Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 July 29

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 due to the current lack of OTRS information. I've left this for over a week but as the confirmation of the licensing is not forthcoming the image has to go. Of course if the OTRS email comes through at some point in the future, the image can be undeleted and kept - Peripitus (Talk) 02:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zimbo.jpg

Image:Zimbo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CDC Catia (notify | contribs).

• The same image appears on the commercial site http://www.clowningaround.co.za. It is possible, but unlikely, that the uploader holds the copyrights to the image. siℓℓy rabbit14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I Am the full owner of the image. I am Zimbo and clowningaround is my site. I can even upload a file to my server to show you I own the site. Please leave the image but I understand if you dont want the link CDC_Catia (talk)14:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please send an email to permissions-enwikimedia.org from a clowningaround.co.za email address to verify your identity (it will be kept confidential)? Please be sure to link to the image. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The email was sent, I still have not had a response on this subject. It still says market for deletion CDC_Catia {chat} 10:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Owner has been in contact with OTRS, can we hold off on this until we can get a clear licensing statement one way or the other? WilyD 12:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, to be clearer, he was mostly asking questions and so forth. Seems like this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but may take a little while. WilyD 12:22, 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.

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.  Living person, historical importance not established (and unlikely to be the case). WilyD 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peterlaird.jpg

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

• does not meet WP:NFCC8 - readers do not need to see this to understand article Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing to meet NFCC. Peter Laird is a living person and, as such, free images not only can be obtained but are already present in the article. JGHowes ^talk - 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JGHowes. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:25, 2 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.  Fails "minimal use" criterion, anyhow. WilyD 13:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lt_Col_Mayne.jpg

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

• we already have one nonfree portrait in the article Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:41, 29 July 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

- Keep - image is no longer orphaned and article looks to stay - Peripitus (Talk) 13:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zafariqbalkhawaja.jpg

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

• Orphaned, used to be used in speedied article Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind, he is actually important! I will add a ref to the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:16, 29 July 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 Keep

--Q T C 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Richard Hawes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Acdixon (notify | contribs).

• Image missing from Repo for undetermined length of time. Related Bug Q ^{T C} 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original uploader has left me a message saying that they have a local copy and can possibly re-upload. Q ^{T C} 21:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File has been re-uploaded. Please let me know if additional action is required. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:59, 30 July 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

delete. NFCC needs to be interpreted according to the spirit and intentions of the policy, whose fundamental principle it is that non-free image use must be minimal and narrowly  restricted. Under this perspective, Howcheng's argument that just because an image shows something important it is not itself automatically important enough for us to include it carries the day. Besides, it is doubtful if the image even fulfills the legal conditions of Australian "fair dealing", since we are just showing it, not using it for "review and criticism" (in the terms of American law: we are not adding "transformative value" to it). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ItsTimeSpeech.jpg

Image:ItsTimeSpeech.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

• Copyrighted pic of o guy giving a speech. We don't need this copyrighted image to understand the article. Damiens.rf 16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - the It's Time campaign is instrumental in Australian politics and Whitlam's life (as the article indicates) and the ignorance of the nominator is very evident here - it's probably the most famous election campaign in post-federation Australian history. If this can be replaced by a free image of the It's Time campaign then I'll support its deletion, but as it is an instrumental part of Whitlam's life it should be kept. Again, let's stop spurious nominations. JRG (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. JRG is making the common mistake in conflating historic image with historic event. The campaign is important; the photo of it is not. Seeing a photo of Whitlam making a speech does not add anything to the article that can't already be described in text. howcheng {chat} 05:32, 2 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

delete. See closing rationale for ItsTimeSpeech.jpg above; situation is comparable here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dunstan lodge 1973.jpg

Image:Dunstan lodge 1973.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Beneaththelandslide (notify | contribs).

