Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 April 30

< April 29	May 1 >

April 30[edit]

File:Cao ni ma CCTV fire.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 G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original uploader of this file; I uploaded it many years ago back in 2009, at a time when my understanding of policy was much more limited. Now that I think about it, this file does not meet WP:NFCC; thus, I would like to nominate this file for deletion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:34, 30 April 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:Curiouskidsja.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value - note that article WGCU Curious Kids has been deleted and editor User:Animalarmageddon has been indefinitely blocked. PamD 10:54, 30 April 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:Curiouskidssc.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value - note that article WGCU Curious Kids has been deleted and editor User:Animalarmageddon has been indefinitely blocked. PamD 10:54, 30 April 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:WGCU Curous Kids event1.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value - note that article WGCU Curious Kids has been deleted and editor User:Animalarmageddon has been indefinitely blocked. PamD 10:55, 30 April 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:The Opening Title Card For The WGCU Curious Kids Grande Finale Special.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value - note that article WGCU Curious Kids has been deleted and editor User:Animalarmageddon has been indefinitely blocked. PamD 10:55, 30 April 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:WGCU Curious Kids Logo.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value - note that article WGCU Curious Kids has been deleted and editor User:Animalarmageddon has been indefinitely blocked. PamD 10:55, 30 April 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:Tangled Soundtrack.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is being used at the film article Tangled. Per the guidelines at MOS:FILM#Soundtrack (derived from WP:NFCI), soundtrack cover images (which are largely non-free) should not be used in film articles because the poster image is sufficient as an identifying image for the main topic. Additional non-free images need to exist for more than just identification purposes, such as commented-on advertising or an analyzed film frame. Use of non-free images on Wikipedia should be limited. Note that an argument in the previous FFD erroneously claimed that this image satisfied MOS:FILM#Soundtrack; it did not because the soundtrack is not notable for its own article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow, I read the previous review and I'm astonished that someone didn't call BS on that. First, it's not notable in its own. MOST soundtracks are never notable on their own, which is why they reside in the film articles themselves. Losing this image is in no way detrimental to the reader, because that would suggest that they are coming here to see what the soundtrack cover looks like, or that someone they have no idea what a soundtrack cover looks like and they're losing out. There is no direct commentary on the soundtrack cover that would require illustration (doesn't appear to be any commentary period). WP:MOSFILM, WP:FUC, and WP:NONFREE make it pretty clear. There can only be 1 image that is used for "identification" purposes in an article, and that's the main image used to identify the main topic of the article. The soundtrack is probably, itself, one of the least important aspects. The music is important, but the album itself is not. That would be like arguing that the DVD/Blu-ray are important because the film itself is important. Please, delete. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with Bignole: i) the image itself is not the subject of commentary; ii) the soundtrack is not the primary subject of the article (the film is); iii) the topic of the article is already identified by the film poster. Readers searching for an article about the film's soundtrack will already have had the film itself identified by the main infobox image—thereby drastically reducing the chances of misidentification—so the use of the image here is gratuitous and the fair use rationale isn't very compelling IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is the previous FfD from last year that was closed as Keep, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 15#File:Tangled Soundtrack.jpg, and I will just quote what I said there since it still applies. "This album cover passes recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#RFC: Soundtrack covers in articles about other media (films, video games, etc.) in that the soundtrack is notable and the cover art is significantly different from the film poster and can be can be included, since WP:NFCI#1 and WP:NFCC#3a are both satisfied. The image passes MOS:FILM#Soundtrack because it states "If an album is notable enough for a stand-alone article (see WP:NALBUMS), one should be created, and an album infobox with a cover image can exist in the new article." and passes WP:NFCC#8 in that it adds significantly to the reading of the article and its omission would be detrimental to the reading." The one instance that the RfC found was acceptable for album cover images to appear in film articles as when the album was notable and the album cover was significantly different from the film poster. Both of those criteria are met here. It seems to me that MOS:FILM#Soundtrack seemed to either not notice or to ignore the consensus found at the RfC that directly applied to it. The album is notable in that it charted on numerous charts and is reliably sourced thereby passing both WP:MOSALBUM and WP:GNG. The solution is to either keep the album cover image in the film article or to split off the soundtrack section into its own article. Aspects (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the album is notable per the album notability guidelines, then a stand-alone article should be had. There is not a consensus at the linked RfC; all I see is Masem's "Case 4" passage as part of reiterating his thoughts, and he initiated that RfC. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Topping some charts does not automatically mean that it is notable. It suggests notability, but if you cannot find third-party coverage of it, then it's not really notable on its own. Thus, it does not meet criteria to exist alone Aspects, and so it doesn't need an image. If the article met the GNG, then why doesn't it exist on its own? Even if it was notable, but still existed on the film page that does not obligate the film article to include the soundtrack image. It being "different" does not either. If there was commentary on the different images, you would have an argument. There is not, thus it still fails WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE. an RfC does not negate those two. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There's really no need for me to add nothing else here, since I completely agree with Aspects. InfamousPrince 16:39, 30 April 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:Attackedhamidmircar.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious WP:NFCC#8 failure; no indication why a photo of an empty car should be necessary to understand that a person was assassinated in it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 30 April 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:Denver cruisers waldo ride 2013.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 F9 by FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copyrighted image published by a newspaper in Denver, and is non-free. Adnroy88 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 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:My Sandbox.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal file, possibly fictional? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:59, 30 April 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:My Sandbox2.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal file, fictional? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:00, 30 April 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:My Sandbox1.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: Image is still being used. TLSuda (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal file, fictional? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It´s for my sandbox--Zorono Suomenlainen (talk) 19:23, 30 April 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.