Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 24



File:Guantanamo captive Abu Abdul Rauf Zalita.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 ⚡  01:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Guantanamo captive Abu Abdul Rauf Zalita.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by User talk: ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Preposterously bad image, dubious source. Gamaliel (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: This could be anyone, anywhere. It does nothing for the article and in no way could possibly be used to identify the person. It fails verifiability and even the lowest possible standard of photographic competence.  Bielle  (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete non-free image Wikipedia has very limited cases where non-free images are used any more.  It is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created is quite simple to apply here.  This is an absolute, non-debatable requirement.  It is clearly not met. Collect (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete can't be verified, poor quality image, subject is still alive and recent (or future) photographs could be found. --Errant (chat!) 12:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The quality of this image is not ideal, but the nomination states that it is from a "dubious source"; respondents have asserted it "can't be verified". Cageprisoners is a human rights group that is widely quoted by other reputable sources.  So I would really appreciate some explanation as to why nominator and others have asserted it is "dubious".  Geo Swan (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per 1) WP:NFC the use of copyrighted images of people still alive is unacceptable as a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. Secondly it is from worthless quality that in my opinion presents the individual in a false light. He is not a ghost. IQinn (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete editor adding the image has not established that he or she owns the image--no need for discussion, delete immediately.Jarhed (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It doesn't seem to me that getting a new picture of this guy would be so easy. It would be helpful though, if someone wrote to Cageprisoners and asked for a public domain release of the original image, (if it's not actually a work of the Federal Government which seems highly likely). I'll make a point of doing so anyway, should the deletion go thru. Once it's a free image, I assume that'll settle the complaints here? -- Kendrick7talk 00:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You assume wrong. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kendrick, this has been discussed a number of times. The consensus is generally that we almost exclusively assume that a free picture is obtainable (and usually it is, after some time) --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but getting this pic released makes it a free picture. Problem solved, LDO, although maybe Three could clarify? -- Kendrick7talk 17:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem not solved. To clarify, I don't care anything about license/fair use/copy right ect. This image is a piece of garbage/pile of dog do do and does less than nothing to advance the project. I really can't understand for the life of me why anybody would want to include such a poor image. A crayon drawing would be better than this but I wouldn't want that included, and yes, I have read all the "reasons" for including this image. Anyways, it must be me....--Threeafterthree (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if we're somehow keeping you back from a life of artistic freedom, but aesthetics don't really concern the project. -- Kendrick7talk 05:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - unverifiable, extremely low quality image of no identifying value at all. Non free image in the infobox of a living person fails Wikipedia:NFCC#1 - Off2riorob (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The image quality alone dictates deletion. Pretty simple, get another picture from a credible source.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (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:Live with Regis and Kelly.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 as F7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Live with Regis and Kelly.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Cool aire of 1999 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image uploaded by a sock of an indef-blocked user (blocked for violating WP:NFCC) with a bad NFUR; image is unlikely to satisfy WP:NFCC. RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  16:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep only image of the eponymous hosts of a talk show, where the hosts are the key element of the talk show. The image is intimately linked with the show as well, and not random shots of these two people unrelated to the show itself. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:NFCC. The Live with Regis and Kelly logo as depicted here consists only of shapes, colours, and text and can be extracted/recreated as a libre-licensed image under PD-textlogo, and we already have libre-licensed images of Regis Philbin and Kelly Ripa on the WikiMedia Commons.  —   Fourthords  | =/\= | 01:51, 27 April 2011 (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:Jeopardy.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 as F7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Jeopardy.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Cool aire of 1999 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Promotional image uploaded by a sock of an indef-blocked user (blocked for violating WP:NFCC) with a bad NFUR; image is unlikely to satisfy WP:NFCC. RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  16:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it shows the host of the gameshow, an element strongly linked to this particular game show, since Alex Trebek has entered popular culture due to his link to this gameshow. Further the article should show the game show host anyways. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Purely decorative fair use. Image isn't tied to any sourced commentary in the article and exists in a section regarding other media. Superfluous. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:NFCC. The Jeopardy! logo is purely textual and can be extracted/recreated as a libre-licensed image under PD-textlogo, and we already have libre-licensed images of Alex Trebek on the WikiMedia Commons.  —   Fourthords  | =/\= | 01:51, 27 April 2011 (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:Onion Rings.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 ⚡  16:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Onion Rings.