• Copyrighted image showing two guys drinking some juice. according to rationale used because it show "the friendship between [...the tow guys...] in detail and a visual form". This is the worst justification for violating #8 I have ever seen. Damiens.rf 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still have zero (and if possible, minus) respect for people who have enough free time to go around Wikipedia destroying the articles of others' by listing their images for deletion. Gough and Dunstan were buddies, good buddies. They had a strong federal-state partnership. Images of the two together that are uncopyrighted do not exist. The image is significant to both of their lives. To dismiss it as "guys drinking juice" and "the worst justification for violating #8" is a joke. Did you read the article? Michael ^talk 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per Michael. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear NFCC #8 violation. It doesn't matter if free images of the two don't exist; how does showing the two people sitting together help the reader understand the article any better? howcheng {chat} 05:24, 2 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

delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GoughMargaret.jpg

Image:GoughMargaret.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

• Copyright image showing two old women using hats and shaking hands. Rationale says the image is used because "the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article", but I could find no discussion about this hat-picture in the article.. Damiens.rf 16:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear NFCC #8 violation. howcheng {chat} 05:21, 2 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

delete, as per the valid arguments of howcheng and Ipoellet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Timehearst.jpg

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

• Violation of WP:NFCC #2 and #8. No discussion of the TIME magazine issue is in the article, and even if there were, it would have to be far more than "Hearst appeared on the cover" in order for us to need this image. howcheng {chat} 16:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per NFCC#3 and #8. The article already has plenty of pictures of Patty Hearst. The only thing this one adds is that she was featured prominently in the press at the time. This is not a significant addition to reader understanding. --Ipoellet (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't really see how it violates WP:NFCC #2 at all, and I think the claim that it violates #3 and #8 is dubious at best. Considering the great amount of press coverage that her kidnapping garnered at the time, It would seem to me that an image indicating that falls well within policy. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFCC #2 applies because TIME magazine makes money selling their copyrighted covers; our (and all of our downstream mirrors) using it without payment removes a market opportunity from them. In order to pass #8, you would need sourced commentary about that specific magazine cover and what impact that image had on events (see More Demi Moore for an example). howcheng {chat} 21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, come now. Do you seriously think that having such a low-resolution image of a Time magazine cover is going to at all hinder that company from selling the full-size version to collectors? As for #8, it states in full: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. As I stated before, I think using it as an example of media coverage of the incident falls within that parameter. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's what you have to do in order to keep it: Add to the article discussion about this specific cover (not just the fact that she appeared on TIME) with references to reliable sources such that the reader would have to see the cover in order to get a better understanding of the discussion. Again, I point you to More Demi Moore as an example of where the cover itself is significant enough to warrant the use of its image. howcheng {chat} 06:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a notable cover image. No reason to use this image other than decoration. --Damiens.rf 23:18, 30 July 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

delete, purely decorative images, adding nothing to the understanding of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spongebob episode title cards

• Image:House Fancy.jpg
• Image:Krabby Road.jpg
• Image:Penny Foolish.jpg
• Image:NauticalNovice.jpg
• Image:Spongicus.jpg
• Image:Suction Cup Symphony.jpg
• Image:NotNormal.jpg
• Image:Gone - SpongeBob.jpg
• Image:The Splinter SpongeBob.jpg
• A title card for each episode is unnecessary. They are hardly notable in themselves, as they are just the title of the episode. They can be conveyed in text just like all the other seasons of the show. See WP:FU - Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Ejfetters (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also violates NFCC#3 - Minimal usage. Having only one of these may be acceptable (or may not), but a whole passel is not acceptable. --Ipoellet (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see NFCC #1 - No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.) This can clearly be conveyed with text without using non-free content at all, its just the episode titles. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ipoellet. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:36, 2 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

keep, assuming consensus, problem fixed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Symbol template class.svg

Image:Symbol template class.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Killervogel5 (notify | contribs).

• The image is not displaying properly or as shown in Inkscape. Please remove & allow me time to fix it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Deleting this image seems to be unnecessary effort. Why not just leave it and replace it with another version once you get the file working right? --Ipoellet (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Fixed now, I think. There was some SVG junk in the file that needed to be cleaned out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 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.