Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 7

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Idina Menzel01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Veronicamae (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Replaceable: image of a living person does not qualify for fair use. SummerPhD (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NicoloRizzuto.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Joyson Noel (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Non-free image of a living person. Jmundo (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• conditional keep can one get an image of a prisoner? If not, then is there a free image out there or likely to be out there? If the nom can explain why they think getting a free image is actually possible then I'd say deletion is in order. Otherwise it's a keeper until he's out of prison at least. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is replaceable. According to the article and sourcing he is out of prison. --Jmundo (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, I trusted the description of the image. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Htoulminbookletpg1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jreferee (notify | contribs | uploads).

File:Htoulminbookletpg2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jreferee (notify | contribs | uploads)

File:Htoulminbookletpg3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jreferee (notify | contribs | uploads)

File:Htoulminbookletpg4.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jreferee (notify | contribs | uploads)

• Rather high-definition scan of the entirety of a copyrighted booklet. Used in the Harry Aubrey Toulmin, Sr. article in an image gallery, apparently just to show that this booklet was distributed to the public. The information provided in this booklet can be replaced by free text, thus failing WP:NFCC#1; the entire booklet is shown, violating WP:NFCC#3b; and showing the booklet itself does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic," thus failing WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bdarst5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jreferee (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Non-free photo of a person who is probably still living [1] [2], used in the Harry Aubrey Toulmin, Sr. article with the caption, "Aviation enthusiast Betty Darst and the public exhibit honoring Harry Toulmin, Sr. – the patent attorney for the Wright brothers." This photo serves a purely decorative purpose—its inclusion does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic," nor would its omission "be detrimental to that understanding"—so this image fails WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The woman in the photo and whether or not she is alive is a moot point as fair use is not claimed based on her being in the photo. Bkell is correct, though, that the photo is not helpful in understanding the topic of the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CO2nobake.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Kiranisht (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Unused "CO2, Nobake sand selection chart," with no explanation of the symbols used in the chart or what exactly this chart means. See also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 12#File:CO2nobake.jpg and User talk:J Milburn/archive23#Deletion of image CO2Nobake.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidewaysrid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Chris McFeely (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Even if the source website does release its content freely, this is a photograph of a non-free toy. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:StephenOhlmanSensei Small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Cuinn222 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Unused image with no context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in fact a scaled-down version of an image that was previously deleted; see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 May 13#Image:StephenOhlmanSensei.JPG. —Bkell (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PolygonatumBiflorum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Chhe (notify | contribs | uploads).

• It was pointed out that the file was misidentified and is really Maianthemum racemosum. I'm not absolutely certain this is correct so I'm requesting the image be deleted to be on the safe side. The image unfortunately has the stake with the name thats likely wrong so it would have to be cropped anyway if it were to be kept. Better just to delete it I think. Chhe (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venture Bros characters.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jj98 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Unencyclopedic; Fan art. Deadnettle (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. That was not my image, it was Beao who uploaded it. JJ98 (Talk) 22:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep certainly not unencyclopedic, we have an article on the topic. Fan art, which I'm not certain this is, is also not a reason to delete (that's really really good fan art if that's what it is and gets the art of the characters down perfectly). Meets NFCC guidelines to a T. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If it is fan art, it would be fan art that violates copyright. We cannot "fairly" use an image that is a copyright violation. Is it fan art? I dunno. It could conceivably be a photoshopped montage of characters from various sources. The image, however, does seem to be signed in the lower right corner. While detective work might resonably establish whose signature that is, the best solution all around, IMO, would be to source the image to a solid source, rather than a blog.
    • I can't prove it, but it appears this image was used by the creators of the show in some advertisements. [3] hints at that pretty strongly, plus it looks way too structured for a photoshop job. Hobit (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's fan art. I just found it on DA. [4]

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. — ξ^xplicit 00:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steelhaven.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Mathewignash (notify | contribs | uploads).

• I don't think this meets WP:NFCC#8 or #1. The article, assuming it hasn't been righteously deleted by the time you read this, says "In the Generation 1 universe, the Steelhaven is a lance-shaped Autobot starship". And that's what we see in this picture. The picture adds nothing to the description already in the text and is effectively no more than decoration. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The picturen illustrates the subject of the article perfectly. Mathewignash (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Illustrates the subject of the article perfectly" isn't one of the non-free content criteria: "No free equivalent" and "Contextual significance" are as you can see at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A) An image of the subject of an article always meets "contextual significance" nearly by definition. The key question is if it's replaceable. Clearly no free image exists, so we are stuck asking about text. And given the fictional (and fairly outlandish) nature of the subject, it's hard to imagine what text could clearly replace it. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • update with more words, my point is that it's hard to clearly describe because there is little in the way of a real-world version to reference.Hobit (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lion on Field.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by AlabamaPhillbillie987654321 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Unused image with no context for encyclopedic use; uploader's only contribution. —Bkell (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2010 (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.