Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 29



Image:Bestbuy-3edmonton66743.JPG

 * Image:Bestbuy-3edmonton66743.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Myke2020 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * User claims they own the image, however it is a picture of a retail store's display and signage, seems to be copyright violation. Also, the picture really serves no meaningful purpose, it is just a sony camcorder.  Does not add to the article, and does not contribute in a way words cannot, just saying they sell Sony camcorders seems sufficient. Ejfetters 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete its blurry and adds nothing to the Best Buy article.  New England  Review Me!/ Go Red Sox! 03:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Likely copyright violation and it's blurry and it adds nothing to the article. --Pixelface 05:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way words cannot Ejfetters 05:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejfetters (talk • contribs)

Image:Battle of Guadalete.jpg

 * Image:Battle of Guadalete.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Srnec ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Source for the image is French Wikipedia. The French Wikipedia page  points to the Spanish Wikipedia page.  The image doesn't exist on Spanish Wikipedia, as it was removed by the CommonsDelinker after being deleted from Commons .  Unless there is something I am missing, this image was deleted from Commons for some reason but complications prevented this deletion from carrying to French and English Wikipedia.  The Behnam 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:IAH MAP.gif

 * Image:IAH MAP.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Urban909 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned because Image:IAH terminal map.png made this image obsolete. PNG crusade bot 04:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ical unix.gif

 * Image:Ical unix.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Richard W.M. Jones ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned because Image:ical (Unix) screenshot.png made this image obsolete. PNG crusade bot 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:I'd Hit It - McDonalds banner.gif

 * Image:I'd Hit It - McDonalds banner.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Henry W. Schmitt ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. We don't need animated banner ads cluttering up Wikipedia. And this image has no fair use rationale. Pixelface 11:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if copyright/licensing can be cleared up. Just being advertising is not otherwise sufficient, we use advertising images all over the place if the context supports it and it does where this is used (it's in an article about McDonalds advertising... in a section about this banner ad...). Would be nice if someone lifted just the first frame or otherwise converted it to be non-animated though. NicM 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep The article (I'm lovin' it) concerns an international McDonalds advertising campaign. The section in which this image appears offers a detailed discussion of the ad and the controversy surrounding its contents. It's not possible to understand the impact of the ad and fully understand the controversy without being able to view it. I think the animated--i.e., full-length--version gives us considerably more information than a single frameshot would. Does the animation cause difficulty for users with dial-up, NicM? Or is the issue more an aesthetic one? I'm happy to work on the fair use rationale.—DCGeist 08:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The source for the ad is unknown. And the source for the paragraph has an unknown author. The image is present on that dubious source (which includes a photoshop from Worth1000). I still don't know why the animated banner ad needs to be displayed on Wikipedia, when a link to the banner ad would suffice. Have there been any mentions of the supposed controvery in reliable sources? Are you telling me that all a company needs to do to place their ads on Wikipedia is manufacture controversy around them? There was a controversy about billboards for the film Captivity, but there's no need to show the billboards in the encyclopedia article. And the paragraph about the controversy in the Captivity article has a source in the LA Times, not "BESTREJECTEDADVERTISING.COM". --Pixelface 12:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * These are all excellent points. (1) I'm deeply sickened by the Captivity campaign you mention, and I'm glad that that image does not appear in our article. But if it was the consensus of engaged editors there that it did belong in the article, I believe it would meet our nonfree content criteria. (2) The history of American capitalism evidences a long tradition of marketing by manufactured controversy; we can't ignore it, we just have to report it correctly, with appropriate reputable analysis. (3) Your point about reliable sourcing for this controversy does weigh heavily. I did a modest Google search and couldn't find anything that would pass the WP:V bar. If reliable sourcing can't be located, the section and image should be struck and mention of the widespread, anecdotal evidence of a minor controversy reduced to a sentence or two.—DCGeist 18:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do any images need to be shown on WP when they could be linked to? You find advertising objectionable, but there are plenty of other images people don't like and we don't remove them. Also, as I have said before, there are advertising images used in context all over WP and using it in to illustrate this article is absolutely appropriate. If there are copyright problems they of course need to be solved, and the verifiability of the entire section is not too hot, but those are separate issues and the latter certainly doesn't mean the image should just be removed. I've added another couple of links which are slightly better than the existing one, but this seems to have been a largely internet/blog-based fuss and since it was a couple of years ago there are very few useful cites. It was apparently discussed in a book and an article in the Toronto Star, but both of these are not free, and I can't find much else, not even a copy or link or someone quoting the supposed McDonald's apology. In the end this section may be better merged up just into a couple of lines in the lead-in. NicM 19:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC).