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Cool aire of 1999 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Promotional non-free image uploaded by a sock of an indef-blocked user (blocked for violating WP:NFCC) with a bad NFUR; image is unlikely to satisfy WP:NFCC. RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  16:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooooh, a hard one - any other ideas what we could put in the infobox? If so then I think we can bin it. But I think something as high profile as Oprah should have one fairly recent visual representation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * " - any other ideas what we could put in the infobox? " - What about nothing? Really, if the main reason we want some image is to fill space on on infobox, then we actually can do without it. --Damiens .rf 00:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * if kept rename, clearly this isn't a picture of onion rings. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * delete with ketchup mmmm thats a strange onion ring oh wait its Oprah lol!-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  12:52, 28 April 2011 (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:Vampire-queen.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 - Peripitus (Talk) 14:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Vampire-queen.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Exxolon ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I'm not clear how this image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" – granted, it depicts the monster in more detail than words could/would, but I question the necessity of readers having such a precise and detail concept of the monster to their understanding of the article topic, which is about the episode in general. Furthermore, the subject of the image is not really subject to any critical commentary in the article. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 17:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - How many times do we have to go through this? You've nominated this image for deletion twice already and gone through a DRV and each time it's been kept. Stop flogging the dead horse. Image meets all criteria for fair use. Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which of the speedy keep criteria are you suggesting applies here? And can you link me to both of the previous deletion discussions for reference please, because I can't find two? Also, if you have time, please link me to both of the DRV debates, because I can't even find one of those? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  First Secretary of State  ─╢ 21:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Links are Files_for_deletion/2010_June_25, Files_for_deletion/2010_August_9 and Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_5. Interested editors may also wish to peruse Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive632 as TreasuryTag once again did not notify me. The SK criteria that applies is "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion" - you obviously don't want this image in the article for some unknown reason and are using the FFD system repeatedly to get it removed. Exxolon (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)r
 * You clearly don't understand the criterion you are talking about, sadly. You're right I don't want the image in the article; that is because I feel it violates our non-free content policy here at Wikipedia. You're right that I'm using FFD to have the image deleted. That is what FFD is for. When you quoted the criterion, you accidentally forgot to quote the whole line, which ended, "...where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course." Do you think that dispute resolution would be beneficial in this dispute of ours? If so, please propose a venue and I will gladly consider withdrawing this nomination. Meanwhile, I don't know why you mentioned that I didn't notify you. It isn't mandatory and doesn't affect whether or not this image should be deleted. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  Lord Speaker  ─╢ 21:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that comment by Stifle invalidates the instructions at WP:FFD - I will ask him for an explanation. As for WP:DR, I would suggest a WP:RFC on retention of the image - what do you think? Exxolon (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you just explain to me how an WP:RfC in which the community drops in to offer an opinion on the deletion or non-deletion of the image is different to this FfD in which the community drops in to offer an opinion on the deletion or non-deletion of the image? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 21:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RFCs run for 30 days and are far more visible and highly trafficed than this board - that would seem a better choice to me. Do you have a counter proposal? Exxolon (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if I were a gambling man, my counter-proposal would be to say, "No, I'd feel more comfortable continuing the FFD, especially given that the only 'keep' comment is a flawed speedy keep argument for some reason alleging that my nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption." Hypothetically, what would you say to that? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Counsellor of State  ─╢ 21:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You proposed WP:DR - I've come up with a proposal that you've objected to. What method of WP:DR would you propose? Exxolon (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don't quite understand how this works. This deletion discussion stands unless I withdraw it. I am not required to make alternative proposals. I am not required to string things out for thirty days when we could get a decisive result by Sunday evening. And I'm certainly not required to enter into compromises with somebody who makes unsubstantiated allegations that my behaviour is "unquestionably vandalism or disruption." ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  District Collector  ─╢ 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm through talking to you - you're more interested in wikilawyering than actually trying to resolve this. It looks like this image will most likely be kept - assuming this happens I will treat any future nomination of the image for deletion by yourself as a WP:POINT violation and revert you. Exxolon (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm through talking to you – well thank God for that. I will treat any future nomination of the image for deletion by yourself as a WP:POINT violation and revert you – that would be extremely foolish and likely lead to sanctions against you. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 13:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep now I definitely think describing this image with words would be a challenge. So in this case I readlly do think this one is worth anywhere from one to two kilowords. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that it's effectively impossible to describe the monster perfectly with words. However IMO the key word in that sentence is 'perfectly' – in order to gain an understanding of the article (which isn't about the monster, but about the episode in general) is it necessary for the reader to have a 100% artistically accurate notion of what the aliens look like? Or would they still understand about the production etc. of the episode just as well if they were described as well as possible, even if this would not conjure up the ideal visuals? (As in, if you read that article and they weren't pictured but described as, say, spiny fish-like creatures – I'm sure we could come up with something better than that, actually! – would your understanding of the episode be impaired, given that it's written with an out-of-universe perspective focussing on filming, production and so on?) