Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 28



File:Cincy montage part 2.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 - attribution requirements and licensing issues appear resolved - Peripitus (Talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Cincy montage part 2.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Jeffmeck22 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * "Commons" is not a full source itself; what exact images were used? Image does not attribute authors as required by license used, and names of original images not present. Permission is completely inaccurate. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under WP:CSD. The file was identified as having no source seven days ago. Beside that, two components are license violations: The skyline photo is licensed Cc-by-sa-2.5, but the uploader violates that license by failing to give attribution and by failing to include the share-alike condition on the montage license. The bridge photo is licensed GFDL, but the uploader violates that license by failing to list the author(s) and by failing to license the montage under GFDL. Although the fountain and stadium photos are in the public domain, Wikipedia still requires sources for all images. —teb728 t c 05:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't delete, if we can find the sources, the licensing update may save us, since it pretty much dual-licensed almost every GFDL image on Commons. ViperSnake151 Talk  13:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved. Yep, thank you GFDL 1.3 :) ViperSnake151 Talk  13:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Is there now a requirement to retain the individual images, even if not otherwise used, in order to retain their attribution information per CC-BY-SA § 4(c)? If so, do we have a vehicle for assuring that they're retained?  If not, it would be appropriate to copy the attribution info to this file's page. TJRC (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They will most likely be kept regardless, since they're freely licensed and in scope. ViperSnake151 Talk  22:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the point I was trying to make is that, if we're relying on a link to the prior image(s) to satisfy the terms of the license, then they must be kept. Do we have a way of assuring that they will be, or do we just rely on the fact that they're likely to be kept?  Alternatively, as a condition to keeping this file, it can comply with the license by including the attribution information in this file as well; then there's no dependency on the continued preservation of the others. Otherwise, in the event those files are deleted, this file is out of compliance with the license.TJRC (talk) 23:13, 29 June 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:Churchill House, outside.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 ⚡  14:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Churchill House, outside.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Churchillhousefan ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * "GPL" is for free software. This isn't sofware. Also lacking source information. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * so the uploader got the terms mixed up. Just fix the typo. And ask him what the source is DGG (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; GPL is a valid (although suboptimal) free license for images, but lacking a source is grounds for deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 15 July 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:SJRI.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 ⚡  20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:SJRI.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Geord ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unused, specifies "non-commercial, academic use" –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also replaceable with a free map. —teb728 t c 05:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Google maps are not freely licenced and because this is replaceable it fails WP:NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 28 June 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:Alahazratstamptwo.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 ⚡  20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Alahazratstamptwo.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Ahmadvns ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Delete: All Indian stamp are copyright for 60 years so this cannot be copyright of the uploader. Fails WP:NFC because it is being used in a non-stamp article but just to show the stamp exists and does not add to the reader's understanding of the article so fails WP:NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 03:48, 28 June 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:Hannover region coa.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 ⚡  05:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Hannover region coa.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Baldhur ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Higher-res at commons Papa November (talk) 12:48, 28 June 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:Students at Avondale School.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Students at Avondale School.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by DZadventiste ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * A non-free photo of a smiling student is not required, and could easily be replaced by a free alternative. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 28 June 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:Avondale School Fire Victim Appeal.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 ⚡  20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Avondale School Fire Victim Appeal.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by DZadventiste ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * What it looked like when money was presented, especially when the event is only a small part of the article, is not important enough to warrant the use of a non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 14:23, 28 June 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:The coolest person ever.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 ⚡  20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:The coolest person ever.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by I-love-you-barbie- ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * No possible encyclopedic use. LeSnail (talk) 16:41, 28 June 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:Screenshot2.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: Deleted - deleted by someone else, blue link is from commonsbleed. --B (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Screenshot2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by Jayy008 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image fails WP:NFCC as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding —  Σ xplicit  19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, adding to that, this scene in music video has been compared to Rihanna's SOS and people who are unfamiliar with that video will have no idea what it's talking about - jayy008
 * I disagree, the screen-short provided is hard describe with words alone, I agree with the Knock You Down image, that's why I deleted it, but not this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.251.8 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How does this image add to the readers' understanding of the topic? —  Σ xplicit  19:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How does any music video screen shot add to readers' understand? I say that because I don't know how to answer that. - jayy008
 * Well, let me point out an example. Take a look at Everyone Nose (All the Girls Standing in the Line for the Bathroom); the screen shot of the music video depicts the 1980s video game graphics, as described in the text and caption. Without it, various readers—specifically those who are unfamiliar with the video game graphics of the past—would have no idea what the text is trying to explain. —  Σ xplicit  22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a valid reason for a video game but where would music videos come into that? Wouldn't every music video screen shot not add to the readers' understanding? - jayy008
 * Keep A fair use of a minimal portion of the video used to compare the video to another work, without which the degree of similarity between the two works, which is the point of the accompanying text, cannot be made clear.  In other words, the image does add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.  See A picture is worth a thousand words.  TJRC (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I read the description of the music video section of the article where it is used. I didnot find any commentary regarding the picture used there, hence I believe it is only for decorative purposes. Hence delete. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 13:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are just upset because your image was nominated! The point you made however is valid, there is an article somewhere on the internet about the comparison between the Return the Favor video and SOS by Rihanna amongst others and if thae article is added as citation for that I believe the image should stay. If no citation is added then the statement can not be confirmed even though I added it. So then the image should be deleted afterwards. Jayy008 (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks again. If I see you making comments like this, you have to be reported. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep no way of handling this with properly with words only, and minimal use. meets NFCC. DGG (talk) 17:40, 1 July 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:Dj.dszgmlip.227x170-99.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 ⚡  21:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Dj.dszgmlip.227x170-99.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [} logs]) - uploaded by MatthewWaller ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image fails WP:NFCC as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding —  Σ xplicit  19:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP there is a limited number of words describing the music video which needs expansion with a professional article, there aren't any as this group are just rising as stars, they do not get many professional reviews. Due to that an image is needed to add understanding of what the music video looks like. Jayy008 (talk) 13:19, 1 July 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.