Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 March 1
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 1)
| < February 28 | March 2 > |
|---|
March 1
edit
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, used for vandalism MECU≈talk 00:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, used for vandalism MECU≈talk 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now orphaned; was uploaded for use in deleted article The Slant. Possible copyright violation, absentee uploader.- Slowking Man 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- obsoleted by Image:Tingle 2 Box Art.jpg
- Orphaned. RJASE1 Talk 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned. RJASE1 Talk 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned. RJASE1 Talk 01:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- SirGrant.jpg - obsoleted by SirGrantPortrait.png — SirGrant 04:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- - uploaded by Brucegeller (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic. RJASE1 Talk 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- This file already exists. — Armando.Otalk • Ev 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- accidentally uploaded under the wrong filename. — – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 07:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Ramandhingra (notify | contribs).
- UE, OR. Probably a fair-use violation, too. Used on now-deleted page. — Calton | Talk 08:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Ramandhingra (notify | contribs).
- UE, OR. Probably a fair-use violation, too. Used on now-deleted page. — Calton | Talk 08:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Gbambino06 (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation. "Marketing" image, I suppose, but no indication it's actually free. — Rebelguys2 talk 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Gbambino06 (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation. "Marketing" image, I suppose, but no indication it's actually free. — Rebelguys2 talk 08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- The linked webiste says explicitly: "Feel free to... download and use all images when creating material on behalf of Cunard, promoting our voyages our ships or our business." Further, as the ship isn't even complete yet, there can be no images of it. This rendering will serve as an illustration until the ship is actually in service. --G2bambino 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not free enough. Is it just asking for attribution, or is it asking that we only use the images in a positive light? Can we make derivative works? Rights have not explicitly been released for completely unencumbered reproduction and redistribution, the making of derivative works, and the reproduction and redistribution of those derivative works. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- The linked webiste says explicitly: "Feel free to... download and use all images when creating material on behalf of Cunard, promoting our voyages our ships or our business." Further, as the ship isn't even complete yet, there can be no images of it. This rendering will serve as an illustration until the ship is actually in service. --G2bambino 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Gbambino06 (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation. "Marketing" image, I suppose, but no indication it's actually free. — Rebelguys2 talk 08:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Same as above for image QV-4. --G2bambino 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not free enough. Is it just asking for attribution, or is it asking that we only use the images in a positive light? Can we make derivative works? Rights have not explicitly been released for completely unencumbered reproduction and redistribution, the making of derivative works, and the reproduction and redistribution of those derivative works. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Same as above for image QV-4. --G2bambino 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Gbambino06 (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation. Orphaned. "Marketing" image, I suppose, but no indication it's actually free. — Rebelguys2 talk 08:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned. Possible Copyright violation. It's tagged GFDL, but a source is named in the upload edit summary. I can't find evidence that that source released this image under the GFDL. — Rebelguys2 talk 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment: I think a mistake might have been made somewhere, I suggest the image uploaded on "20 February 2007" is deleted but the original one on " 6 September 2006 " is kept as that appears to be correctly licensed Brian | (Talk) 08:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed that, thanks. Well, both images are still orphans at the moment, so let's just leave it here and see if the uploader has anything he'd like to say. — Rebelguys2 talk 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
***My mistake with the tag. A proper fair use tag has been added, along with rationale. --G2bambino 16:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake yet again! I forgot I uploaded another version - not even sure why anymore. However, Brian seems to have them backwards: the one uploaded on Feb. 20/07 had a fair use tag and rationale, whereas the one uploaded on Sept. 5/06 did not. Therefore I'd suggest that this one (the Sept. 5 version) be deleted as it is simply a duplicate of an already existant file. --G2bambino 16:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Chi Town Dude (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation. No indication rights have been released. — Rebelguys2 talk 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic. Crudely drawn and unnecessary illustration of soggy biscuit. (Warning: image is not safe for work.) - furrykef (Talk at me) 12:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia is NOT censored. Image aids visualization. —Ocatecir Talk 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't mean that you should put in as much gratuitous sexuality as possible. Whether or not an image is sexual, it must fit the context. This image does not. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Does this article really need a picture? It is pretty easy to understand without visual aid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.90.20 (talk • contribs)
- Some people benefit from visual aid. Just because one person can understand it without visual aid doesn't mean others can or should be prohibited. Image is completely relevant to article subject. —Ocatecir Talk 13:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unprofessional, unencyclopedic. Strong delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - not because of the subject matter, there are "worse" images then this one around, but because it is unprofessional, especially the HA HA HA comment. Personally, I do not feel the article requires a visual aid for comprehension. The quality is low and too comical and simplistic to be truly usable.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "HA HA HA" is a necessary component of the visualization, as the article indicates that the event is not one of homoeroticism but of experimentation. The participants have to laugh or else the game may take an unwanted tone. —Ocatecir Talk 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: I removed the image from the article now. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Wikipedia is not censored, and the image does help to illustrate the article. However, the quality could be better. DWaterson 13:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - low quality ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- 'Delete. This does nothing to illustrate the article. — Matt Crypto 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Poor quality montage, uploader replaced Image:Saturn system.jpg with this image in Saturn's natural satellites (which I have reverted). Doesn't actually say where the constituting images come from.- Mike Rosoft 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan copyrighted image -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 15:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofreak (talk • contribs)
- Keep - primarily because the discussion about it is still on-going and this is a method of circumventing that discussion. The concensus process is happening and appears to be working on the talk page. Also, there is nothing unencyclopedic about the image.
