Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 27

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 – Quadell ^(talk) 02:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pride Seven Deadly Sins.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tzim78 (notify | contribs).

• File:Envy Seven Deadly Sins.JPG
  
• File:Wrath Seven Deadly Sins.JPG
  
• File:Greed Seven Deadly Sins.JPG
  
• File:Sloth Seven Deadly Sins.JPG
  
• File:Gluttony Seven Deadly Sins.JPG
  
• File:Lust Seven Deadly Sins.JPG
  
• These images seem to be an artist (the uploader's) personal interpretation of the Seven Deadly Sins. I don't believe that hosting images of how one non-notable artist feels they are exemplified in photos is proper. seresin ( ¡? )  05:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. also do not appear to have any value for illustrating other articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete agreed. I was just looking at the Envy page and was really confused. This is not an encyclopedic image for this article. Optimusnauta (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the above...and the creepy Barbie doll. §hep^Talk 07:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... pretty pictures, but the objects are not universal symbols of the sins depicted. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per consensus, no notability of the images. Ejfetters (talk) 19:15, 4 March 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 Thingg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Orphaned. Replaced with higher-quality and more relevant alternative. (Note: File was incorrectly listed for deletion at AfD by TechOutsider. I am simply moving the discussion to the appropriate place.) fuzzy510 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 02:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2007wc-champs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by In2itive (notify | contribs).

• Decorative non-free image. There is nothing iconic about it and it would not impair reader understanding to simply not have a photo. B (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Isn't it possible someone could have been there and taken a free image? Either way it doesn't add significant value to the article. §hep^Talk 07:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, purely decorative. Ejfetters (talk) 19:13, 4 March 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blake Scott A.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eadesplace (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, summary says "© 2008 Blake Scott, Arbitrage Records", so non-free. JaGa^talk 06:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete apparent CV. Ejfetters (talk) 19:14, 4 March 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Engo02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Engomusic (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, intended for a page that got deleted. JaGa^talk 06:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per unencyclopedic. --Artene50 (talk) 10:27, 1 March 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Claire bennet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Reevnar (notify | contribs).

• no source given and copyright status is unclear. the source is another wiki page, true source not listed. copyright tag states photo is released for promotional use, we have no evidence of this. as discussed in several TV series pages, would be better replaced with a screenshot, DVD series are widely available, maybe someone can grab one from them. Ejfetters (talk) 07:23, 27 February 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raymond Aaron on Unicycle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Raymondaaron (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. Properly OTRS accredited, uploaded by subject of picture for use in an article on himself that was deleted at AfD and, as far as I can recall, never used. No obvious alternative use despite skill being shown in the picture! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We probably could use this picture in the unicycle article-- there is no illustration of someone riding one "normally." Crypticfirefly (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to commons perhaps? Ejfetters (talk) 19:12, 4 March 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unused, unencyclopedic. Can't tell what the photo is of. §hep^Talk 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: One of the worst quality images that is not even used, even if we could identify what it really is. ww2censor (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The uploader should choose a better image of the stadium. This one is almost unusable. --Artene50 (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and its an orphan too. Ejfetters (talk) 19:11, 4 March 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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:I Do Not Hook Up.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jphil126 (notify | contribs).

• This is a FAN MADE album cover, it is not official, this song has not been announced, or confrmed as a single, it is assumed by an interview where it was stated it 'MIGHT' be a single Alankc (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CBALL No one can predict the future except God. --Artene50 (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Since it's a fan-art cover, the licensing rationale in the image is completely bogus. That makes it a candidate for CSD under rule 7, "Invalid fair use claim".—Kww(talk) 02:45, 2 March 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: Deleted by PhilKnight. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iwantyoumusicvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).

