Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 30



DubeeHapp.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  09:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:DubeeHapp.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Killervogel5 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Duplicate of DubeeKendrick.jpg. Player was misidentified on original upload. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 00:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As mentioned. Also picture does not seem very useful since none of the people's faces can be seen. It could be used in some article on baseball but even then it does not seem like a good choice. Photographer should keep going and upload some pictures of players from better angles.Steve Dufour (talk)
 * 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.

DSCN0741.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 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:DSCN0741.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Aw41285 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphan, unencyclopedic – Quadell (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It would be hard to imagine an article in which this picture would be helpful. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep How about using it in the article on Gurning? It would need a crop, but the article in question could really use an image and the background in this one would really help. -Mgm|(talk) 04:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The photo in the background does not belong to the photographer, and so cannot be considered free. J Milburn (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom...but at least I learned about gurning. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:41, 6 May 2009 (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.

Rainmusicvideo.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: Speedy delete per CSD:G7 as the uploader supports deletion. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Rainmusicvideo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Legolas2186 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image is merely a non-free depiction of the artist. To the extent that this image is not replaceable by free text, it does not add to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete please. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 14:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Copyrighted and not useful.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * delete just a non-free decoration for the videoclip article. --Damiens .rf 19:21, 30 April 2009 (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.

Pandas and ppl.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: - Keep - Note that long-standing consensus tends to allow a single cover image in an article on a book. The use in the ID article or not is another matter that will not be decided in a deletion debate. Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Pandas and ppl.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Duncharris ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Copyright violation as currently used on Intelligent design John (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Image is clearly useful and justified on the main article; debates about its suitability on intelligent design belong on the article talk page. Even if that use is determined to not be justified, the file should not be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Picture is copyrighted. WP readers have no special need to know, or even interest in, what the cover of a book looks like. If the cover has been discussed in a reliable secondary source then it could be mentioned in the article: "The cover of the book has a photograph of a giant panda. This has been said to be..." Steve Dufour (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you do not believe that the use of a book cover on an article about the book is useful without commentary relating to the cover itself? We have an awful lot of featured articles about books that use their cover without extensive discussion of them, probably even more featured articles on films and albums that use covers without discussion... Should all of those files be deleted? J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe WP policy says that a copyrighted picture should only be used if it is useful for readers to understand the topic. In this case the issue seems to be controversial so I'd say be more strict about policy, but if you want to nominate any others for deletion please let me know and I will vote to delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. I would much rather see a discussion somewhere about what the whole deal is. That would be much more interesting and informative than just seeing the picture of the book cover. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing a cover of a book in an article about the book (and only the book) is beneficial- I would have thought that that was fairly uncontroversial. Book covers are the primary means of advertising and displaying a book, and are also useful for means of identification. If we are to cut back on non-free images, I would say book covers would be one of the last things to go. Increasing a readers' understanding of a topic takes more than simply showing images that have been described- what you're talking about here is a massive change of practice. Note that the NFCC do not specify that images need to be discussed; it's just a useful measure of how significant an image is. For instance, I would not expect appearances to be discussed when images are being used as a primary means of identification on an article about what they portray (covers of various sorts, logos, dead people, demolished buildings, etc). The use on the article about the book is not a controversial case, and removing it would obviously damage the article. It is the other use that is controversial, and deleting the image is not the answer, as the image itself should be kept for the other article. If you believe it should be removed from intelligent design, go and discuss the issue on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep fully justified fair use in full accordance with image use policy, this appears to be a WP:POINTy dispute about use of the image on an article about the subject, with citation to a reliable source about the significance of the book cover, in addition to the well justified use on an article about the book itself. Neither instance is a copyright violation, both meet fair use standards and the additional standards of image use policy. . dave souza, talk 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the book cover discussed in the article? Steve Dufour (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, with sources that describe its relevance.Quietmarc (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see the discussion or the sources. Where are they, please? --John (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't any. There's