Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 25

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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 04:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lexie-gh-kristina.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jester66 (notify | contribs).

• Source is "Uploaded by Jester66". That's not really a source; where did this come from? Rationale is also pretty weak. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Put up a source for the file. Jester66 (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You much improved the description page, but it still doesn't have a source. We need more information than just who it was uploaded by... did you find it on a website? (if so, what was the URL where the image is used?) Did you take the screenshot? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put up the website where I found the picture. Jester66 (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay; that looks better. I'd say that the image is good now and I withdraw this request because my primary concern has been addressed (the rationale is still on the weak side, but it is acceptable in my opinion). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 04:15, 25 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freddy Krueger New Nightmare.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scarce (notify | contribs).

• Surplus non-free image. The article already has an image of Freddy Krueger, and another of the new claw style. This image adds nothing significant to the article that the former two already do. Fails WP:NFCC#3a as excessive use of non-free content where less images could largely convey the same encyclopedic information. Peripitus (Talk) 06:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am planning to upload a better photo that shows his clothes better, you have my official permission to delete this image ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 06:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A new image has been uploaded, see Freddy Krueger ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 07:39, 25 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Keep (for now) due to lack of consensus. However, image will be speedily deleted unless a fair use rationale is provided specifically for The Wicker Man (1973 film)

File:TheWickerMan readyforHowie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Davidbspalding (notify | contribs).

• Unjustifiable, excessive fair use image. This does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject. ÷seresin 06:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Okay, you marked every single screen shot for deletion. I concur that other images can be removed, but let's keep this one. This image depicts the "wicker man" referred to in the film's, and article's title. The size of the image is reduced significantly so that it does not dilute or otherwise compromise the copyright holder's entitlement. Because the subject of the article is a film, some images are helpful for the reader to quickly understand the subject (more so than if you simply have the promotional poster image). -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 11:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is not necessary to understand the subject of the article, which is the film. If the reader wants to know what a wicker man looks like, he can look at the poster at the top (which depicts the wicker man from the film), or click on the link and see the pictures in the Wicker man article. A FU image here is not necessary. ÷seresin 02:53, 2 July 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheWickerMan Rowan snapshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Davidbspalding (notify | contribs).

• Unjustifiable, excessive fair use image. This does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject. ÷seresin 06:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 12:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (uploader)[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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheWickerMan Howiewarnsvillagers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Davidbspalding (notify | contribs).

• Unjustifiable, excessive fair use image. This does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject. ÷seresin 06:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 12:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (uploader)[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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheWickerMan LordSummerisleHandsUpraised.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Davidbspalding (notify | contribs).

• Unjustifiable, excessive fair use image. This does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject. ÷seresin 06:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 12:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (uploader)[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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pinyinacc.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stevertigo (notify | contribs).

• Replaced in Pinyin#Tones by Unicode. Original uploader cannot remember source and has stated that he is happy for the image to be deleted and a replacement used instead. Papa November (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is something like this copyrightable? - some image should exist, and be linked to (hyperlink) since some people will surely not display the page properly anyways. 76.66.203.200 (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure I agree with the immediately above that an image is necessary because some computers will not always display the characters correctly. If there are indeed computers that will not display correctly, there aren't enough that justify having an image and unicode (since Unicode is infinitely preferable to an image here). So I think it should be deleted. ÷seresin 08:28, 28 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:When Agnes Lum Was Here cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nihonjoe (notify | contribs).

