Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 August 27

< August 26	August 28 >

August 27[edit]

File:PitchPerfectAtSummerSlam.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 as F5 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fair use image for the reasons given per other image listed on August 24 and speedily deleted under F7. Article targeted (SummerSlam (2014)) is not appropriate as it is trivia with no proven connection to the show. Has no other known use on Wikipedia. 1.136.96.185 (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2015 (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:Australopithecus.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and likely a copyright violation. The image appears to be a scan from an encyclopedia or textbook. The image page states "Enciclopedia Combi Visual (1976)" which appears to be a Spanish encyclopedia, making me think it was probably scanned from that book. The uploader likely didn't have the authority to release the image into the public domain. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 04:49, 27 August 2015 (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:Autumn Colours.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and low resolution. Commons has over a thousand Autumn-related images which are better quality for use. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 04:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low quality image indeed, plenty of good alternatives. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:16, 28 August 2015 (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:Funny quests.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic and very likely a copyright violation since the image is all over the web on about 1000 sites. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 07:53, 27 August 2015 (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:Panasonic Toughpad FZ-G1.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10 screenshot? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2015 (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:Fighting for what tree!.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: Speedy delete as a copyright infringement. The image is at https://competition.adesignaward.com/press-pack.php?C=49 where, to access it at full resolution, one has to have press accreditation. The claim by the uploader that it is his/her own work and that he/she owns the copyright is totally implausible. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewellery design subject to a separate copyright Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2015 (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:Uttar Dakshin.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: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 10:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate non-free content, has no contextual significance —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Its the cover art of the film's CD/DVD. And what duplicate? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless IndianBio can provide a better explanation of how this file is "duplicate non-free content". Presently, to me, it seems to be the only film cover/poster uploaded for use in this article and satisfies WP:NFCC as being contextually significant since it's the film's cover... --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- NickW557 please check the nominated image. It is not the film's poster which is nominated for deletion, it is the film's soundtrack cover. The cover fails WP:NFCC#3a here since an almost exact duplicate is the film's poster. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! But where is the duplicate that you are always talking about? Can you link it here? I failed to find it and I think NickW557 did too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would only fail WP:NFCC#3a if the film's poster had also been uploaded for use in the same article alongside the soundtrack cover, since it would be excessive to use both in the same article, if they're both nearly identical. However, I'm only seeing this one file used in the article. Per the text of WP:NFCC#3a, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" (emphasis is mine). This does not require zero non-free images, which is what we'd be left with if this image is to be called overuse. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Dharmadhyaksha had deleted the multiple usage in the article. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So there is only one image which was being used twice and you blindly raised this FfD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: such posters do have copyrights and uploader should have permission to upload it.--preceding unsigned Bad Faith comment is by Human3015 17:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to comment something ~~as bot identified my earlier comment as "bad faith" comment.~~ Dharma is admin at "Commons" and he do know about "copyright" or "non-free content". Dharma has not mentioned this poster as "own work", if he would have mentioned it as own work then we could have thought about deleting it. I personally not much aware about licensing of such images but according to my experience "poster" or "song cover" is allowed to upload on Wikipedia if it is attributed to copyright owners and used only for identification purpose in the article. Such images are not allowed to use somewhere else and only meant to be used in infobox. I think there is no problem with this image. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 17:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)--corrected my comment --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 05:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - @Human3015: In the same edit you've !voted Delete with a cryptic "unsigned bad faith" message, and then added a Comment which seems to indicate you're in favor of Keeping this image and purporting that a bot "identified" your earlier !vote as bad faith, when in fact you added that message. Can you clarify your position? --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 00:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NickW557: This Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive896#AfD_in_Bad_Faith might help in understanding the weird comment by Human3015. Btw, Human3015, if you have no knowledge of things you are not required to opine. After all Wikipedia is not compulsory. And do consider WP:WIKIHOUNDING and its consequences next time you decide to just pop up on things concerned with me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: Do read about WP:ACCUSE. And you really can't dictate me where should I comment and where I should not. This image is Bollywood related and I'm interested in this project. I'm usually active on India related projects. If you have any doubt about WP:WIKIHOUNDING then kindly raise this issue at WP:ANI, it will benefit you. Thank you.