• This image is merely a picture of the artist and a telephone. It adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI completely disagree. The image shows an instant of the video where it shows the artist waiting for a telephone call from her lover. This does add to the readers understanding and frankly, how can you expect to convey the mood, the emotion portrayed in the picture through words? This image doesnot fail NFCC#8. --Legolas ^(talktome) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you specify why do you think it doesnot add to the understanding? --Legolas ^(talktome) 05:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment user blatantly attacked me at my talk page for agreeing with the nom of the deletion article, this does not help his case. Ejfetters (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not a random comment or an attack. Admins please check the talk page. Seems like this user is adding the same comments for all the images up for deletion. It seems since his own uploads are speedily deleted or fails non-free rationale the user is or wants others uoloads to be deleted also. He/She adds comments as "delete per nom" or "speedily delete" to images. My concern is someone who understands what kind of WP images doesnot fail NFCC, should be able to upload images by himself/herself properly, which sadly is not (evident from the users talkpage). Hence i am worried about his comments and on what basis he/she is giving them.--Legolas ^(talktome) 07:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I simply agree with the nominator of the article, that it is simply decorative. I opened the image looked at the article, read your discussion, disagree with it so I posted this here. I don't add Delete per nom to every image, if you look I opposed the deletion of one of your images, because the dress is discussed in the article at some length and agree with you on that. I don't know what images you are a referring to that keep getting deleted. The only image warnings I see on my page are for orphaned images that have been improved and such non-free use orphaned images are removed, but as a courtesy I am told about it. I do nothing because I look at the new image and see that it is a better image, and the work has been improved upon. I did not add this to all images either, just the ones I agreed with. Several images I didn't agree with and stated why I didn't agree with them. Anyone can comment on here, and I will continue to do so. I add speedily delete to several images which have spam in the images or appear to be a CV (Copyright violation) which I believe warrant speedily deletion. I don't go into detail on the nominations because it has already been said and I simply agree with the nominator. Don't see why I would basically copy and paste what he/she already said. Regardless, I can and will continue to comment on this page about nominated images. Thank you. Ejfetters (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no significant commentary (and no sourced commentary at all) about the image. It's use, if needed, could be covered with a simple piece of text - there is nothing significant here that is not covered by text describing her holding a phone while lying down. Image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Image seems to not embody any iconic moment nor tied to any particularly salient text. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 5 March 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. The dress is discussed in the article with references supporting its notability. The image helps in the understanding of the article as it may be difficult for some to conceive what a "crystal-encrusted dress" might look like. -Nv8200p talk 13:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bleedinglovemusicvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).

• This image is merely a non-free picture of the artist. It adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article, and certainly nothing which cannot be conveyed by free text. Its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It illustrates the expensive dress worn by the artist in the music video, not describable by words, hence in no way fails NFCC#8. --Legolas ^(talktome) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It illustrates a signifcant element of the video. This image should be kept. JayJ47 (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems the dress was a significant part of the video, and is discussed in the article as well. Ejfetters (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and downsize Image is encyc due to the prose covering the dress. The image should be downsized to 400 px on its longest side though, so tagged. §hep^Talk 22:27, 4 March 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hollabackgirlmusicvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).

• This image is merely a non-free picture of the artist. It adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article, and certainly nothing which cannot be conveyed by free text. Its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• New version uploaded. --Legolas ^(talktome) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how it's adding anything to the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still support deleting the new version. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops! seems like i forgot to upload the new version. Now i did. Go and check it. The image depicts the Canon/Hewlett-Packard's camera used in the video. It was also used for a commercial where the artist played a similar role. --Legolas ^(talktome) 08:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also who cares if it is an HP camera? Garshgrang (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Adds nothing to the article by its presense. §hep^Talk 22:37, 4 March 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ihatethispart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).

• This image is merely a non-free picture of the artists. It does not add to readers' understanding of the article. Its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Additionally, by using four shots from the video, it constitutes using multiple images when one would suffice. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• New version uploaded, doesnot fail NFCC#8. --Legolas ^(talktome) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't fail 3a, but may still fail 8. I am still on a weak delete. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Illustrates the artist playing a piano which is not done in any other video by the artist. Normally portrayed as over the top sexual figures, the image shows a much softer side of them. The only video available where they show this side.--Legolas ^(talktome) 05:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, reason please. --Legolas ^(talktome) 05:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated, agree with nominator. Ejfetters (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only does it add nothing to the article, it uses two different non-free images within the shot. §hep^Talk 22:38, 4 March 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 but tagged for reduction as 1200x1200 is larger than needed for use. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IPU2.5.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Treec (notify | contribs).

• Violates the Wikimedia Foundation's logo use restrictions ([1][2]). —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as fair use/parody, but reduce in size per WP:NFCC#3b. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We are allowed to use modified Wikimedia logos on Wikimedia servers. There was a discussion about this when it came to using the logo on user page. That's also why we have places like Category:Wikipedia logo variants. I don't believe a reduction is necessary. §hep^Talk 22:54, 4 March 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marie_Marvingt_stamp_French_2004.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Random_Passer-by (notify | contribs).

• non-free stamp being used to prove that she appeared on a stamp; could be conveyed by text alone Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its a non-free French government stamp. Copyright belongs to the French state. --Artene50 (talk) 06:27, 2 March 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.