Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 June 13



Image:Pierretrudeau.PNG

 * Image:Pierretrudeau.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Earl Andrew ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Copyvio per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment excuse me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't G12 I9 apply, since it goes for all types and namespaces? -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  01:54, 17 June 2008 (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 debate was Deleted. Indeed they're not. Wily D 22:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wolf_Armoured_Vehicle.jpg

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


 * Israeli government images are not PD. -Nard 00:08, 13 June 2008 (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.


 * 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 mainly based on WP:NFCC#8. The fair use image is not significant to the article. -Nv8200p talk 01:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:NI_coursing_leaflet.jpg

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


 * Replaceable by free image of this activity per WP:NFCC. If the League Against Cruel Sports could obtain an image of this, so could we - or the LASC could release their image under free license. Kelly  hi! 00:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Regrettably the image is not replaceable - the organisers of hare coursing events do not generally permit photography. The background to this image is this: that the League Against Cruel Sports purchased a commercial image with permission to use it on a leaflet. and then distributed the leaflet. They did not buy general use rights for the image and therefore cannot release the image. The leaflet they produced, however, is in the public domain. MikeHobday (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * delete while it may be difficult to get a replacement, "do not generally permit photography" does not mean it is impossible. Also fails wp:nfc#8, as it doesnt really show anything abou the geographic differences in coursing Fasach Nua (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't say much more about the former point, but you are incorrect with regard to the latter. It shows muzzled coursing which is a key geographic distinction in Irish coursing. MikeHobday (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the only difference being displayed is muzzles, would it be possible to use a term like "The dogs wear muzzles" (WP:NFC#1 Fasach Nua (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The test in policy is "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" I'm not sure what "adequately" means. Certainly, the image adds significantly to the encyclopaedic purpose, but is that enough? MikeHobday (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe the subject could not be adequately conveyed without using the image.PJHaseldine (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails several NFCC criteria, all of which are required. Fails NFCC#1: as an event still practiced, a free alternative could be acquired; NFCC makes no consideration of the ease of obtaining a free alternative or whether subterfuge would be needed (i.e. sneaking in a camera); Fails NFCC#3B: uses greater portion of copyrighted work than is needed to illustrate muzzled coursing (i.e. unnecessarily includes non-free logo in lower left corner). Fails NFCC#8: no significant contribution to our understanding.  Given that we have numerous free images of coursing (see Hare coursing), how does seeing the dogs muzzled add anything meaningful to our understanding or anything significant above and beyond what is already there?   ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Solely on the NFCC#3B issue, I have seen a copy of the email that led to OTRS ticket and that email gave permission for use of the logo in respect of this image. Can someone with OTRS access confirm? MikeHobday (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2008 (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:Genesis_80s.jpg

 * Image:Genesis_80s.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by AreJay ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned, possibly unfree. Kelly  hi! 00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Exclamblack.JPG

 * Image:Exclamblack.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unused, Unencyclopedic. -Nard 00:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alkett_and_Rhinemetall-Borsig's_Heuschrecke_10.jpg

 * Image:Alkett_and_Rhinemetall-Borsig's_Heuschrecke_10.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Dreamafter ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Copyvio from http://www.achtungpanzer.com/wafft.htm -Nard 00:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Uploader indicated that permission had been acquired and was directed to WP:COPYREQ back in January. Uploader was reminded again when Heuschrecke 10 came to FAC in March.  It's concerning that no steps to file permission with OTRS have been taken.  This is to say nothing of the fact that the source is quite unlikely to be the copyright holder (I doubt Achtung Panzer webmasters were snapping photos in 1940s Germany).  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Heuschrecke_10_rear_view.jpg

 * Image:Heuschrecke_10_rear_view.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Dreamafter ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Copyvio from http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/AberdeenUSArmyOrdinanceMuseum/GermanTanks/Heuschrecke/pages/02Heuschrecke.htm -Nard 01:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Uploader indicated that permission had been acquired and was directed to WP:COPYREQ back in January. Uploader was reminded again when Heuschrecke 10 came to FAC in March.  It's concerning that no steps to file permission with OTRS have been taken.  Source does not assert Wiki-compatible license.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Badlands_Guardian.jpg

