Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 1

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.  Orphaned, with none objecting. WilyD 19:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DBnewlogo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dbertman (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:04, 1 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 - whether taking the photo was illegal or not - according to the link given by Alex (and my poor spanish) things including buildings on permanent public display may have non-infringing images taken...so it seems clear that the image licencing is correct - Peripitus (Talk) 12:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bancomer bank.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Macys123 (notify | contribs).

• In Mexico is forbidden taking photos of banks. Alx 91 (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — According to the United Mexican States law, (see also Commons:Freedom of panorama) Freedom of panorama is allowed in Mexico, with the restriction that the image must not be altered. doña macy [talk] 12:23, 1 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. Now Commons shine-through.

—Wknight94 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unused, bad JPEG artifacts, blocks commons:Image:Kaluga.JPG on the Commons. —Bkell (talk) 16:00, 1 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 - no longer orphaned and editors of the article seem to think it appropriate and encyc. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No longer orphaned. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:13, 10 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

- No consensus -  defaulting to keep. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Image:Election cartoon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Beneaththelandslide (notify | contribs).

• This is a bad use of a copyrighted cartoon for Wikipedia, since the cartoon is not relevant to the article (I mean, the article doesn't seem to care to talk about this cartoon) Damiens.rf 22:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if the individual listing the image for deletion had actually bothered to read the article he would have realised this image represents the Dunstan state government distancing itself from the federal Whitlam one in order to survive -- that's Dunstan in the little boat, escaping Whitlam's sinking ship. But hey, let's just list articles for deletion without considering their importance or reading the article. Go away. Michael ^talk 23:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens is doing this to every oz politics image that isn't free. It is a pity deletionists are so prevalent these days. Timeshift (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - the image itself does not have to be significant to be included. There is no blanket ban on non-free images, and the election campaign, where the State Government was forced to distance itself from the Commonwealth, is discussed in the article and is therefore significant. How else other than a political cartoon, which is a pertinent source of political comment, are we supposed to show this when any image of the campaign itself would be copyrighted? Another spurious nomination - the nominator needs to be censured. JRG (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The cartoon is displayed as an example of contemporary commentary. As such, it specifically matches two of the examples given at WP:NFCC: 4. "Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." Critically, it does not meet any of the guidelines under "Unacceptable use: Images" on that page, and "8. Significance" has been asserted (c.f. Michael's comments above). Orderinchaos 15:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I missed the point in the article where examples of contemporary commentary are discussed. Can you cite a passage? Preferably, the one regarding this very image. --Damiens.rf 17:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:NONFREE/Acceptable Use/Images. See also WP:POINT. Cbsite (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not difficult to locate and add, as the cartoon got a fair bit of attention in the context of the 1975 SA election. Will try my best when I have a moment. (I hadn't dealt with this article or subject before so have no resources here on it - you should see the state of my floor with all the reference books I either own or have out from libraries.) Orderinchaos 19:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Orderinchaos, you misunderstand the policy. Where it says, "for critical commentary", it means that we do critical commentary about the image, not that the image does critical commentary on whatever else. And "significance" doesn't have to be merely asserted, it has to be demonstrated through the treatment of the image in the article. This would be legitimate only if the image was a legitimate object of substantial, non-trivial encyclopedic discussion in its own right in the article, not just a vehicle for illustrating something else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  But then, when "critical commentary" is added, I've seen some editors say "no orginal research." So around and around we go, I guess. S. Dean Jameson 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, the commentary also has to be sourced. Does that surprise you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What I'm saying is what I've said before. You set up a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario, in which there's truly nothing that anyone can do that would convince you to keep the image. As for your particular point about sourcing, that was how I read Oic's initial commment where you said he misunderstood the policy. I read it to say that he felt like with all the coverage the cartoon received, adding "critical commentary" would be a simple procedure, and that he would do so as he had some time. S. Dean Jameson 14:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if he can do that, and if the resulting discussion in the article turns out to be really of significant value in the context of the article, and not just an artificial addition as a pretext for keeping the pretty image, that'll be okay with me. What I was reacting to was mainly he misleading quote of the policy about "critical commentary". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This snarkiness ("...artificial addition as a pretext for keeping the pretty image...") and setting up umeetable standards for inclusion under NFCC is not helpful at all. S. Dean Jameson 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there is no need to be nasty about it. Orderinchaos 14:55, 9 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. WP:NFC beats headcount consensus. No convincing argument has been made that the visual information in this particular image is needed to understand the rest of the article; in fact, neither the image nor whatever political background it is supposed to illustrate is even mentioned in the article. Moreover, the image comes from a commercial news source, which makes it likely it violates NFCC#2 (commercial value). Commercial-source images can only ever be used with great caution in cases where we unquestionably add "transformative" value to them by actually discussing the image as a creative work (rather than just using it as a vehicle to illustrate something else), otherwise we are in an extremely weak position not just with respect to NFCC but also to US fair use law (Australian copyright law being even more restrictive in this respect, apparently). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 August 10. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

• Copyright picture of happy men drinking. It's used just to make the article happier, what's not allowed by policy. Damiens.rf 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the two longest serving Labor leaders in South Australia, one deceased. Rann worked for Dunstan during his Premiership. Irreplaceable. Timeshift (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Dunstan influenced Rann's politics, as the article indicates. The image adds to the articles and is definitely irreplaceable with a free one. These spurious nominations must stop. JRG (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Dunstan is dead, and the image's specific purpose and place is to represent the two men together as they were then seen, this image is not replaceable by a free use image. Guideline examples from WP:NFCC specifically include: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." NFCC#8 "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." appears to also apply, as it greatly aids an understanding of Rann's background. Nomination appears to violate WP:POINT. Orderinchaos 15:15, 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.

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 - reluctantly but the consensus compared to policy seems clear. As Wknight94 has said this image may be appropriate as fair-use in an article about the book (which seems possible to have a good version of), but fails to meet NFCC#8 here. Unlike another image in the article (Image:Election cartoon.jpg) this one is not discussed significantly in the text. My reading of the short debate below in relation to the policy is that the image fails NFCC#8 at the moment with the lack of significance to reader's understanding and would probably always fail NFCC#1 in that the information could be adequately conveyed with text alone - Peripitus (Talk) 04:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Do we need a 480 × 749 copyrighted book cover for a book that deserves no more than 1 line of text? ("Dunstan's memoirs, entitled Felicia, were published in 1981." - the end) Damiens.rf 22:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't need it, but you don't need access to a computer so you can go about causing a ruckus by listing articles for deletion. It causes no harm. It's suitability for display is obvious. This book is listed by the South Australian Historical Society (South Australia, which you've never heard of, with a population of 1.7 million souls, but that matters not to you) as a significant literary work in the state's history. Why not show it? Michael ^talk 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is against WIkipedia policy. -Nv8200p talk 02:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michael, and for the fact that a book title of anyone's memoirs is significant enough. This is just a deletion listing for the sake of it, another reason why the nominator should be censured for multiple deletions. JRG (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cover of published autobiography of now-deceased subject of article, meets all NFCC criteria. Orderinchaos 15:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This might be acceptable for an article about the book but that's not where it's being used. There are free photos available to serve the same purpose, i.e. show the article subject. Definitely does not satisfy WP:NFCC, either #1 or #8. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFCC #8. The image of the book cover is not necessary to understand the article. Also fails NFCC #1. The text "Dunstan's memoirs, entitled Felicia, were published in 1981." does not need an image. -Nv8200p talk 02:00, 12 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.