Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 28

< August 27	August 29 >

August 28

File:LMKeitt.jpg

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; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, NS (source is given, but image cannot be found there). —howcheng {chat} 01:03, 28 August 2012 (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.

File:Spotify criticism low payments to musicians.jpeg

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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inaccurate POV that keeps getting inserted in the Spotify article.

Keep: It's an infographic illustrating a fact not simply a point of view, it's either accurate or inaccurate.

The original dispute by Jbenjos stated a "Graphic from a POV source that is also incredibly outdated." Implying that it was accurate at one time, but no longer?

As for it's accuracy, it is subject to debate since Spotify does not release payment stats and also because the issue is fairly complicated. This is the second version (see file history), the first version has Spotify's average payment at $0.0029 or 100% more than the current graphic. For more info, this is a decent breakdown: http://www.spotidj.com/spotifyroyalties.htm

Also, it wasn't the image that was removed and re-added, it was the entire Criticism section of Spotify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberholden (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unused, unlikely to be used in productive way (as image is not notable and as result it is pure, extremely low quality OR and spam) Bulwersator (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your opinion on the copyright law etc., Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete.` - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2012 (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.

File:Truth vs Hype still.jpg

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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from a TV documentary show, showing the program's host in some unspecified outdoors scene. Not the object of individual commentary in the article. Caption merely says it's a " still ... showing the presenter", but in that function it is obviously replaceable with a free photo of him. FUR claims it's used to show the "unique nature and identity of the show", but no explanation is given why this specific random shot is necessary for understanding it. (Note that there was previously another, just as random, shot of the same person in a different situation.) What this photo reveals about the "nature of the show" could easily be covered in text alone ("the host is sometimes shown talking in various rural outdoors settings" or something to that effect.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 28 August 2012 (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.

File:Clay Anderson spacewalkedit1.jpg

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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in articles crop of File:STS-118 EVA3 Rick Mastracchio on a CETA cart.jpg - only in failed FP nomination (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidatesImage/Clay Anderson spacewalk) - is it enough to keep this file? Bulwersator (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2012 (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.

File:Coronado.gif

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely small, unused Bulwersator (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:49, 29 August 2012 (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.

File:David Harper LEED.jpg

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; deleted as F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of a personal certificate of some professional achievement, uploaded for a biography. Independent of any copyright concerns for which it is currently tagged, using an image like this in an article would be inappropriate and unencyclopedic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, can you please clarify - this is not a "personal achievement" but rather a "Professional License" which validates the credentials. I believe this would, in fact, be more relevant than the Awards, all of which have been accepted, and are similar to other Architect Wiki pages. If I did not cite it, wouldn't someone else tag with "citation needed"? Thank you.Jenstew2012 (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot really use self-published private documents like this to back up factual claims, such as the claim that he hold this or that professional capacity. If such an item is really relevant for the biography, we'd need a reliable, published independent source for it, e.g. a newspaper report talking about it. If there is no such external coverage, the fact really doesn't belong in the article at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. ☼ OK I think I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenstew2012 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 August 2012 (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.

File:Csbf-logo sm.png

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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete replaced by File:Csbf-logo.png -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2012 (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.

File:InTheDarkCDCover.jpg

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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--substantially similar to regular cover —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It's not "substantially similar" in the usual sense of an alternate album cover with only minor variations. For the Arista CD cover, the lettering is the same as on the LP, but the image is upside down. This is a noteworthy variation, discussed in the article. Furthermore it's not clear whether the upside down image was intentional or accidental. Removing this image from the article would not be helpful and would not make it any more in compliance with the fair use policy on album covers. Please refer to the article and judge for yourself: In the Dark (Grateful Dead album). — Mudwater^(Talk) 17:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response WP:NFCC states in point eight that non-free media must "only [be used] if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Couldn't this be easily explained in text? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response It is explained in the text, but, as with any album cover image, the readers' understanding is significantly increased by including the image in the article. A description of an image is not as good as the image itself. In this case we have both, which is ideal. — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response It's not significantly increased. By your rationale, we could say that a user's understanding would be significantly increased by hosting the entirety of a film rather than a clip of it. In that case, you would actually be right factually, but it would not be fair use. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're saying that the readers' understanding of a written explanation of the alternate cover is not significantly increased by including the cover in the article? I certainly disagree with that, as I believe most editors would. Or perhaps I've misconstrued your meaning. Furthermore album covers uniquely identify particular albums, which is why their inclusion in articles is covered under fair use, and similarly so for significantly different alternate covers. Including the entire film in a film article would be like including the entire album itself in the album article. A second album cover image is nothing like that. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Response Yes, I am saying that the image does not substantially contribute to readers' understanding of the topic. Anyone who reads the text can get a sufficient mental image of this cover and so a minor variation like this cannot be covered by fair-use. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFCC#3a since there already is a different cover there. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response It seems to me that your argument would apply to any alternate album cover. Look at the Yesterday and Today article. That has an alternate album cover, yet there already is a different cover there, which is the original album cover. It's justified because only having the first cover would not "convey equivalent information", as criterion #3a puts it. The same is true for the alternate cover of In the Dark, albeit not quite as dramatically as with Yesterday and Today. — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. For the specific cover you mentioned, see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 29#File:YesterdayandTodayalbumcover.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response The alternate album cover for Yesterday and Today is proposed for deletion? Wow, pretty crazy guys. So, what's the plan? To delete every alternate album cover in Wikipedia? There's a longstanding practice of allowing alternate album covers that are significantly different from the main album covers. As with the main album covers, these alternate covers significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The significantly different album covers do not convey equivalent information to the primary covers. I don't understand why this practice is being called into question now. I'm not asking this rhetorically, I'm genuinely curious as to what's going on here. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:08, 30 August 2012 (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.

File:Splashdown 1.jpg

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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

superseded by File:Apollo 16 Recovery - GPN-2000-001503.jpg, of a different tint but higher resolution. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:24, 28 August 2012 (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.

File:ST-TNG The Battle.jpg

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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox of an article that consists almost entirely of an overlong plot renarration. Merely shows to protagonists talking, in an otherwise nondescript scene. Not the object of analytical commentary, not necessary for understanding the article. Rudimentary FUR, merely claiming it is to be used as a "Visual ID on episode" (i.e. no claim of individual explanative value of the specific image). Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I accidentally removed the original reasons. I've restored it. If it still needs deleting however, I do not object. Eladkse (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The file was moved from File:STThe Battle.jpg to File:ST-TNG The Battle.jpg by TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) at 23:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 31 August 2012 (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.

File:Curiofront.PNG

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; deleted as F8 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file Bulwersator (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting it as an F8 as there is a copy on the Commons at File:Curiosity- front.PNG. -- Dianna (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2012 (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.

File:Cyclades-sat.png

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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cyclades-sat-blank.png with almost completely unreadable text. Unused. Bulwersator (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:49, 29 August 2012 (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.

File:Leghold trap.JPG

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; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

at Commons -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:08, 28 August 2012 (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.