Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 July 8

< July 7	July 9 >

July 8

Image:Islamprotest5.jpg

Image:Islamprotest5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hh06 (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation: http://www.n-tv.de/634520.html Mukadderat (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid FUR for one article. Needs two more or should be removed from those without a FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fasach makes an excellent point. This image is indeed replaceable, but if it is iconic in some way, it should be kept. That status would need to be backed up with more rationale. A simple description would also suffice if necessary. In short, it's a good image and it helps the article, but it's replaceable and, more importantly, copyrighted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete if it is typical behaviour, then it is replacable by photographing the next protest, if it is atypical then it doesnt warrant inclussion Fasach Nua (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.  Piece of art used to identify that piece of art in the context of discussion of that art and its impact.  Arguments that it meets NFCC#8 are more well reasoned, and more coherent with article content. WilyD 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MarcChagallGoogleLogo.gif

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

Does not meet NFCC. The fact that Google featured Mr Chagall's work on his birthday is not historically significant and it can be conveyed in text. -Nard 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not only that but it also failed to give credit. (Dennis Hwang) SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually since the upload it has always said source: http://www.google.com/ and yes, it is historically significant since Marc is one of the first artists being honored in this way. And, being similar to one of his abstract paintings, it can not be illustrated using words only. --WebberTakito 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebberTakito (talk • contribs)
Keep Per above. Google.com in this rare case is a valid source. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is this even his work, looks to be in the style of... There are plenty of examples of his work in the article Fasach Nua (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a rare case where a non-free image in fact does what they all claim to do: support legitimate encyclopedic discussion. The image is an object of analysis in the article (okay, the paragraph about the google story is maybe a tad on the trivial in-pop-culture side, but it's legitimate and sourced.) This is what non-free images are for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, wait, wait, wait...FurPerf, let me get this straight... We agree?!?...Is that a bad thing? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only start worrying if Fasach Nua changed his vote to keep too ;-) (Actually, I've seen another where he, Sceptre and I agreed, which is also remarkable, but that was on a delete...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sending the heavens into disarray, if this image is a composite of pre-1923 works, it may be inelligiable for copyright Fasach Nua (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are safe enough [1] Fasach Nua (talk) 14:02, 14 July 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

Deleted.  No rationale presented, no rationale obvious.

Image:Chomsky small child (fair-use).jpg

Image:Chomsky small child (fair-use).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chameleon (notify | contribs).

Added: Image:Chomsky young with parents (fair-use).jpg

No fair use rationale. Just a picture of a philosopher at an young age. Damiens.rf 03:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but a FUR is a must. Otherwise delete. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would this FUR read like? I'm especially interested in the "Purpose of use". --Damiens.rf 12:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As am I. This is clearly a picture of Chomsky, no argument there, and seeing how there is no way to show how he looked as a child through text, this is perfectly appropriate in the instance of a Bio. By the same token, it would be incredibly improper to show this image in most other venues. As for the text of the FUR, it needs to indicate why this image should be kept and how it meets WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cute picture, but somebody's looks as a young boy are in no way inherently encyclopedic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another image, same situation. Incidentally, both images are also mistagged: they are tagged as screenshots from a recent documentary, but that is obviously not their ultimate source and doesn't tell us the copyright owner; they are evidently old private photographs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - image doesn't help the reader to understand the article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 10 July 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:Characterlist.jpg

Image:Characterlist.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Misaka Eshe (notify | contribs).

I gave it the wrong title. I misread the directions. Directly after this I uploaded a new filed named "ConcertoCharacterList", which is more precise

Speedy deleted as G7 author/only contributor request, as well as I1 pixel-for-pixel duplicate. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.  Problematic licence, orphaned. WilyD 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hclogo.gif

Image:Hclogo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mel phil (notify | contribs).

No fair-use claim, and false image declaration of I created this work entirely by myself. when in actuality the image is obtained from http://www.hillclimbnsw.org.au/ –- kungming·2 18:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image Image:Hillclimbnsw1.jpg as well. Same basis for deletion as above, and not-used on any Wikipedia page. –- kungming·2 18:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as orphaned copyvios. Vickser (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:37, 9 July 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.