Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 3

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 3)
< August 2 August 4 >

August 3 edit

Image:Marcia222.jpg edit

Image:Marcia222.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Warhol222 (notify | contribs).
  • This image was tagged as being self-made, but I think it maybe looks like a screen capture to me. It doesn't look like your average amateur digital camera photo. The uploader seems to be a one-day single purpose account. Rob (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that it looks like a screengrab - if you look carefully you can just see that "squaring" effect you get on phone videos and youtube posts, so I suspect a grab from a digital TV signal. The photoshopping must have been to improve the picture. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:06, 5 August 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 Visual representation of an entirely copyrighted, fictional material.  Describing the fair use rationale as "nonsense" is unhelpful and unclear, but nothing nonsensical is apparent upon inspection. Freedom of Panorama in Britain (as here in Canada) would require permanent public display.  Did I miss anything? WilyD 11:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prydonian.jpg edit

Image:Prydonian.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Khaosworks (notify | contribs).
  • Nosence FU rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fair use rationale is extensive and valid, and by no means 'nosence' [sic]. — Edokter • Talk • 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The image is not tagged, which invalidates this nomination. — Edokter • Talk • 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep. I am unconvinced that the rationale is "nonsense," but on the other hand I am unconvinced that the content of this - a particular Time Lord costume used in the 70s (that is admittedly iconic) couldn't be handled by an image from a convention of a fan in costume or something. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is possible that a free photograph of this costume could be taken at, say, the Dr Who exhibition in Blackpool, which has such a costume on display (scroll down and there's a very bad photo). Totnesmartin (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am uncomfortable with deleting because there is a brief period where a photograph could be taken. Unless you or someone else is planning on heading to Blackpool, in which case we can readily replace. But if we're holding a specific prop on a temporary display as our hope, I'm hesitant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image (and article) is not about the costume; it is about the Time Lords. — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What, exactly, does the image illustrate beyond the appearance of the costume, which I will agree is a significant part of the larger subject of the Time Lords? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The image serves to provide a key cultural aspect of a Time Lord, in this case wearing ceremonial dress. In any case, just showing the costume is akin to depicting humanity by only showing a suit. — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • None of this is in the FU rationale, and you are just making guesses as to what the function (if any) is. The time lords have been described as Humanoid. I think it is quite insulting to the readers to imply that their concept of a humanoid is deficient and needs augmented with a non-free image, as for the costume. The content of the image page goes as far as to say the costume is atypical, and anything atypical should not be used to describe something that is typical, however I am just guessing as to the function of the image, as the uploader hasnt told us the function Fasach Nua (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Edokter points out, the image is there to illustrate a character in full costume, not the costume itself. It is therefore not replaceable the way you describe it. So#Why review me! 21:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not replaceable. LA @ 22:21, 8 August 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:Horse Guards Charge.jpg edit

Image:Horse Guards Charge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rshu (notify | contribs).
  • Image appears to be taken from here, and is copyrighted. Shimgray | talk | 01:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the site is copyrighted, but the pictures it uses might not be - one or two seem to be contemporary (such as the thomas brown picture) - is this image out of copyright, though? Try contacting the website and asking. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bob.hawke.jpg edit

Image:Bob.hawke.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paul Melville Austin (notify | contribs).
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 

Deleted.  With a substantive discussion such an image might be usable as fair use, as it stands the very minimal discussion of the wife is too problematic.  Generic fair use rationale makes it difficult to evaluate usage rationale. WilyD 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BobHazel.jpg edit

Image:BobHazel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).
  • A copyrighted picture of a couple of old people does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article. Damiens.rf 04:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image is definitely not replaceable by a free image - Bob and Hazel divorced over a decade ago and Bob remarried. The image reflects how the two were seen and presented together by both themselves and the media at the time Bob Hawke was Prime Minister of Australia. Its presence therefore significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding per NFCC#8. Orderinchaos 15:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Shouldn't the article discuss his first wife if the picture is be used? She barely gets a mention. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely should. I'm surprised it doesn't, on looking, actually (her own article is also quite deficient and a bit UNDUEish). Will let the Politics subproject know. Orderinchaos 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since the article already contains several photographs of the subject, this use of a copyrighted image does not comply with WP:NFCC#1. If the subject of the article was Marriage of Bob and Hazel Hawke or some such, it might qualify. But as an illustration of the subject Bob Hawke, it not only is replaceable, but in fact already has been. — Satori Son 15:09, 5 August 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:Empiresfinestfigs1.jpg edit

Image:Empiresfinestfigs1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timcrow (notify | contribs).
  • No encyclopedic purpose; Wikipedia is not a webhost for images of the pretend army of a pretend nation. May also violate the copyright on the miniature figures.  Sandstein  08:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too poor quality to be used in an encylopedia. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see the image serving any encylopedic purpose. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crustulummortisfigs1.jpg edit