 * Well, I just find animation a bit irritating and I suspect many others do, so if it is permitted by copyright it would be nice to split it into a big image with the flow of frames one above each other or something like that. I don't know much about image licensing and so on so if this is to be kept, if someone who did could sort out the copyright etc it would be great. NicM 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete This is clearly just an advertisement, contributes nothing encylopedic. There is no need for an animated banner that looks like it was taken from an advertisement. Ejfetters 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted and replaced with still image showing same information Image:Mcdonalds Id hit it ad.jpg. -Nv8200p talk 16:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:Camwhore with flowers.jpg

 * Image:Camwhore with flowers.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Skomorokh ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This image was uploaded from Flickr with the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license which should be fine. The only problem is that the person who put the picture on her Flickr account said in its description that she found the camera with this picture on it (see here). Now I'm not an expert on licensing of images here (I don't deal with it at all), but I think that means that, since it's not her work, it can't be licensed under this attribution and can't be used here. I just think it could be a problem that some girl took a picture of herself, didn't upload to the internet, but ended up with it on an article called Cam whore. Either way, I think the licensing is wrong (not the problem of the uploader here, just a problem with Flickr) and it should be deleted. Phydend 17:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah, I don't think "FOUND CAMERA AT BEACH" is an acceptable license. And there are no reliable sources referring to the subject of the photgraph as a "cam whore." It could create a bad defamation situation. --Pixelface 05:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete And quickly. We should presume it is creating a bad defamation situation right now. There is no excuse on Earth for Wikipedia to characterize this unidentified woman as a "cam whore."—DCGeist 08:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:NBP flag.jpg

 * Image:NBP flag.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Brandmeister ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Copyright violation. The tag is wrong: this flag is not a state symbol. Also, the source is not given. Mukadderat 18:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that? Should this be at WP:PUI instead? – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kellie p.png

 * Image:Kellie p.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by KelliePicklerFanatic ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fair use image of a singer, contributes nothing to the article that can't be contributed with words, not notable that a fair use image must be used. Free use image in the infobox is sufficient. Ejfetters 19:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pokemon logo.jpg

 * Image:Pokemon logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by NoseNuggets ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * A jpg image which has been made obsolete by a png version called Image:English_Pokemon_logo.png. - Face 19:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Everythingbutthegirl.jpg

 * Image:Everythingbutthegirl.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Robert1500ca ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * fair use image, replaceable with free use image. Ejfetters 20:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stephen Colbert-2.jpg

 * Image:Stephen Colbert-2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Noosphere ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * wrong license, the "enhancement" moved it out of project scope. 32X 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What license should it have? And I don't understand how making the picture look less crappy "moves it out of project scope".  Please explain.  -- noosph e re 03:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Image kept. Licensing is fine . "Project scope" is unexplained. Actually license needs to be GFDL. I changed it -Nv8200p talk 17:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wesker.PNG

 * Image:Wesker.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by ReynoldsWrap ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Falsely declared to be PD, not even a very good picture anyway. Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:TeenageRunawayCover.jpg

 * Image:TeenageRunawayCover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Trooper101 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned. Oli Filth 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pictureoftheriotgrrrls.jpg

 * Image:Pictureoftheriotgrrrls.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Trooper101 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned. Oli Filth 22:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

CSI character publicity images
These appear to be publicity shots, property of the studio, and have no documentation that they have been released for public use. Similar discussions have been presented for Star Trek, Dawson's Creek, and several Soap Opera shots, and subsequently were deleted. They were replaced with more appropriate screen shots of the television series. Ejfetters 23:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:CSI-WilliamPetersen.jpg
 * Image:CSI-MargHelgenberger.jpg
 * Image:CSI-GeorgeEads.jpg
 * Image:CSI-JorjaFox.jpg
 * Image:CSI-GaryDourdan.jpg
 * Image:CSI-PaulGuilfoyle.jpg
 * Image:CSI-RobertDavidHall.jpg
 * Image:CSI-EricSzmanda.jpg
 * This pictures should be deleted, they have not been released to the public and i don't think these articles justify the violation of copyright. I would however justify the use of screenshots, that would not only improve the quality of these articles but it would also promote CSI, wich would probably make the copyright owners very happy.


 * If someone else gives the OK i will proceed to change this pictures to screenshots.Yamanbaiia 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can just upload the screenshots under different filenames, then these would not interfere with the listings here. Ejfetters 08:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gary-dourdan.jpg

 * Image:Gary-dourdan.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Sdmunoz9 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fair use image of a living person, replaceable with free use image. Ejfetters 23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)