Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 September 2

< September 1	September 3 >

September 2

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:

Image:Miscavige.jpg

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

Nonfree image of a living person, which even according to the image page is used solely to depict that person. Person is a relatively public figure, clearly replaceable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That person isn't a public person by any sane definition. See Talk:David Miscavige#Nonfree images not allowed in living person articles Not replaceable without a team of ninja photographers. AndroidCat 06:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Replaceable is given a broad meaning: reasonably re-created/replaced with free alternatives. However, possible reasons that a free replacement image can not be reasonably found or created include the individual being a recluse or the photo being used to illustrate a particular point in the person’s career.[1] David Miscavige seems to be a recluse.[2] -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguments above are compelling for making the case that few people, if any, would able to snap a photo of Miscavige to replace this one.--Gloriamarie 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replaceable. Jreferee makes good points, but I have trouble believing that the best man at Tom Cruise's 2006 wedding is not photographable. If a reputable source claimed he couldn't be photographed, that would be valid, and I have no problem keeping non-free photos of people who legitimately can't be (reasonably) photographed. But the Foundation's resolution says we can't use replaceable non-free images, which includes "almost all portraits of living people", and I think that applies here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tom Cruise's wedding was not a public event. If photos from it were easily available, I doubt someone would have stolen copies and tried to extort more than $1M.[3] AndroidCat 04:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. I still don't see any evidence that this person is not ever at public events where he could be photographed, and it is up to the uploader to show that the image is non-replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. The recluse was L. Ron Hubbard not Miscavige. The image use was decorative. Fails NFCC 1 & 8. -Nv8200p talk 04:24, 8 September 2007 (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.

Image:Valencia street circuit.jpg

Image:Valencia street circuit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jrphayes (notify | contribs).

Replaced by Image:Valencia street circuit 2008.png. Raymond Giggs 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was only ever a stopgap until someone made a better one. John Hayes^talk 08:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC00581.jpg

Image:DSC00581.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bhobbs2 (notify | contribs).

It is a useless image that has no links, and contributes nothing to Wikipedia. The summary also makes no sense, and it is a blurred picture. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 14:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CV. Removed from article, but added back in by anonymous editor. Unecessary fair use, and the rationale itself describes it as a "Colourful addition." When we use a nonfree image, it should not have any potential free equivalent (one could reasonably be created), we should not infringe on commercial opportunities (sale of the film), and we should have minimal use (there are plenty of free images on the page). Ideally, nonfree images from film should illustrate the film, not generic content from the film. -- RG ² 17:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wolves 000.jpg

Image:Wolves 000.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dark hyena (notify | contribs).

CV. Unecessary fair use. When we use a nonfree image, it should not have any potential free equivalent (one could reasonably be created), we should not infringe on commercial opportunities (sale of the film), and we should have minimal use (there are plenty of free images on the page). Ideally, nonfree images from film should illustrate the film, not generic content from the film. -- RG ² 17:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PDVD 006.jpg

Image:PDVD 006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dark hyena (notify | contribs).

CV. Unecessary fair use. When we use a nonfree image, it should not have any potential free equivalent (one could reasonably be created), we should not infringe on commercial opportunities (sale of the film), and we should have minimal use (there are plenty of free images on the page). Ideally, nonfree images from film should illustrate the film, not generic content from the film. -- RG ² 17:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]