• The book cover is used in the artist article's infobox without critical commentary against "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" from the fair-use license and against Wikipedia:Non-free content Aspects (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I made it very clear how the image was being used, and yet you are still intent on deleting it and thereby damaging the encyclopedia (you even went so far as to change the license tag I had placed on it). As she was a model, it's very important to have an image of her from that time period as that's what made her notable in the first place. Since she modeled in the 1970s and 1980s, there are no free images available, nor could they be created. You also purposely changed the fair use tag on the image from the one I specifically put there to cover this usage in order to bolster your claim. Talk about not assuming good faith.
• To go through the policy items one by one:
  1. No free equivalent. As she was a model in Japan in the 1970s and 1980s, it is impossible to obtain a free image of her from that time period as all images available from that time period are non-free in some form or another. The image is used to show what she looked like during that period as that is what made her notable.
  2. Respect for commercial opportunities. The image is not used in a manner which would replace the original market role of the image.
  3. a) Minimal usage. Multiple images are not used; and b) Minimal extent of use. The entire work is not used, just the cover. The image is low resolution as well.
  4. Previous publication. The image was previously published outside of WIkipedia.
  5. Content. The image meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
  6. Media-specific policy. The image meets Wikipedia image policy (as is being laid out here).
  7. One-article minimum. The image is used in at least one article.
  8. Significance. Using this image significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic (because she was a bikini model and it shows her modeling a bikini), and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding because she was a model and therefore was notable due to how she appeared at that time. This specific book was used due to the title (When Agnes Lum Was Here) as it is specifically about the time when she was a model in Japan.
  9. Restrictions on location. The image is used only in the article specified.
  10. Image description page. The image description page contains a) identification of the source of the material with information about the artists, publisher and copyright holders; b) a copyright tag that indicated which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use was on the image until you replaced it, Aspects; and c) a specific fair use claim section was included for the article in which it was used detailing why it was considered fair use in that article.
• The file meets every single one of the criteria, and therefore should not be deleted. This hounding of me on this article is growing very old very quickly. I know what I'm doing with fair use images, and I make very sure that the image qualifies when I use one. Your insinuation that I don't know what I'm doing (especially your use of only templates to communicate with me) is uncivil and does not assume good faith on my part. I've been here for far longer than you, and I know what I'm doing. Please stop this stupidity now. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Nihonjoe. Clear bad faith nomination. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 02:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete - the article's subject is still alive and a free image could be taken. While this would not be of her as a model, and perhaps an argument as per Nihonjoe may be valid for an image of her as a model, this use of a cover to illustrate the subject of the cover, without critical commentary on the image itself is one of the types of unnacceptable uses listed under the non-free content policy - Peripitus (Talk) 02:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It illustrates her in role--a current photograph would not be informative. DGG (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, that would be possibly ok if this was not a magazine cover that we are using the illustrate the subject on the cover, something we avoid doing. There are many images of her available that are not magazine covers, and a rationale may be constructed to use them. This is one of the unacceptable uses that is referred to in the NFC guideline - Peripitus (Talk) 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the spirit of the policy, especially given the title of the book itself. It's not just a random "Let's decorate the article with a bunch of images to make it pretty" situation. Rather, the image was chosen specifically because of the title of the book and because it shows Lum during her prime as a model in Japan. It's wholly appropriate and acceptable under the policy. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: since I'm being harassed so much about it, I deleted this image and replaced it with File:Agnes Lum.jpg. This discussion is moot. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:27, 27 June 2009 (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 discussion was: - Delete - Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spock-B Stacey.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arcayne (notify | contribs).

