Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 May 31

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. Image was not significant in Ingrid Bergman or Bing Crosby article.

Image:Bing Crosby Oscar.gif

Image:Bing Crosby Oscar.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sicamous (notify | contribs).

• I think this fails Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy #8 (Significance). I don't think the use of this image in the Bing Crosby or Ingrid Bergman articles improves understanding of either person. Each of these people have free images that clearly show what they looked like (Bergman's article has several free images). This image shows what they looked like sitting next to each other holding Academy Awards. The award ceremony is not discussed in any depth in either article, certainly not to the point that the use of this image is vital to understanding what went on. If this image is OK to use, then it would follow that every winner over the last 80 years should also have an unfree image to show what they looked like holding their award, and I definitely don't think that is the case. Rossrs (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point, then. Perhaps if there is an image of the two sitting so close to each other, more information about the two as a possible pair should be included... and more information on that academy award show should also be included. Your argument for deleting the image is weak; there's no more argument for keeping the image, really, than there is for deleting it... as like any other person there are thousands of images to choose from for an accurate representation of that person's appearance at a given point in their lives, and you happen to not like the one they chose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keitel66 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying. To put it simply there are several images of both Crosby and Bergman in Commons that show what they looked like, and that should be enough for either article. This unfree image offers nothing new, and nothing that is so important as to require an unfree image. It's not a case of me not liking the "one they chose". It's a nice photo. I agree that there are thousands of images to choose from of any individual person, and almost all of the available images are unfree, but we should not be using any of these thousands if a free image conveys enough information to illustrate the article. This unfree image does not convey a meaning that can't be conveyed by prose. Your comments puzzle me, as they don't seem to address our unfree image use policy. Rossrs (talk) 22:04, 16 June 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 discussion was: three images with OTRS ticket kept, others deleted. -Nv8200p talk 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kochi_India.jpg

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

• OTRS permission claimed, but no ticket #. Kelly ^hi! 18:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other images by same uploader with same problem:

• Image:Marine drive kochi.jpg
• Image:Antique shop jew town kochi.jpg
• Image:Padmanabhapuram.jpg
• Image:Skyline de Kochi.jpg
• Image:Yoga girl.jpg
• Image:Gargoyles Revenge.jpg
• Image:Vismaya infopark kochi.jpg
• Image:Ship anchor kochi.jpg
• Image:Raset.jpg
• Image:Site for resort kerala.jpg
• Image:Tejomaya Infopark Kochi.jpg

I don't see where I have claimed OTRS permission. I've only claimed to have requested permission. It's been hardly a day or two since the email was sent. Please assume good faith.--thunderboltz^(TALK) 18:37, 31 May 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. BJ^Talk 04:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PowerpuffBadmojo.JPG

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

• Non-free image without source. Marcus2 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Added source to image. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:30, 1 June 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 BJ^Talk 04:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Badmojoscreen.gif

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

• Non-free image without source. Marcus2 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Added source to image. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:31, 1 June 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.  Clearcut fake licence. WilyD 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FFAjacket.jpg

Image:FFAjacket.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Trees Rock (notify | contribs).

• Uploader says it is GFDL as self-made. It is actually a modification of this which appears to be copyrighted by that website. Metros (talk) 20:50, 31 May 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 discussion was: delete. As the only one using the image is the uploader and he/she did not voice support for keeping the image, I see no reason not to go with the majority here and delete it. Any other "irredentist images" will not be deleted unless they are nominated for deletion and then will be evaluated on their individual discussions. -Nv8200p talk 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Unitedbulgaria2Ivailo.JPG and Image:Unitedbulgaria2.JPG

Image:Unitedbulgaria2Ivailo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bulgarian89 (notify | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic, used only for highly divisive/inflammatory political irridentist soapboxing. Duplicate unused, listing together. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that these pictures might look inflammatory in the eyes of someone who isn`t aware os Balkan history, however, there are some details which utterly change the situation.The descendants of the Slavs who lived in the historical-geographic area Macedonia at the beginning of XX century are about 4m.Of whom not more than 1.5m(1.3m in Macedonia and 100-200,000 living abroad) consider themselves as ethnic Macedonians whereas the others(certainly the bigger part) think of themselves as ethnic Bulgarians and prefer Macedonia to be annexed by Bulgaria than Bulgaria to cede territories to Macedonia.Furthermore the unification of "the both Bulgarian republics"(as Georgievski called BG and MK) was promoted even by the ex-Prime Minister of Macedonia- Ljubcho Geogrievski who several times suggested that this is the only way the s.c. Macedonian question to be solved.Therefore I think that it`s quite fair to be presented the Bulgarian viewpoint for united Bulgaria just like we have pictures showing the idea for united Macedonia, including parts of Bulgaria.After their pictures don`t provoke mixed feelings in me than why my pictures should be considered as problematic? If the problem is the title of the pictures and it`s considered as biased I can change it to "unitedBulgaria-Bulgarian vision or Bulgarian viewpoint". --BulgarianPatriot (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't care how anyone tries to justify the inclusion of this particular image but I presume that, by the same token, all other irredentist images on wiki, such as [1] [2] [3] [4] (that serve no discernible purpose; I guess some are used in articles eg Greater Albania) will be deleted as well? 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that series certainly is annoying in the same way. It seems we keep dealing with these kinds of userpage elements and they keep bouncing back at us. Want to nominate those four? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two key problems with this image - it is unnecessarily inflammatory (even if not deliberately so) and moreover, unencylopedic. If there was an image that showed the international boundaries sought by a particular Bulgarian nationalist organisation, presented in a neutral and sourced way (e.g. with proposed boundaries overlaid on a map of current international borders), then that would be a perfectly fine image to use in Bulgarian nationalism, Greater Bulgaria, Nationalism in the Balkans... and if anybody is so keen to put their nationalist sentiment on display on their userpage, that is an issue for them and/or userpage policy, not acceptable image policy. This image however, with a Bulgarian flag drawn over the image, and without current international boundaries shown, would be of no use in the body of the encyclopedia and since it serves no conceivable encyclopedic purpose there is no reason to keep it here. Some use of Image: space primarily for userpage reasons is tolerated (e.g. photos of contributors, which certainly wouldn't belong in the main body of the encyclopedia) but they are not actively harmful to the project, whereas this image certainly will cause offence to some other contributors so it is harmful. At the very least it "raises the heat" - and Wikipedia is a heated enough place as it is. 87.114.6.92 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 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.