Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 2

< August 1	August 3 >

August 2

File:Society Hill (Body of Proof).jpg

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 failing WP:NFCC#8. Note that the concept that all episode articles require images has been oft tested and found wanting in this venue; many images have been added, debated and deleted. That said many images are kept. In this case I do not see a weight of argument that this image significantly adds to reader's understanding. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just some people looking at each other. I'm not sure how this is supposed to increase my understanding of the topic. ~~Fails WP:NFCC#8.~~ Stefan2 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the text? The image is not trying to tell the reader that two people are standing there, but to allow the reader to know what the clothes are like for the character, as a critic has commented on it. If the image was not there, you would not understand the hype of the clothes. It passes Wikipedia:NFCC#8. So, could you please delete it from the FFD, as the image plays an important part in allowing the reader to understand the dress sense of the character.— M.Mario (T/C) 21:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained to the user who nominated this on his talk page, however he is ignoring me, as well as other people questioning about image deletions. So, unless people read my comment above, this image may be deleted, when it shouldnt be. — M.Mario (T/C) 21:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article, but the uploader has apparently not read WP:TPOC. First, the uploader removed this nomination, and later the uploader changed the nomination so that it now says something very different from the original nomination. Thus, it is now necessary to read Special:PermanentLink/501286746#File:Society Hill (Body of Proof).jpg in order to know why the file was nominated. My initial post shall be assumed to have the exact wording used at Special:PermanentLink/501286746#File:Society Hill (Body of Proof).jpg. Any other wording, for example the one currently used, shall be assumed to be incorrect.

I can't find the critical discussion on clothing which the uploader is talking about. The clothing is only mentioned briefly in the end in a way which already sufficiently replaces the image by text. Furthermore, this appears to be an episode about a murder, not an episode about clothing. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every episode is about a murder! Also, I only removed the nomination as you ignored my post on yoru talk page. — M.Mario (T/C) 15:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: When I told the nominator at their talk page about how the image does meet the criteria, he ignored me, which is what he is doing with the above comments. The image signifys a much critisized scene, as well as providing visual representation of clothes. — M.Mario (T/C) 15:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: The uploader posted a notice on my talk page, and then, without giving me the time to answer, deleted the deletion request 22 minutes and 25 seconds later. Deletion requests are supposed to be running for at least 7 days so that people have the time to comment, so why did you attempt to close the deletion request after only 22 minutes and 25 seconds after commenting it, and less than an hour after it was initially posted here? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: *sigh*, delete all the minor details, the image passes the criteria. — M.Mario (T/C) 20:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have strenghtned the rationale to make it clearer and fit the criteria more than before. Apologies if it did not before. — M.Mario (T/C) 20:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : File meets criteria. — M.Mario (T/C) 09:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? Why? The text under the image supports the image, but WP:NFCC#8 requires it to be the other way around: the image should support the text instead. Apart from that, the clothing is only mentioned briefly in one sentence in a way which is already sufficiently described by text, and it is not even clear if the image is supposed to refer to this sentence or not. Obvious WP:NFCC#8 failure. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I still disagree. The image does support it, and others feel this too. — M.Mario (T/C) 12:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated the image to suit the criteria, and strenghten the rationale even more to comply to Wikipedia standards. This image is now a vital part of the episode. — M.Mario (T/C) 11:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Note this isn't even the same image that was originally nominated.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anomie ⚔ 01:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did say above it is a different image, and now fits the criteria!!! — M.Mario (T/C) 09:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails point eight of WP:NFCC, the omission of this image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. A critic commented on their outfits... so what? — ξ ^xplicit 00:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image isnt the same thing as uploaded before. And, "so what" isnt a good argument, the image is needed to understand the outifts of the characters, as they are outside normal costume. WP:NFCC states this. — M.Mario (T/C) 10:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was based on the current revision, not any of the ones used in the past. NFCC states that non-free images are required when someone dresses outside of normal costume? I don't see that anywhere. The "critical commentary" of the source reads as follows: "Peter in a tux.whoa. Oh and Megan looked great in her dress, too." A non-free image is required to show me that the characters were wearing a tuxedo and a dress, respectively? The text alone does that very well. A definition WP:NFCC#1 violation. — ξ ^xplicit 00:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that things have changed: File:Society Hill (Body of Proof).jpg was uploaded after the initial nomination, and the previous file has been deleted, so the nomination has essentially been changed into a deletion nomination for a different file. I'm not sure if the current image is the same as the previous image with just some minor editing, but the current image (uploaded 2012-07-27T11:45:41) has the same problem as the previous image: it doesn't help me understanding the topic better in any way. Thus, in my opinion, the current image fails WP:NFCC#8, as did the previous image. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a big believer that attaching a screenshot of any episode helps the reader gain a better understanding - "seeing is believing." Humans are visual creatures, it's how we understand stuff. This image is not just decorative; it helps the reader understand the context on that visual level. And it most definitely fits US fair use guidelines, so I don't see any legal problem with it; whether it meets Wikipedia's guidelines or not, I don't know, but no need to be so procrustean in our interpretation. It is my opinion that removing screenshots from an article about an episode because they don't "add" to the understanding is as flawed as removing a logo from an article for the same reasons, and is an attack on the very nature of fair use itself on Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 07:24, 12 August 2012 (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.