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


 * I think this image is a copyvio. It has no source. -Nard 01:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is probably a snap from Google Earth, Google Maps, or some article about the subject, such as PCWorld.ca - "The Strangest Sights in Google Earth". Besides, the photoshopping is awkward. --AVM (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hydrohs_Avatar.gif

 * Image:Hydrohs_Avatar.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Hydrohs ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image is taken from software that is not under a free license. -Nard 01:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Literatness_Timeline.png

 * Image:Literatness_Timeline.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Hydrohs ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unencyclopedic. -Nard 01:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Useless: delete. --AVM (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:El01m.jpg

 * Image:El01m.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Cairncool ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Copyright Google Earth Image Firefishy (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:South_Park_Blizzard_executives.jpg

 * Image:South_Park_Blizzard_executives.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Michaelas10 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image is rationaled to "significantly to the article by illustrating an important point in the plot of the episode." The illustration of the three men at a table is not required to convey the information therein and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic—"Make Love, Not Warcraft" (WP:NFCC & #8). —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NFCC and nom. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  01:58, 17 June 2008 (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: delete. Image is not significant to understanding the article. -Nv8200p talk 01:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:South_Park_WoW_computer_lab.jpg

 * Image:South_Park_WoW_computer_lab.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Michaelas10 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image is rationaled to "[contribute] significantly to the article by illustrating an important point in the plot of the episode." The illustration of four overweight children in a computer lab is not required to convey the information already described therein and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic—"Make Love, Not Warcraft" (WP:NFCC & #8). —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree -- Rayqayza Dialga Weird 2210   23:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that this image makes no difference to the article. The characters' looks are well known.  This image shows how WoW is supposed to have affected them.  (1) they're all fat and pimply, (2) they're in a computer lab, not a place we'd expect them to frequent. - Denimadept (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll acquiesce that I'm not familiar with South Park or its characters, except to recognize the main ones. While the image does illustrate the characters' adjusted appearances, is it sufficiently indescribable so as to require this copyrighted imagery?  I lean towards doubting that.  Further, the computer lab aspect you bring up is neither mentioned nor referenced in the article.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not mentioned in the article directly, perhaps. See the second paragraph under "Plot".  It's an illustration adding to the depth of what is described in the article, therefore it is adding to the article.  I'd agree it was useless if the article itself covered that specific scene in excruciating detail, but the picture is simpler and more direct, which is the point of including an image.  If Comedy Central and South Park Studios don't complain, I suggest leaving this alone, perhaps moving the image to the infobox to replace the one removed earlier. - Denimadept (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's the crux of WP:NFCC: if something needs to be covered, but can be done with free content as opposed to non-free, then the non-free isn't used. The scene is already covered in a sufficient fashion textually, and doesn't need to use another's copyrighted material.  In the grander scheme, I don't see how this image significantly contributes to the understanding of the article as a whole; it does nicely illustrate it, but that doesn't meet muster.  Of course, FWIW, I'm just providing my input and interpretation here.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood, and no offense taken. I didn't include either screen shot, though I can understand why they're there.  You'll note that I'm not defending the other one at all.  I'm not sure the policy you reference applies since there can be no such free source for a screen shot from a recent episode of a program.  If the program were out of copyright, that'd be different, of course.  I suggest "fair use" works for a single screen shot unless challenged by the holder(s). - Denimadept (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

delete - The image does improve the article from an asthetic point of view, however it does not significantly increase the readers' understanding WP:NFC#8, and can be described with gfdl text WP:NFC#1 Fasach Nua (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Serves a purpose to illustrate the moral of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.119.124.34 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 26 June 2008
 * Keep: the picture is a good illustration of the parody of WoW addiction, as seen by the South Park team --Drhlajos (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2008 (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:Thedemoneye.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 debate was Speedy Deleted per User Request (G7). UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Thedemoneye.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by thedemonhog ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This image was uploaded to give readers some idea of what I look like, but it has become redundant with the upload of Image:2008 Vancouver meetup.jpg. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  21:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want it tag it as, although it may have some encyclopedic use, I would prefer move to commons Fasach Nua (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  18:12, 19 June 2008 (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.