NFCC#8 (both parts have to be equally met) "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding" since the article only says he took the photos, we don't need to see the images to know he took the photos. If his style was specifically discussed with sourced commentary, one image might be acceptable. As of right now, the images are just used as identification/eye candy and are not supported by the article. With respect to WP:NFCC, the article content has to be there first, before it can support a non-free image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could see deleting one of the two images. The image listed above this one is more representative of his style than this one I would agree. I don't know what the editor intended, but I didn't see the images as just eye candy (though I can see how people could do so). Both images are not required, but I still do think one (the one listed above this one is preferable) does significantly contribute to understanding. I am One of Many (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of why you want to keep the image(s), there is still no sourced content in the article that lines with your reasoning for keeping the image. The photographs/covers are only mentioned in passing. Until the time when the content is added, the images do and will fail WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no third party commentary about the image. and the cover includes many other images that he probably didnt take and that are definitely not discussed, so even if there were commentary for his image, there is not justification for this cover. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:47, 12 May 2014 (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:Abishai.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS in the article that it is used on. Being that Dungeons and Dragons is a fantasy game where the monsters have seen various reincarnations, I don't believe that this specific drawing is necessary. I personally think the image could be replaced by any artist's rendition of the monster (as that is all the original image was intended to be) therefore failing WP:NFCC#1 as well. TLSuda (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:NFLISTS. Steel1943 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2014 (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:Baalzebul.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS in its article, and could fail WP:NFCC#1 due to being an artist's rendition of the subject that could be interpreted/drawn differently by anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2014 (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:Dispater.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS in its article, and could fail WP:NFCC#1 due to being an artist's rendition of the subject that could be interpreted/drawn differently by anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2014 (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:Glasya.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS in its article, and could fail WP:NFCC#1 due to being an artist's rendition of the subject that could be interpreted/drawn differently by anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2014 (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:Mephistopheles.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS in its article, and could fail WP:NFCC#1 due to being an artist's rendition of the subject that could be interpreted/drawn differently by anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2014 (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:JanMostaert WestIndiesLandScape.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file that is a vastly inferior duplicate of commons:File:West indies.jpg --Lambiam 22:35, 4 May 2014 (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.