just one self-publish source giving the opinion that the book cover was "glossy", and this image is supposedly used in our article so that readers can understand it's "glossy". --Damiens .rf 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * remove from Intelligent design as it's not necessary there. --Damiens .rf 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This has also been discussed, ad nauseum, on the talk page, with a consensus to keep (supported and justified as per dave souza's comments above). Quietmarc (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, Quietmarc, if you can show me where the consensus to keep was agreed or determined by a neutral third-party, I will gladly withdraw this FFD. If on the other hand you are unable to show this, I request that you strike the part of your comment which refers to consensus above. Thanks either way. --John (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I assure you there's no such consensus. What there is, indeed, is a strategy to always respond to inteligent-design's nfcc questions with "this has been discussed before, see the archives", but all you see in the archives are other replies like "this has been discussed before...". --Damiens .rf 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. You can argue all you like that the image doesn't belong there, and maybe you're right, maybe you aren't. But, seriously, how can you argue that an image of the book's cover is not justified in an article about the book? J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't argued that. But still, IFD discussion may decide that an image may only be used on this or that article, what I believe would be the outcome here. --Damiens .rf 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the purpose of IfD. Any decision as such could hardly be considered binding. There are pages and pages of discussion, a quick vote on the wrong venue cannot decide what should be done. J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IFD is the de facto venue for discussing nfcc issues on images, and decisions here are surely binding. --Damiens .rf 19:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, no. We're not a bureaucracy, there is a long history of discussion on the image talk page regarding this issue. Even if it was part of the purpose of this page to judge the validity of specific uses, in this case, it would not be valid, as there is already so much discussion. Can you not see the serious issue with that? This page is for discussing whether an image needs to be deleted. If it doesn't, it should be kept. Simple. Whether an image is included in an article is a matter for editorial judgement and discussion on the article talk page. Whether an image is kept on the project is a matter for this page. J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - absolutely qualifies under WP:FU for Of Pandas and People, it's a book cover being used on a page about the book. Whether it should be on intelligent design is a separate question that does not mean it should be deleted from wikipedia.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to see an article on "Cover art of creationist books" so that I could understand what the issues involved are.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove from intelligent design as failing WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is the "good guys" in this case are bullying the "bad guys." (So in general no one cares to step in to defend the "bad guys.")Steve Dufour (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: file has clear and valid "purpose of use" statements justifying both usages. Nominator has never challenged these statements on file talk, but rather has repeatedly placed illegitimate templates to have the file deleted ( -- which templates require, for the file to be kept, "an appropriate non-free use rationale, such as Template:Non-free use rationale" which was already in place). Nominator's claim of "Copyright violation as currently used on Intelligent design", is a bare, unsubstantiated, and thus worthless, assertion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per JMilburn (and Hrafn ;-) ). We've got an article on the book, showing a picture of the book there seems quite justified. As to the other place, argue it out there, it's certainly not worth deleting the image entirely. --GRuban (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. No evidence whatsoever was put forward in support of the proposition that it might be a copyvio. But either way, low resolution cover images such as this are used all the time; in the US (where WP's servers are located), the case law unequivocally, unambiguously holds such uses are protected under the First Amendment w.r.t. even remotely relevant critical commentary. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's quite standard to have an image of the book on an article about the book. R. Baley (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure if people are having trouble reading the nom further up the page but my issue is not the use on the article about the book. It is within the power of this forum to restrict the use of this file to that one proper instance of fair use ("minimum use") and rule the other use as what it is, an abuse of a copyright image. This indeed is the outcome I seek here. --John (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No trouble reading at all. This page is for image deletion. It is not for restricting forums. If you don't want the image used in a different article, that should be discussed (again) on the talk page to find if there's a consensus to remove. The only outcome of this page discussion is "delete image" or "keep image". R. Baley (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Far too much of this discussion is about whether this image should be used on various articles. That is the business of the talk pages of the articles concerned. No good reason for deletion has been given. -- Bduke  (Discussion)  22:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about that it's copyrighted? I think that's a good reason to delete it. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bduke, GRuban, J Milburn, and WLU. There is universal near-universal agreement that the image's use in Of Pandas and People falls squarely within Wikipedia policy. Its use elsewhere is not for this venue to decide. Eubulides (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I do agree that Of Pandas and People is a bad book, however its cover is not remarkable at all since it just consists of the words "Of Pandas and People" and a picture of a giant panda. Most people know what a giant panda looks like. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I thought you also agreed the image satisfied policy for the Of Pandas and People article. To fix my error, I changed "universal" to "near-universal" in my previous comment. The corrected comment still stands. Eubulides (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I very much dislike people telling me what I think.Steve Dufour (talk)


