Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 January 1

< December 31	January 2 >

January 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 discussion was:

Image:London 2012 budget.png

Image:London 2012 budget.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jared (notify | contribs).

Says he created in photoshop and excel, which, since there's no source on the data, could mean that he made it up off the top of his head for all we know. Jedibob5 (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I assure you, there was an accurate source for these pie charts. Why, in retrospect, I did not include the site in the page, I have no clue. I'll look for the source, but I do condone its unfortunate deletion if neither I nor anyone else can find one. Jared (t) 15:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are able to find the source, I will be happy to withdraw the nom. Jedibob5 (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was unable to find it. The way I see it, the information is inaccurate anyway because of all the changes in budget projections by the LOCOG. It would probably be best, even if a source was available, to just delete this, due to its obsolescence. Jared (t) 20:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it should be kept as a record of the olympic bid. The only reason given for deletion is that there is no source data and User:Jared has assured us that he didn't just make it up, which seems reasonable. If a new updated version can be created for the actual current budget projection then that would be good. Barry m (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Without source, image fails WP:V -Nv8200p talk 22:28, 12 January 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:

Image:Mondasplanet.jpg

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

It's the earth viewed South to North! This fair use image can clearly be replaced by an image of a globe upside down! Fasach Nua (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an actual screenshot from an historical Doctor Who story showing the planet as portrayed in the episode. If one used a generic shot, one could argue that it's not relevant to the article since the picture would be of Earth, not the fictional alien planet. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the article "Mondas was Earth's twin planet, identical down to even the size and shapes of its continents.", I wonder if you could tell the difference between an image of Mondas from an image of the earth Fasach Nua (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, because one exists only as an image from that episode. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this a picture of

, is it Earth or is it Mondas? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever you got that from, it's not Mondas. Not as portrayed in the BBC serial, anyway. That doesn't stop you from drawing a picture of something and calling it Mondas, in the same way it doesn't stop you from drawing a stick figure and calling it George Washington, but that doesn't make it any more accurate a representation. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does the original image portray that the above wouldnt? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An accurate representation of the planet as seen in the episode itself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a fair use rationale would be in order? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As long as fair use rationale is added. Is used in several articles to illustrate the planet in question and to replace with free content media of the Earth would not be appropriate. Million_Moments (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until a FU rationale is added, we don't really know what it is there for, until we know it's function, we really don't know one way or the other if it would be appropriate to replace it by a representation of the earth, however, I would be shocked if it couldnt be Fasach Nua (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as a FUR is added; cannot be replaced by a free alternative of the Earth upside down, as it would be like using an image of Billie Piper on Rose Tyler - they look exactly the same, but it's not representative of the character. Will ^(talk) 20:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FUR added. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that, it is now clearly and unambiguiously replaceable nfc#1 Fasach Nua (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we have to disagree on this. It's not the Earth. It's Mondas. And Mondas as seen in the episode. As Sceptre points out, it's not replaceable by Earth upside down for that reason. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - shows Mondas - an image of Earth upside down is not Mondas. Stuart DD _{contributions} 11:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the advantages of this image, compared to a picture of the world upside down meet nfc#8 ?Fasach Nua (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of Earth up side down is not a picture of Mondas. A picture of Earth up side down would not display Mondas as seen in Doctor Who - but this picture does, so meets criteria 8.Stuart DD _{contributions} 13:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it significantly add to a "planet, identical (to the earth) down to even the size and shapes of its continents" ? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Screencaps of fictional places in context are generally significant in articles where the fictional place is the subject (whether it is an upside down Earth or not). I removed the image from two other articles. -Nv8200p talk 22:48, 12 January 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.

Image:Bio_CC.pdf

Image:Bio_CC.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Psmcamille (notify | contribs).

Uploader removed PD-self unexplained. Jusjih (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brickman the man he myth.jpg

Image:Brickman the man he myth.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Phiveoff (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image of nn individual; only usage was in a deleted hoax article. --Muchness (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hippo.03.jpg

Image:Hippo.03.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Meebly (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic; uploader inactive for more than 2 years. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WAAO logo.png

Image:WAAO logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rtphokie (notify | contribs).

original unloader request deletion Rtphokie (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "WAAO logo.png" is really the logo for WAFN-FM, which doesn't have a logo yet. It has a place to go, but if the uploader wants it gone, so be it. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - yup, the logo has been uploaded again with the correct name and WAFN-FM has been updated. Requesting deletion of incorrectly named file to keep things clear.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acidopera.jpg

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

A screenshot of Opera 9.5 passing the test. It is almost identical to the screenshot of Safari passing the test, which is used instead. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boilol.jpg

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

Orphaned and unencyclopedic. Chris.B (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly encycolpedic, commons? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the bit that would make it encylopedic would also make it copyright!delete Fasach Nua (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ABSCBN-box.JPG

Image:ABSCBN-box.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ladysoseono (notify | contribs).

Would this be a derivative work? You decide. ViperSnake151 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy-delete. This is used exclusively in infoboxes, and since this clearly a logo see ABS-CBN for the full version), this is in clear violation of fair use. --Howard the Duck 13:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Russian_rescue_workers.jpg

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

WP:NFCC#8 violation. The image does not add anything that text can not. no rationale. Rettetast (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grub-debian.jpg

Image:Grub-debian.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rsultan (notify | contribs).

Debian logo, not a realistic representation of Grub, ViperSnake151 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfree, and the sign it depicts does not exist anymore(verifiable by visiting the school campus, which I have done). Calvin 1998 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the sign does not exist anymore, the image is irreplaceable. The sign illustrates the subject in question both by its existence and by the name and logo it bears. Additionally, the sign was erected by a government institution on public land and was used for publicity and identification purposes by that institution. This use of the image is a fair use. Calvin, when you were there, did you happen to take a new picture of the school or its sign that you can upload under a free-content tag? --SSB ohio 23:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#8 (significance). This sign is not historically important, so a new picture of the school would work just fine instead. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC #8 is a test of significance, not importance (historical or otherwise), and not of whether something else would work just fine instead, especially since nothing else is available. A sign is inherently significant of the the thing it signifies. The entire article is of questionable notability but as long as it exists, it's improved by being illustrated. In what way do you see the sign as insignificant? --SSB ohio 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no grounds for keeping on FU basis, but someone could ask the school to licence it under an appropriate free licence? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my view, it's a picture of a three-dimensional structure in a public place and therefore a photograph of that structure would not be such as to infringe on the underlying copyright. --SSB ohio 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the photographer was prepared to release it with a licence compatiable with the GFDL, then I dont see deltion as being an issue Fasach Nua (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Washer Fluid.jpg

Image:Washer Fluid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mikes1988 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic; the image was uploaded to illustrate Windshield washer fluid, but it doesn't really do that ... there is no background that could provide context. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons or Delete The image is of a generic jug, not of washer fluid. It is orphaned & unencyclopedic unless a picture of a plain plastic jug is needed. --SSB ohio 03:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to Commons and Delete here - Decent enough picture, Im sure it has some use Fasach Nua (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]