Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 8



File:PeterPan1.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 although I strongly disagree with this decision and suspect a good number of those !voting keep don't correctly understand our policies and procedures (or, at least, have no idea what deletion review and a procedural renomination is). LiteraryMaven and DGG make sufficiently convincing arguments that the use of this picture is permissible. --B (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:PeterPan1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by SFTVLGUY2 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Relist per Deletion review/Log/2009 July 30. Neutral. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. User does not state why this has been nominated.  Seems to adhere to policy as it is being used to show actor in a notable role, all uses have individual fair use rationale and image is sourced. Ejfetters (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The only stated rationale for deleting this has been "I don't see the point of it", repeated every time someone explains how they see it as valuable.  It shows, in ways that words cannot, how a female actress who became synonymous with a role as a boy appeared in that role.  The reason for relisting it is simple jury-shopping: someone didn't like the outcome based on the previous discussion/vote. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe the question is if the "physical appearance of the actress in this role" is important. Given the nature of the role (woman playing a male) I think the picture adds quite a bit to understanding how believable the actress could be. Hobit (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but perhaps clean up the rationales to mention that this is depicting an iconic portrayal of the character, one that would be impossible to convey with words alone. — PyTom (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Why has this been nominated for deletion again? The consensus to keep was just made on July 27! It was not "neutral" as the nominator claims. See LargoLarry (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Once again, this Tony and Emmy Award-winning performance is regarded as one of the great performances in theater and television history. In 1989, it was highlighted in a significant manner when Mary Martin became a Kennedy Center honoree, and an image adds to an understanding of Martin's historical importance in this specific role. Pepso2 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment --- First,the decision at a previous AfD was (fairly narrowly). The closer closed because he thought that was what the majority wanted, although he personally felt otherwise.    Second, this was challenged at Deletion Review, where it was argued that the content policy as properly interpreted superseded what the community though   Third, The Review was closed as relist, simply saying "no consensus"    Fourth,  It is therefore, in my opinion,  appropriate to relist it now and I do not see why anyone should complain about that. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable iconic use -- the specific portrayal of her in this role is itself famous, to the extent that probably an article could be written about it. Though I do not suggest doing this, because it can be better described in a long section of an article on her or the play or the production, it is certainly enough to justify the importance of the picture. The effect cannot be adequately described in words. The other criteria are met without much dispute. The NFCC are the guidelines, because the community agrees with the present wording, and the community is also responsible for how to interpret it in individual cases. (That we have some NFCC guidelines if we want to use non-free content is a policy of the foundation, but not what the guidelines say or how they should be interpreted. )    DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as before. Once again, many of these arguments completely miss the point. I concede that the "woman playing a young boy" argument does hold some water, but, again, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm happy to accept that it is difficult to show this without a picture, but it still isn't obvious why a picture is needed. Is how she looked in role important? People are happy to spout that it is, but until we have some sourced commentary on her appearance, such arguments should simply be ignored. If how she looked was not important, the image should not be used. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the pictures on Wikipedia are "needed". We have pictures because people see value in having pictures. That perception of value has been demonstrated repeatedly in this instance.  By your logic, we'd need a third-party citation justifying the use of a map in the article for France, or a citation that asserts that the appearance of a beaver is important to understanding them.  If you don't see value in this image... then you don't, and that's fine.  But Wikipedia does not reflect only your interests and values. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have free pictures because "people see value" in having them. We have non-free pictures because they "significantly increase readers' understanding". The standard for free and non-free is different. —teb728 t c 01:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet this image meets them both. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is possibly Martin's most famous role, and the first live television broadcast of Peter Pan in March 1955 on Producers' Showcase was historically significant in that it drew the highest ratings for a single television program up to that time. It was so popular it was presented again the following January. As this is discussed in detail in the article, it certainly seems appropriate to include the image there. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:22, 13 August 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.

File:BCStore.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 ⚡  19:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:BCStore.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Air.dance ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Replaceable non-free use image. Ejfetters (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - The image's caption here says "...now defunct...". Does this mean the store is no longer there?  If so, I'd think the image may not be easily replaceable.--Rockfang (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that... if the building is still standing though it is replaceable. Ejfetters (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I don't see anything extraordinary about the building that warrants a picture of it, nor is the article about the store, it is about the person. The images is unnotable. Ejfetters (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep if the store is defunct is isn't replaceable by a new image, and having an article about a store without a picture of that store seems unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 9 August 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.

File:BCP.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 ⚡  19:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:BCP.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Air.dance ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Replaceable non-free use image. Ejfetters (talk) 06:57, 8 August 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.

File:D12rapcrew.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 ⚡  20:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:D12rapcrew.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Enots86 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * The uploader, who has history of uploading copyright violations, states that this image of D12 is his work. However, this seems to be a promotional image of the group. Therefore, this image is fair use, but it needs to be deleted because there is already a free image of the subject. Karppinen (talk) 15:43, 8 August 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.

File:Johndallaslockhart.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 ⚡  20:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Johndallaslockhart.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Lanky ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This file has been orphan since John Dallas Lockhart was deleted. Karppinen (talk) 16:28, 8 August 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.

File:Advanced technology vessel.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 ⚡  20:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Advanced technology vessel.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Incidious ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Replaceable non-free image. Inadequate rationale for use in 2 articles. Inadequate source information. PhilKnight (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for now at least. There is a claim in the description of the image that this is the only released image.  If true, I'm unclear on the replaceable part. Hobit (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's replaceable by File:Arihant.png. That said, in order for the image to be kept, all 3 concerns would have to be resolved. PhilKnight (talk) 11:11, 10 August 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.

File:Western Europe map.svg

 * 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Western Europe map.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by MaCRoEco ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Original research. Izzedine  (talk) 22:43, 8 August 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.

File:Beyonce-rose.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 ⚡  19:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Beyonce-rose.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Ladgy ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Transferred from "speedy", listed there as " the image does not depict what is shown in the video, the video for the song is black & white, additionally there is debate over the song's notability and doubt over whether it is due for release as a single or not therefore it seems inappropriate to keep the image is it does not enhance the reader's understanding of the subject matter." Skier Dude  ( talk ) 23:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Image fails WP:NFCC as it does not add significantly to readers' understanding. This is easily described in words alone. —  Σ  xplicit 03:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the image appears to not be needed for any article. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well i think that it should be deleted as that the article is redirected so currently the pic is no needed but might for the future but until then i don't care if it is deleted.Ladgy (talk) 06:49, 10 August 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.