Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 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. Fails NFCC#8. The image is not needed to understand the article. -Nv8200p talk 22:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:National Nine News Darwin opener.png

Image:National Nine News Darwin opener.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bidgee (notify | contribs).

• Non-free screenshot of the opening screen of a news show, used in the article on a TV station. Purely decorative, fails NFCC#8. The visual design of this particular news show is not discussed in the article and therefore not in need of illustration. It doesn't seem to be in any way remarkable either. See parallel nomination of Image:National_Nine_News_Darwin.png, which was an alternative for the same purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The opener is not used by the Nine network in other stations that it owns and is unique to NTD. It's not used as decorative look. The Admin's actions have been questioned for being anti fair-use. Bidgee (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Identifies the show. More than purely decorative. meets the criteria for fair use. DGG (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Purely decorative" is in the eye of the beholder, and I fail to see how the nominator's personal opinion on that point is relevant. This looks like a valid fair-use picture to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 12 September 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:

- Moot - the image is on commons now and the local copy has been deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 07:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Palin with kitty.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Calliopejen1 (notify | contribs).

• This is listed as a "joke". I'm sorry, to that I say: "What's the joke?" I don't think this sort of image is worthy of an encyclopedia. Maybe if someone can explain to me the funny part, I would change my mind. -- Yekrats (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in response to a silly discussion on Talk:Sarah Palin. I don't care particularly if it's deleted, but we have any number of similar joke images created under similar circumstances. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the image is free, and it's fine. Kelly ^hi! 20:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This forum is to discuss licenses, not content. This image is used on a Talkpage, much as images of sayings etc are featured on user talkpages, with such usages quite plainly allowed on WP.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm assuming the underlying picture is free, but if the subject of the picture asked for it to be taken down, then per personality rights I think we would have to do so. It's unlikely, but should we really be keeping such pictures even if we think they are harmless? Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't see any way a faked photo can be used to help build an encyclopedia, and there's already way too much shenanigans going on regarding Palin. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:27, 2 September 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:

Kept.  It is a meritous argument that this image depicts a defunct band, not four seperate individuals.  With the band effectively "dead", the dead person principle applies, albeit imperfectly.  Amatulic's argument is without merit. WilyD 13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fenix TX 2001.jpg

Image:Fenix TX 2001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HarryCane (notify | contribs).

• Policy does not allow for fair-use images of living people - per NFCC#1 a replacement can be made Peripitus (Talk) 12:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Difficult to get free images of a band as a whole once it has disbanded. Pictures of the individuals can be obtained as they are still living, but the band is effectively "dead" unless they reform. In other words, NFCC#1 would apply to articles about the individual, but in this case not to the article about the band. There is a possibility that people may have free pictures of this band somewhere in their photo albums, and attempts should be made to get the picture released under a free license, but failing that, fair-use or nothing (or linking to an external site) is the only alternative. For full disclosure, I came across this discussion while reviewing the images on User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I accept Carcharoth's rationale.DGG (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This might be an arguable case if the visual presentation of their line-up contained some more original, unique elements that really told us something about the band and its style. But as it is, it's just some guys in everyday apparel standing around, and the only piece of information we get from it is essentially that of a set of individual portraits. Replaceable with a sentence of text that names them, combined with free images of each. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only replaceable if it is free images of each at the time they were in the band, not free images of them at some later point. And there is still the point that there is an entity ("the band") that is separate from them as individuals. I'm trying to think of other examples of "group" entities where pictures of the individual elements are not a sufficient replacement for a picture of the group as a whole (though, as you say, a text description replacement may well be enough). I'm well aware that this will probably get deleted under NFCC#8 or the text clause of NFCC#1, but I want people to move away from misinterpreting NFCC#1 for group entites. Groups and buildings "live" and "die" just as much as individuals do. When a building is demolished, or a band breaks up, there are legitimate arguments to be made that the "entity" no longer exists and it is no longer possible to go and get a "free" picture of the group any more. Having said that, in the case of existing bands, a free image of the existing band is probably enough. We should also encourage linking to external sites that host images. Not to the picture itself (I think that is called hotlinking or deeplinking or something) but to a website on the history of the band, showing a picture of what the band looked like. Carcharoth (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bottom line, an article of a band should contain a picture of the band, if such a picture exists. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 12 September 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:

Kept.  As above, image depicts a defunct band, not a collection of living individuals. Context and use is important in evaluating nonfree image use. WilyD 13:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fenix TX 1999.jpg

Image:Fenix TX 1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HarryCane (notify | contribs).

• Fair use image of living people - fails NFCC#1 as the image is clearly replaceable Peripitus (Talk) 12:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Difficult to get free images of a band as a whole once it has disbanded (in this case, it is an earlier make-up of the band). Pictures of the individuals can be obtained as they are still living, but the band is effectively "dead" unless they reform. In other words, NFCC#1 would apply to articles about the individual, but in this case not to the article about the band. There is a possibility that people may have free pictures of this band somewhere in their photo albums, and attempts should be made to get the picture released under a free license, but failing that, fair-use or nothing (or linking to an external site) is the only alternative. For full disclosure, I came across this discussion while reviewing the images on User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I accept Carcharoth's rationale.DGG (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per my rationale in the case above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response per my response in the case above. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 6 September 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: keep. Per the precedent set in the above two discussions that an image of a group (in an article about that group) is not replaceable by individual images of the group members. -Nv8200p talk 16:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dream Theater 1995.jpg

Image:Dream Theater 1995.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gargaj (notify | contribs).

• per WP:NFCC#1 this image is replaceable with a free alternate. Wikipedia does not host fair-use images of living people in this way Peripitus (Talk) 12:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Difficult to get free images of a band's former line-up as a whole once a member has left. Pictures of the individuals can be obtained as they are still living, but that "line-up" of the band is effectively "dead" unless the former member rejoins. In other words, NFCC#1 would apply to articles about the individual (this image should not be used in Derek Sherinian), but in this case not to the article about the band. There is a possibility that people may have free pictures of this band when Derek Sherinian was a member, somewhere in their photo albums, and attempts should be made to get the picture released under a free license, but failing that, fair-use or nothing (or linking to an external site) is the only alternative if we want to illustrate what the previous line-ups of the bands were. For full disclosure, I came across this discussion while reviewing the images on User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I accept Carcharoth's rationale.DGG (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has this and this as group free images. All the one being discussed here shows is that Derek Sherinian was really part of the band - unless the 1995 hairstyles are peculiarly notable this can be easily conveyed with text. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to link to an external site that has this picture though. Can we do that? One of the things about long-running bands is the change in appearance and composition over the years. While pictures are not technically necessary to describe that, it is one of the best ways of doing so. BTW, Image:DT1988.jpg seems to have been missed. Has anyone written to the copyright holders to see if they will release the images under a free license? Carcharoth (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Carcharoth says it all: "pictures are not technically necessary to describe that." Period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Carcharoth's conclusive clause: "...it is one of the best ways of doing so". ~Amatulić (talk) 23:36, 12 September 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.