Image:Crustulummortisfigs1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timcrow (notify | contribs).
  • No encyclopedic purpose; Wikipedia is not a webhost for images of the pretend army of a pretend nation. May also violate the copyright on the miniature figures.  Sandstein  08:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Delete per nom. IceUnshattered (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above, the image illustrates a non-extant army. Also, I don't see that the Aerican Army is detailed. Kind of an odd topic, but this isn't an article about the Aerican Army, which incidentally, does not exist. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:23, 7 August 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.  With new "backing map" in place, copyright concerns are met.  While the image is in use "no encyclopaedic purpose" can't really be argued. WilyD 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aericamap.jpg edit

Image:Aericamap.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timcrow (notify | contribs).
  • Silly, original research, no encyclopedic purpose. Does not aid in understanding the Aerican Empire article.  Sandstein  08:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must protest the assessment of this map as being of no aid in understanding. The article itself refers to a political project with defined boundaries, and the map shows those boundaries. It is as relevant as having a map of Canada in the Canada article, or to use an example which editors here might prefer, as much sense as having a map of Faerun or Lothlórien in their respective articles. Timcrow (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic promotion of an entirely nonsensical idea. Also most likely a copyvio anyway, because the creators haven't documented where they took their base map from. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that it's pretty silly, but there are enough references to justify it as notworthy by Wiki standards. If you glance through the article's keep/delete debates that question's been pretty heavily discussed. If the image creator/uploader reads this, do you know if the base map was open source? Datakukri (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The copyright question is a fair point. I`m not 100 percent positive that the base image was open source, but I`ll get in touch with the image creator and find out, and if the image isn`t legal to use we`ll replace it with one that is within a couple of days, so I`d ask editors to give us that time before deleting the file on copyright grounds. While I`m posting anyway, on the topic of whether the image is relevant, I`d like to add that the map is part of the basic `micronations` template that all the micronations articles use; this doesn`t justify its necessity but it does suggest that the editors who are most experienced with micronations articles feel that the use of a map is worthwhile.Timcrow (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've spoken to the map creator. He believes the original map was public domain but he isn't 100% positive so we've replaced the graphic with one using the CIA World Factbook map, which is free to use and edit. This should eliminate the question of copyright. Timcrow (talk) 12:20, 13 August 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:Killerpenguinsfigs1.jpg edit

Image:Killerpenguinsfigs1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timcrow (notify | contribs).
  • No encyclopedic purpose; Wikipedia is not a webhost for images of the pretend army of a pretend nation. May also violate the copyright on the miniature figures.  Sandstein  08:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, I can't see the relevance to the article. The army does not exist. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sandstone Formation in Golden Gate Highlands National Park01.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 debate was speedy deleted via uploaders request. 

--Undeath (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sandstone Formation in Golden Gate Highlands National Park01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blathnaid (notify | contribs).
  • This is an image I uploaded back when I was a newbie and didn't properly understand WP:NFCC. I am bringing it here because I previously tagged it for speedy deletion as a replaceable non-free image, but deletion was declined by an administrator. The image fails WP:NFCC#1 because it is just an image of a cliff in a park in South Africa that could be replaced by a freely licensed photograph. Bláthnaid talk 10:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing NFCC#1 (a free replacement is clearly possible) and NFCC#8 (does not significantly increase readers understanding) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted, as per uploader's own request. Thanks for being so careful about your own uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! Thank you. Bláthnaid talk 12:55, 3 August 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.
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 

Deleted.  Fair use claimed, not used. WilyD 12:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Western isles.gif edit

Image:Western isles.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lexicon (notify | contribs).
  • While many claim that this flag has been seen out once, no reliable source for its existence has ever been offered. Within the islands, this flag is not recognised - the only recognised flag being the one of the local council - there are numerous discussions on this in the talk pages for various articles in the wiki-project Scottish Islands.
  • Delete - this is fanciful, and is unknown to many people in the Western Isles. In addition, the flag used by the teams in the Island Games tends to be the traditional one, with three longships (birlinn) on it.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please note, another version of this flag exists on commons.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its existence would seem to be virtual. Ben MacDui 15:31, 3 August 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:Waterfallinhortanplains(thumb).jpeg edit

Image:Image:Waterfallinhortanplains(thumb).jpeg.ext (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by chanakal (notify | contribs).
  • a better image exists [Image:Waterfallinhortanplains.jpg] Chanakal (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zepp1.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 no longer orphaned, no other reason given for deletion. ~ BigrTex 23:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zepp1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pepso (notify | contribs).
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:LeisaSheridan.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 debate was delete 