• An identical FFD was filed on June 22, 2009 by EEMIV for CawleyasKirk.jpg. I will use EEMIV's words because I can find none better, "This image is from a Star Trek fan film. It's in Spock ostensibly to illustrate the topic, but the fan portrayal is a small paragraph in the overall article, has no commentary on how the character's appearance (i.e. what's actually depicted in the image) matters or has been subject of third-party commentary, and in general doesn't meet WP:NFCC requirements that the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Erikeltic (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - the aforementioned image AfD for Cawley was for Keep, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with EEMIV's reasoning. The only content discussing the fan production is "Spock has been depicted in at least one fan production. Brandon Stacy, who succeeds Jeffrey Quinn and Ben Tolpin portraying Spock in the Star Trek: Phase II series, also served as a stand-in for Quinto in the 2009 Star Trek film.[19]" That doesn't justify its use per NFCC at all. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How so, David? It is cited, so it fulfills our RS criteria and negates any NFC#8 concerns. It is discussed within the article, so it isn't decorative, negating NFC#10. EEMIV's explanation that it is insignificant is rather invalid. Only three different dramatic portrayals of Spock have occurred in over 40 years. In itself, that is significant enough to demonstrate who has been doing the portrayals. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only three different dramatic portrayals of Spock have occurred in over 40 years. That is incorrect. If you were to include all of the [three] actors to have played Spock in Phase II, then that number would be five. Should we put pictures of all of them in the article because they are mentioned in passing? Erikeltic (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This just gets into your whole bit with the portrayals, Arcayne, and I have yet to be swayed that fan productions, no matter how recognized, are on par with the official portrayals established over decades. Sure, it's verified and discussed in part, but there's no critical commentary explaining how Stacey's Spock is different or similar in appearance or characteristic, and even if there was it would have to be significantly inhibited without the presence of an image. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To Erikeltic: you're partly right, Spock has been portrayed by five different actors, but only three - and this includes Stacey - have received any reliable reference.
• To David: for the most part, I tend to agree with you; most fan productions aren't notable. But there is a point where some of these cross the threshold from obscurity and - akin to what I believe one jaded editor referred to "throwing a video of one's self onto YouTube" - into something recognized by regular media. Once it crosses that threshold, it meets our criteria for inclusion. Now, i will agree with you that they haven't the street cred - fans call it canon - that studio backing gives, but the fact that it is referenced means it's important to note. It isn't a description of the portrayal which is key here, but that such a portrayal exists. It is my belief that it benefits the reader to see the person cited and referred to in the text. We cannot allow our childhood preferences of the original series or the feature film to crowd out the fact that a very small number have interpreted this unusual role in over forty years. Only three have received reliably citable note. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation you're talking about lists another actor, not Stacy, in the role of Spock. Specific to this file, I still say delete because it adds nothing to the article. My opinion on CawleyasKirk may be different at this point--if we have found consensus on format--but my opinion is splitting between them. Also, please, please, please drop the canon cross. Nobody, repeat nobody, is worried about canon. I haven't mentioned it and I could care less. If I was worried about canon, I would not have included information about books (such as I did when I introduced the Shatnerverse in Kirk). EEMIV said the same thing: nobody cares about canon. The bottom line is that this picture brings absolutely nothing to the article and in no way helps the reader understand Spock better. (Period.)

And Dave... FWIW, James Cawley's wiki bio doesn't even have a picture of him and there is no Brandon Stacy bio on which to put a picture. Erikeltic (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure that folk are aware, Erikeltic's emboldened emphasis of his desire to delete the image shouldn't be considered an additional vote (suggesting some weird need to bold everything).

Anyhoo..the citation covers both actors. Are you suggesting a) that citations cannot serve more than one article?, and b) that you might change your vote on another AfD if you don't get this one in your favor? I'm really hoping that isn't the case. As there is indeed citation from Brandon Stacey's character as Spock, htere is sufficient reason that violates none of our fair use criteria for inclousion, and accompanies our text just fine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we have accompanying text, a citation to go with it that specifically addresses the actor as portraying the role and it meets our fair use criteria. While more citation would be spiffy, that we have some from solid sources deflects those arguments of non-notability. Only five dramatic portrayals of this character exist in over forty years, and only three have been referenced via reliable sources. It would appear to be encyclopedic to note them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, effective violation of WP:OI. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BuyUaDrankShawtySnappin.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Holiday56 (notify | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple covers are being used when one would suffice. This image does not convey significant information. — Σxplicit 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, absolutely, this image adds nothing to the article. If the cover is genuinely important, why is it not discussed? J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avnery.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Striver (notify | contribs).

• Copyrighted photo of Uri Avnery meeting Yasser Arafat. Doesn't tell the reader anything other than that Avnery met Arafat; maybe that's enough by Wikipedia's standards but I'm guessing it's not. 71.182.211.165 (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you read the article, it explains why the photo is significant. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean because Avnery was the first Israeli to meet with Arafat in 1982? I'm sure that's not when this photo was taken, so I don't see how it tells the reader anything about that event.71.182.211.165 (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because of that. If this is not a photo of that meeting, then I'd say Delete. If it is a photo of that meeting, then I say keep. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-free image of a living person. — Σxplicit 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't find the image necessary to understand the subject it illustrates—the fact that the two met is just as explainable in words. Since the image does not significantly increase the reader's understanding, it violates our NFCC policy. ÷seresin 08:43, 28 June 2009 (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.