- Speedy keep unless the nominator explains why they think the image is "unencyclopedic". Johntex\talk 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- (My answer from Talk:Ejaculation) I have put this image up for deletion on the grounds that it is unencyclopedic. Now, since there is NO definition of the word unencyclopedic (a completely fictitious "wiki-only" bullshit word anyway) in the wiktionary, and nowhere else that I can find for that matter, I'll give you mine. I define unencyclopedic as meaning "unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia", thus by saying that this image is unencyclopedic I am saying that this image is unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. What standard am I using as a gauge to arrive at this determination? The very sources that set the standard for encyclopedias in the first place. Print encyclopedias. Now I know that Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, but the fact that print encyclopedias set the standards for the rest cannot be denied. I searched Brittanica, and World Book for an image like Image:Ejaculationexample001.jpg and Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg. I couldn't find a single one. I discovered that they didn't use images this graphic for examples in their sexuality articles at all. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that if the print encyclopedias that set the standards that others have followed did not use images like this, then they must consider them "unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia", thus unencyclopedic. Since Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia, then it seems logical that this image would be considered unencyclopedic here too. My reasoning on this matter has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Now JohnTex, I want you to tell me why you think Image:Ejaculationexample001.jpg is encyclopedic. Infofreak 08:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It is suitable, accurate, and necessary on the page where it is shown. As far as Brittanica and World Book not having the image, I believe this is one major reason why people come to Wikipedia.org. They cannot find stuff like that in a print encyclopedia, so they come here. Furthermore, it is important to have the picture for people doing research because not everyone is an adult male, so not everyone knows what an ejaculation looks like.
- Wikipedia is not a repository of pornography. Strong delete. (If deletion is rejected, then at least don't include it directly in any article; the non-censorship policy means "Wikipedia may contain objectionable material when its use is warranted", not "Wikipedia should contain clearly inappropriate material for its own sake.") - Mike Rosoft 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I am not in favour of censorship, however, it would be a shame if people felt unable to allow their children to access Wikipedia because it contains such images. Whether we like it or not there is still a significant proportion of the world that would find an image such as this unacceptable viewing. --Vince 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the image has been removed from the ejaculation article by the person who donated it because it is causing too much controversy. It is not known if this image can be used somewhere else.
- Weak keep. I certainly don't think the pictures in the article should appear near the top of the article without warning. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not censored. That doesn't justify every controversial image, but it does seem to fit the context of the article. I think perhaps the biggest problem is that the picture suggests the person was masturbating, which does take away some focus from ejaculation itself and puts some on the, ah, process used to produce it. In any case, I don't think it's perhaps the best picture, but the proper response to that would be to simply make a better picture. I'd be in favor of a realistic drawing rather than a photograph, which is usually less controversial (for some strange reason) while still informative. In fact, I think an animated GIF would be a good idea, but only for an illustration since it would seem too "pornographic" if we made an animated GIF using a real person. So my full vote is, "Keep, but get a better image and then delete this one as obsolete." - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- No consensus to delete. Image kept for now. -Nv8200p talk 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Translucid2k4 (notify | contribs).
- Copyrighted screengrab obsoleted by any image listed at Commons:Niagara (film) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Adrianantm (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, possible Copyright violation. RJASE1 Talk 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, used on deleted spam page. RJASE1 Talk 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Laterimage (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, sole contribution of user, unencyclopedic.- User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Sarah Scales (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, sole contribution of user, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, may have been used in deleted article created by uploader, therefore unencyclopedic. Absentee Uploader. BigrTex 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Absentee Uploader; Orphan; Unencyclopedic? BigrTex 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Dark_Tichondrias (notify | contribs).
- Low Quality Orphan BigrTex 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic,Absent uploader,Orphaned BigrTex 23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Otoshigami (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned,Absent uploader,Unencyclopedic BigrTex 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