--Undeath (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LeisaSheridan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bob987654333 (notify | contribs).
  • No copyright info, no source, no license Dismas|(talk) 20:35, 3 August 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:AlfonsoDoce.ogg edit

Image:AlfonsoDoce.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs).
  • The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alberto Corrales Palenque.ogg edit

Image:Alberto Corrales Palenque.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mercuba (notify | contribs).
  • The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 21:59, 3 August 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: 

- Delete - while the guidelines are just that, putting up 18% of the song is far over the mark and there is no compelling reason for this sample to allow an exception. Note also that the quality is probably excessive - 176kps vs the 64kbps recommended in the guidelines - Peripitus (Talk) 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alizée - J'ai Pas Vingt Ans (sample).ogg edit

Image:Alizée - J'ai Pas Vingt Ans (sample).ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jacoplane (notify | contribs).
  • The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track - in this case 26.3 seconds). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it's 46 seconds. Big freaking deal. I can upload a slightly shorter version if this discussion determines the file should be deleted. JACOPLANE • 2008-08-4 18:39
Also, the only reason I surpassed the 30-second limit is because I didn't want to cut off the refrain half-way through, since that would sound terrible. JACOPLANE • 2008-08-4 18:41
  • To the nominator: wouldn't it be more easily resolved if the uploader was directly contacted rather than going through with all these bureaucratic hoops? Anyways, since when do we follow policies and guidelines to the letter rather than to the essence it embodies? The file is a short, reduced quality sample - isn't that enough to comply with the spirit of the guideline? Oh noes, we now have to cut it midway through a paragraph just because its a freaking sixteen seconds longer! Bravo! Way to go! --soum talk 19:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As a guideline, "common sense and the occasional exception" may permit the extra 16 sec. clip for an accurate representation. You know, we really could do with less sarcasm on this forum by editors (and admins). JGHowes talk - 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments First, for clarity, it is 20 seconds more than the guideline, not 16. Second, the rationale still doesn't provide any reason to exceed the guideline; When the {{ifd}} tag is removed, there will be no reason for the sample not to be renominated for the same reason. Finally, since the article where the sample is used makes no mention of the refrain, it seems like the entire refrain could be cut to get the sample within the guideline. There does seem to be consensus to delete or shorten longer samples - I notice that neither of the objections for this nomination made any objection to the shortening/deletion of the other samples listed around this one. ~ BigrTex 23:09, 10 August 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:Amityville main theme.ogg 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: music sample shortened to meet guideline, nomination withdrawn ~ BigrTex 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amityville main theme.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ianmacm (notify | contribs).
  • The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done The clip is now 29 seconds long. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:17, 4 August 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:Andy Stewart-Donald Where's Your Trousers.ogg edit

Image:Andy Stewart-Donald Where's Your Trousers.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by George Slivinsky (notify | contribs).
  • The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 22:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Animatrix - Beyond - Falling.ogg edit

Image:Animatrix - Beyond - Falling.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robertcathles (notify | contribs).
  • The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. BigrTex 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rihanna Disturbia music video.png edit

Image:Rihanna Disturbia music video.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fergie forever (notify | contribs).
  • Unnotable non-free use music video capture. Nothing notable about this image, just an image of Rihanna, and this aspect of the video is not discussed. Replace with an image that suits the discussion of the video perhaps Ejfetters (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RihannaDisturbiavideo.png edit

Image:RihannaDisturbiavideo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Almonopiniano (notify | contribs).
  • Unnotable non-free use music video capture. Nothing notable about this image, just an image of Rihanna, and this aspect of the video is not discussed. Replace with an image that suits the discussion of the video perhaps - Also, this is a duplicate of the above image. Ejfetters (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rihanna disturbia vinyl.jpg edit

Image:Rihanna disturbia vinyl.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CoolMan 1981 (notify | contribs).
  • Unnotable alternate cover, with same image as other cover, this isn't needed, doesn't conform to non-free use policy, redundant. Ejfetters (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rihanna disturbia remix.jpg edit

Image:Rihanna disturbia remix.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CoolMan 1981 (notify | contribs).
  • Cover is an image with a watermark of another site - against policy, and is spam, replace with cover without watermark Ejfetters (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rihanna Disturbia music video.png edit

Image:Rihanna Disturbia music video.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fergie forever (notify | contribs).
  • Unnotable non-free use music video cap, claimed as album cover, which does not exist. I am not claiming the video isn't notable and doesn't need a screen cap, but this screen cap doesn't do the video justice in its own, we need a better clip that shows notability - this is not notable, its just Rihanna close-up. Should be notable. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to need to move this to the August 3 section since that's when you listed it. Vickser (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I didn't see it there, I must have had to purge the cash, my mistake Ejfetters (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_August_3&oldid=1146678300"