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 07:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, okay - again it boils down to how rich a picture one wants to paint for the reader, so yeah, "spiny bipedal anthopomorphic malevolent fish-like critter" sums it up to a point, BUT question is we'd have to approximate some written source which gives a description that can be paraphrased. I do understand that FUR means we have to be discerning to what images we keep and what ones we ditch and I think there are plenty weaker ones out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are plenty of weaker ones out there, though that doesn't actually affect this case. I don't see why we'd need to paraphrase someone else's description, though – we're clever, creative people, we can look at the episode and come up with our own perfectly easily I'm sure. If that's your only concern then I don't think you should worry about it! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  senator  ─╢ 08:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't make up a detailed description if none of the sources have one - that'd be Original Research. Ultimately the other issue is where we stick our encyclopedia benchmarks on the FUR scale, yours is more restrictive than mine and it'll be up to the closing admin to decide on a consensus for this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's no more original research than the whole of the plot description; not at all. The episode is a primary source. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  secretariat  ─╢ 08:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Screenshots are pretty standard for episode articles.  So why single this one out?  A deletion discussion for a single image isn't the place for a policy change.  Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Screenshots are not treated any differently to other non-free content. They are frequently deleted via FFD; I am happy to provide at least three or four examples if you like. You don't seem to have provided any solid reason to keep the image? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Woolsack  ─╢ 09:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Random examples don't prove anything. Is screenshot use in episode articles an accepted Wikipedia practice?  If so, then it's up to *you* to show how this particular use differs from that practice.  Otherwise, it's just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  This isn't the proper forum to change a practice you dislike. Gamaliel (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is screenshot use in episode articles an accepted Wikipedia practice? No, not unless individual images can be proven to have met the NFCC. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but that's just the way it is. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Not-content  ─╢ 16:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need to take a step back from this issue. It's pretty clear that you are getting heated and taking it too seriously.  Relax.  Here, have a cookie.  Gamaliel (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * weak keep seems lots of people are annoyed over here at TT trying to get these doctor who images deleted, I vote a week keep because the image looks grainy and it appears someone has used the burn tool in Photoshop a little to much on the Vampire Queen's head-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  09:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what's your reason for keeping the image? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Woolsack  ─╢ 09:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * well I'm slanting towards to delete because the image is a bit grainy, someone has used the burn tool in a graphics programme too much on the queens head and its the wrong name, they are not vampires they are the Saturnyne how ever I am choosing keep overall because there seems to be a consensus against you TT-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  09:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you can't !vote 'keep' just because other people have, that's ridiculous... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  estoppel  ─╢ 09:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * and so is sending the image through FFD multiple times despite it being voted for keep, put the stick down now TT and do something else-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  09:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from your classic WP:NOTAGAIN argument, you seem to have mistakenly written that I "sent the image through DRV multiple times" – since that isn't true, perhaps you could correct it? You may also find it beneficial to read WP:VOTE. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 09:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to your edit summary I can only, yet again, point you to WP:NOTAGAIN and WP:CCC. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  First Secretary of State  ─╢ 09:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * fine keep because under NFCC text would not adequately describe the image spiny fish things isn't really descriptive I could describe daleks as giant pepper pots with laser guns but it would not be enough to replace an image-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  09:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Text descriptions will not sufficiently increase the reader's understanding of the queen's appearance.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – with a series that relies so much on special visual gimmicks like these monsters it does make sense to use visual illustrations. However, troutslap to some of the commenters above for blatantly inappropriate keep rationales, and I cannot protest loudly enough against the proliferation, by Gamiel, of that dreadful myth that there is somehow a blanket allowance of one screenshot per episode. Every individual image needs to be justified under the strictest criteria of NFCC#8, and episode images that fail that test get deleted every day, by the dozens. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:42, 1 May 2011 (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:Endhiran-100-Days-Posters.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 ⚡  16:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Endhiran-100-Days-Posters.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Rouben22 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unnecessary non-free decorative commemorative poster. Damiens .rf 18:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Purely decorative fair use. Image isn't tied to any sourced commentary in the article, just used decoratively. Fair use rationale if permissible would allow fair use in the extreme. I.e., exceptionally weak rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2011 (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.