Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 April 7

< April 6	April 8 >

April 7

Image:Kataeb-miliita-crop.jpg

Image:Kataeb-miliita-crop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SaltyBoatr (notify | contribs).

Copied and cropped from a now deleted image that was itself a copyright violation. Derivative work from a copyright violation is itself a copyright violation. Deletion warranted. Yaf (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Godsname.jpg

Image:Godsname.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Teacherbrock (notify | contribs).

Image fails WP:NOR and is not usable in any article because of that. Wikipedia cannot be the first place to publish information. This would be the first place that the word YWHW would be presented in the hypothetical proto-canantite script. I've talk to the author at Talk:Yahweh and looked at the cited sources, and none of them support the claim that YWHW would be spelled this way in that script, or that that culture even was familiar with YWHW. If kept, the spelling errors should at least be fixed. Andrew c ^[talk] 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the "Early Semitic" truetype font semear.ttf (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area... AnonMoos (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low Quality. COI: I'm the creator of the image. I found this on the talk page posted by an anon. This image is well-intentioned, but amateurish and not of Wikipedia quality. I call for removal. Lenticel ^(talk) 09:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:145 4565 1-778961.JPG

Image:145 4565 1-778961.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rtrafaelmd (notify | contribs).

Un-used personal photo. Should not even go to commons. Undeath (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Intercourse.JPG

Image:Intercourse.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cloud111 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, not work safe Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 debate was

kept, image is PD. —Angr 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:QARC_logo.gif

Image:QARC_logo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FitzColinGerald (notify | contribs).

website states nothing about being a Federal Government, http://www.qarc.org/ doesn't show this image either MECU≈talk 14:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the front page, history, and mission sections of the QARC website, it clearly states, numerous times in fact, that it is funded by the National Cancer Institute(NCI), which if I am not mistaken, is a federally funded research and development center. And given that the NCI is an integral branch of the National Insitutes of Health (NIH), I will proceed to update the licensing tag on Image:QARC_logo.gif in a more appropriate/specific fashion. FitzColinGerald (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (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.

Image:Quantum_efficiency_graph_for_WFPC2.gif

Image:Quantum_efficiency_graph_for_WFPC2.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Worldtraveller (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, superseeded by Image:Quantum efficiency graph for WFPC2.png MECU≈talk 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Image is directly related to the commentary in the article. -Nv8200p talk 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BilboTBaggins.jpg

Image:BilboTBaggins.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Papajohnin (notify | contribs).

DeleteNon-Encycopedic, Unclear depiction of activity, Does not represent subject matter in articles used in 77.96.99.100 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8 for significance in the article where it's used. —Angr 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It also fails WP:NFCC#4 77.96.99.100 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's compliance with WP:NFCC has already been reviewed. #8 I don't see why it would fail as the images placement is right after the commentary about a "Halo Hump". Also take note that article has no other images just this one for In video games Not having an image is very detrimental to readers understanding as it relates to commentary about the practice. And #4? Halo wasn't published within wikipedia IIRC, neither was the screen cap.--Papajohnin (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Its compliance with WP:NCC was reviewed, but it was stated that it needed extra review and that it "might" comply. "Might" comply. The decision isnt as clear cut as you make it seem. 77.96.99.100 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deletion would make the article less understandable to people without prior experience of the practise. It has been published on the Bungie website, in fact I think there is a link on the image page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UKWikiGuy (talk • contribs) 00:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, published link. I think it is important to consider the context in which the image is used. The article in which it is used deals with pop culture which some may find offensive alone as well as the image by itself alone too. Having said that, it has been placed so as to differentiate between the act alone versus the act in video games. On the other hand you could say that the image isn't 'Appropriate' or that it is 'Unencyclopedic'. Well then you might as well apply that same logic to the article section itself in which the image is placed because it's mirrored 100%. If that were the only issue(is it?), it should then be noted that Wikipedia Does Not Censor thereby rendering the argument that is should be deleted, both null and void--Papajohnin (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who said it was offensive? The guideline on censorship only applies if the image is offensive, which it isn't. Its a rubbish picture that isnt appropriate for wikipedia. In a similar but less serious way that an image portraying bukkake would be. The fact that it was published on that website is just as useful as if it was published on imageshack. Plus you argument is awful seeing as the image does not accurately portray tea-bagging at all. And it still fails WP:NFCC #8. 77.96.99.100 (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I understand you are saying that it does not accurately portray tea-bagging. That's a valid point as the characters do not have testicles. On the other hand, the image is not used to portray tea-bagging. The image is used to portray tea-bagging in video games. Which it accurately does. Having said that, it meets WP:NFCC #8 and is appropriate for the article. p.s. I just gave you the published link because I thought you claimed it violated #4 and was published within wikipedia.--Papajohnin (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that the term Teabagging is generally more abundant in the gaming community rather than everyday speech. I would also like to add that both corpse humping and Halo Hump redirect to the Teabagging article where this image is used, further adding to the need for a screen capture of the act in video gaming. UKWikiGuy (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (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.