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 05:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! But you aren't worth spending time on right now. But if you happen to be hounding me again, you will be dragged to ANI for your worst. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: I'm again saying you, you really can't dictate me, I'm free to comment on such India-related deletion threads. And please don't use such "destructive" language again and again, it will not work on Wikipedia. Regards. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 06:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just asking, where I can get list of such all face templates with various expressions, this is 2nd time you used such kind of template while in discussion with me. I want whole list of such templates so that I can use it while having discussion with others. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 07:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check Template:Smiley2 and Template:Emoji/Gallery and many others on Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 08:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking your previous comments. It is rather misleading to claim that a bot tagged your previous !vote as bad faith, when in fact no such bot did any such thing. I had to consult the page history to assure myself that I hadn't missed a technological achievement that would have been the creation of a bot which could detect bad faith! --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe! They won't make such a bot. "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A movie poster being used on a page about the Movie. That's fair use. Nothing wrong with it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2015 (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:Dykes to Watch Out For (Bechdel test origin).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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 06:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the rationale for File:Internet dog.jpg, where the article On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog is about the cartoon itself, the Bechdel test article is about the general concept of the test itself, not about the comic. If there were an article titled something like The Rule (comic) that featured sourced commentary on the comic strip itself I could see this being a valid rationale, but as it is the Bechdel test article only makes a passing of Dykes to Watch Out For and "The Rule" (the name of this particular strip), and makes no commentary on either the art, the characters, or the specific dialogue beyond a (non-verbatim) restating of the rules. There is absolutely no context lost by omitting the strip and keeping the restating of the rules that is already in the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NFCC#8. Critical commentary is about the test itself, not about the comic. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This file meets all of the non-free content criteria, including #8. This image is from the strip that is the origin of the Bechdel test and its removal would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic. The Bechdel test#The Bechdel test section describes the strip, the characters, and the dialogue. If needed, more detail could be added here, as plenty of sources go into a fair amount of depth on aspects of this strip (like the fact that the marquee in the strip credits Liz Wallace; see also [1]). For readers unfamiliar with Dykes to Watch Out For, the image significantly increases their understanding of the topic, demonstrating the style and layout of the comic, the appearance of the characters, references to the era (1980s) when the strip was produced, and other details that the prose can't and doesn't adequately convey. Even for readers familiar with DTWOF, the image provides other crucial details. While the Bechdel test is also called the "Mo Movie Measure", we can see that Mo is not one of the characters in the strip. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 16:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "an unnamed female character says that she only goes to a movie if it satisfies the following requirements" qualifies as the level of sourced commentary required to reproduce this much of a copyrighted work. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sourced commentary that addresses the strip in more detail. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 03:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The grunginess of the comic strip illustrates the subcultural context in which the test was originally proposed, which is required for the reader to appreciate its transition into mainstream criticism, as commented on in the article. Sandstein 06:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the sourced commentary on the "grunginess" of the image? We can't use copyrighted images because we suspect that the reader may interpret some "subcultural context", we can only use them if the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This specific picture file is uniquely positioned to explain in an effective manner the Bechdel/Wallace test and its underlying context. --Pinakell (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, since there is no sourced commentary on the image itself in the article, what purpose does this image serve that a summary of the three rules and link to the original comic wouldn't serve? The underlying context isn't presented by this image because both the first and last rows of the comic are cropped off. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The strip's inclusion in the article does increase the reader's understanding of the subject, specifically it shows exactly how the Bechdel test was introduced to the world. The text description supplements that understanding, but the strip itself conveys more context and information. I've moved the image to the section that is specifically about the strip so that it's connection to the text is more obvious. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comic strip is where this rule first appeared, so it's directly relevant, and showing it does much more than explaining it could. Sarah ^(talk) 21:38, 10 September 2015 (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:Batalha.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, replaced by commons:File:Lagos46 kopie.jpg. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:16, 27 August 2015 (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.