 * Keep. This is a malformed proposal. No valid reason has been given to delete this image from Wikipedia, which is what proposals here are for. And there is massive consensus already in favor of using this image in the intelligent design article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are two valid reasons: It is copyrighted by an organization (the Foundation for Thought and Ethics) that might decide to sue WP. It has no educational value since it is just a picture of the cover of a book which can be described in words. ("It's a picture of a giant panda.") Steve Dufour (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are invalid reasons because: adequate fair use rationale has been given, and adequate rationale has also been given for the image's use. As I stated, this is a malformed proposal. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I think they are both valid reasons to delete the image. It is not in line with WP's purpose, which is to be a resource for education. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, Amatulic, point me to this "massive consensus" will you? I read the relevant discussions carefully and couldn't see it.--John (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep; there is no dispute that one of the uses is consistent with the WP:NFCC policy, and there is general agreement (albeit with notable dissent) that the second use is consistent with policy. Guettarda (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute that any use of this copyrighted image with no educational value is consistant with the spirit of WP's policies. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, I disagree about it not working out on Intelligent design, it does have signifigant discussion. If you wanted to object to its usage, why not go to the talk page? Also, can we WP:SNOW this soon? ViperSnake151 Talk  12:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Use in Pandas and People article is well within the non-free policy. Use in the Intelligent design article is far more controversial, however even if removed, the image wouldn't be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Removal from the other article has already been done and that discussion should have taken place on the image page or the article. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:22, 6 May 2009 (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.

Northwest N467US.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 - the nomination reason is that the image does not significantly add to reader's understanding. While the aircraft may be important I am not convinced by those seeking to keep the image that consensus shows it meeting this criteria (#8) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Northwest N467US.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Dream out loud ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Seeing this airplane parked helps nothing in the understanding of the article about its hijacking. Damiens .rf 18:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it illustrates the rear passenger stairs, which was used by Cooper to jump from the plane, so obviously shows an element of the hijacking. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't show the rear stairs at all. The only thing open in the photo is the rear cargo hatch and a conveyor belt car pulled up to it. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The stair doesn't really need to be illustrated, and it is illustrated better by other, free images anyway. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot find a picture of the 727-100 variant on the Boeing 727 page nor is a picture of the 727-100 findable on Mayflower. Furthermore, I would also suggest the picture is significant - it shows what was hijacked which is significant in the context of the article. Bigger digger (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As an important historical photo. It is the only aircraft to ever be successfully skyjacked over U.S. airspace. That alone makes it noteworthy. Does it need to specifically be on this page? Not necessarily, but it certainly is apropos within context. No other pictures of a 727-100 have been uploaded either, so in that respect, it is also unique. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:29, 6 May 2009 (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.

DBCooper article.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: As several point out, this fails NFCC#3 and #8, even if cropped.
 * File:DBCooper article.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Hugh W308 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * The article doesn't need to shows a (non-free) newspaper's cover to make the point that the article's subject was covered by the press. Damiens .rf 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or crop If I read the lower right picture caption correctly, it displays McCoy, Jr. A dead person for who no free images exist. Use should be limited in other places, but the image (or part of it) is perfectly suitable for his article per fair use guidelines. - Mgm|(talk) 05:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The image is not really showing anything in particular, the appearance of this newspaper cover is not of any importance. J Milburn (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/crop. As per Mgm. There is a useful picture of McCoy Jr in the image. Bigger digger (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because it's useful, it doesn't means it's fair to use it. Being on a newspaper, the picture is probably from a news agency --Damiens .rf 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And if it is the only picture we have of him a fair use exception can be made. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On a part-related note, the tag on the image leads to a caption on the image on the article, but the link it includes links to the default FFD page, not the dated page, is there anyway to fix this? Eg at D. B. Cooper the image tagged for deletion links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#DBCooper_article.jpg not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_30#DBCooper_article.jpg Bigger digger (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Irreplaceable image...though it needs to be cropped... — BQZip01 —  talk 06:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the image is showing nothing of significance for readers. If cropped to just the one person we would have a sourcing problem - who is the copyright holder of the image ? for me it fails NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:58, 6 May 2009 (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.

Eminemprofile.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Eminemprofile.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Kingcartwright ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This image is currently under non-free fair use, despite the subject of the photo (Eminem) is still alive. Per the FAIR_USE, fair use is unacceptable on copyrighted images of living people. This was initially tagged with a d7 Invalid fair-use claim, but then the original uploader removed it. Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 15:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Copyrighted. If people want to see what Enimem looks like nowdays provide a link to his own site.Steve Dufour (talk)

(Note: This discussion was restored after being removed by ) Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 08:09, 1 May 2009 (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.