Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 31

March 31

File:Alkitrang dugo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a film poster as claimed, but a collage of 16 screenshots from a movie, used in movie infobox with no further analytical commentary. Fails minimality condition of WP:NFCC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orphan, has been replaced with proper cover. ^walk victor falk^talk 18:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and bad quality picture. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2011 (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:Ken Harrelson and Darrin Jackson.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completly replaceable non-free image with a bogus copy and paste rationale. Damiens.rf 19:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom therefore delete. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2011 (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:1966Cuacpue.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image showing some man meeting in an important day to do important things. The image is not necessary for explaining all these important stuff. Damiens.rf 19:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The picture of the architectural model conveys an overview of the stadium that is difficult or impossible to convey in words per nfcc#8. ^walk victor falk^talk 18:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant, the structure of the stadium can be shown through maps, present-day photographs and other self-made illustrations. The FUR talks about illustrating the event of that meeting, not the plan as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the fair use rational. Please edit further until satisfactory. The alternatives you mention could be used to illustrate the stadium as it is build, not as it was envisaged. ^walk victor falk^talk 19:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love the picture but it is not necessary. It does not further the reader's understanding to the point that we can justify using the copyrighted material.Cptnono (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't discuss any differences between the stadium "as it was built" and "as it was envisaged", so that point is moot too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does: "Ramps were added prior to the 1986 world cup". ^walk victor falk^talk 10:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop clutching at straws, it's getting disruptive. That change is (a) not what the image is being used to discuss in the article, (b) trivial enough to be discussed in text alone; (c) to the extent that an image demonstrating the old state is needed, we already have a second non-free image in the same article (File:1968olympicgamespuebla.jpg) that serves this purpose much better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement was false. I simlpy pointed that out. The picture you refer to is only a ground view. Only an aerial or satellite view would be equivalent to that of the model(which has other qualities beside), and a free such image from before the re-building in 1986 is extremely unlikely to exist. ^walk victor falk^talk 14:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added this picture to Pedro Ramírez Vázquez with the Fair Use Rationale: " For purposes of identification of a subject of biographic article showing him in a unique historic moment at a pinnacle of his career presenting the Estadio Cuauhtémoc in 1966; replaceable free images, especially in the professional role conferring him notability, are unlikely to exist, since subject is born in 1919. " ^walk victor falk^talk 14:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: neither use in Pedro Ramírez Vázquez and Estadio Cuauhtémoc can possibly pass NFCC at present. Both uses fail because there is no commentary of any sort about the image and its use clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 because its inclusion adds nothing to the reader's understanding of either topic; not the architect, nor the stadium. The rationale justification says it should be used because no free image is available and that it is a unique photo of a board meeting with a model; clearly a deficient rationale. ww2censor (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in the stadium is commented, see discussion above. The picture in the biography serves for purposes of identification of the person, for which no comment is needed. ^walk victor falk^talk 14:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no commentary about the image, just the caption; that is not sufficient to pass NFCC and certainly not justification for keeping it. ww2censor (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about the commentary in Estadio Cuauhtémoc above; you may join it if you so wish. Re: Pedro Ramírez Vázquez, no commentary is necessary as it is a picture for identifying the biography subject. ^walk victor falk^talk 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much discussion or comments there are above, there is still no commentary about the image in the article and the use of a non-free image of a living person, to identify the person in their biographic article is not permitted. This image has neither. Very simply both uses fail WP:NFCC. End. ww2censor (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least as a blatant failure of WP:NFCC#1 for use in the biography and a failure of WP:NFCC#8 for use in the article on the stadium. Its omission would not be detrimental to the understanding that a certain architect designed a certain stadium. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2011 (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:1982 tiket.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image of a soccer match ticket. Damiens.rf 19:09, 31 March 2011 (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:Ignagura.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image of a soccer match ticket. Damiens.rf 19:09, 31 March 2011 (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:Waterworld Joe Hazelwood.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary image of a man in a movie, used just to make the point he had a role/cameo in the movie. Damiens.rf 19:29, 31 March 2011 (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:NOAD.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free book cover used just because the book is mentioned. Damiens.rf 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "just mentioned" at Erin McKean - she is the editor of the book. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentioned. "She was previously the Principal Editor of The New Oxford American Dictionary, second edition.". I wonder how can anyone fully understand this sentence without seeing that specific image. --Damiens.rf 20:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being the primary editor that book is the biggest event in her career. The Boston Globe is "mentioned", but it shouldn't have an image. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? An NFCC#8 case is not decided by how important the pictured object is to the article subject, nor by how important the article subject is to the pictured object, but merely by how important the picture of that subject is to our understanding of the article subject. It is not important at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 1 April 2011 (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:MurderdollsPIC1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this promotional band image was originally uploaded as non-free but the uploader added a cc-by-sa-3.0 licence without any evidence the licence is proper it appears to be falsely claimed by the uploader and the source link does not work, so cannot be checked. ww2censor (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2011 (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.