File:Hochseeflotte 1.jpg

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 Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 07:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons, tagged here as "NotMovedToCommons", nominated for deletion on commons, kept on commons, can be deleted as F8 - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hochseeflotte_1.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the image should not have been moved to commons, and should have been deleted when it was nominated. There's no proof that the creator of the image died before 1942, plenty of people who were alive in the 1900s-1910s (when this photo was taken) lived well into the 20th century. Without proof of the author and his or her pre-1942 date of death (or proof that this photo was published explicitly anonymously), then the photo should be deleted from Commons and retained here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2012 (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.

File:Metromedellin11.JPG

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 ⚡ 02:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, way lower quality than files from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Regional_Maps_of_the_department_of_Antioquia Bulwersator (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2012 (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.

File:A Morning.png

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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by svg. Bulwersator (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, svg version contains poorly vectored text. Accuracy is by far more important than having an svg version. █ EMARSEE 19:01, 2 August 2012 (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.

File:CanalPlus Group Logo.svg

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 F8 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May stay on commons ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Logo_of_Canal%2B_%28France%29 ) therefore may be deleted as F8 Bulwersator (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2012 (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.

File:Bell X-16.jpg

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 the revision on Commons, others kept and moved into their own file. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 07:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ABell+X-16.jpg - as source issue was fixed "it was already deleted once on Commons, and as such the licensing is uncleear" is no longer valid and file may deleted as F8. Bulwersator (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image is from a NASA document and therefore, in the public domain via the U.S. government. Bzuk (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2012 (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.

File:BurfordBaroque.jpg

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 Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 07:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as keep local, but it was request by editor that abandoned Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GiacomoReturned ). Therefore there is no good reason to keep this local copy. Bulwersator (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - rationale provided is not a valid reason for deletion. Unless the nominator has a very good crystal ball, he cannot predict whether the editor in question will start editing again tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having a local copy of the file does no harm, and the user may return some day. -- Dianna (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deletion has been stated. Jehochman ^Talk 00:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason for deletion --Guerillero | My Talk 20:07, 3 August 2012 (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.

File:Beck Plaque.jpg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons, tagged here as "NotMovedToCommons", nominated for deletion on commons, kept on commons, can be deleted as F8 - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beck_Plaque.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2012 (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.

File:Img 043.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low quality, without useful description - therefore useless and out of scope. Bulwersator (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. we have undoubtedly numerous similar images of decent quality, and since we dont know the specifics of the location, there go the 2 reasons to use it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2012 (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.

File:Bahama fin Flash.svg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons, tagged here as "NotMovedToCommons", nominated for deletion on commons, kept on commons, can be deleted as F8 - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bahama_fin_Flash.svg Bulwersator (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2012 (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.

File:BBC portal logo.svg

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 F8 by Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, the United Kingdom." is not true, it is less complex than edge logo as it is unmodified text (Gill Sans font) Bulwersator (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I can be honest, I would rather wait for the Commons decision to be decided on all of the BBC logos before we take action here. As the person who originally uploaded this file, I can have it deleted anytime by either requesting it or doing it myself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:17, 2 August 2012 (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.

File:Chongqing Metro Map.png

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It was requested that this image be deleted as it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Chongqing Metro Map.png but this request could not be completed because Not the same image." maybe I am blind but I see no differences Bulwersator (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2012 (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.

File:Asianet Logo.svg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons, tagged here as "NotMovedToCommons", nominated for deletion on commons, kept on commons, can be deleted as F8 - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Asianet_Logo.svg Bulwersator (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2012 (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.

File:HDKG.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image. No significance at all. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2012 (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.