Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 8



File:Holyfield vs Bowe.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. The article this image is used in is not about the two individuals but about the boxing event, so individual photos of the two boxers are not necessarily in context. We routinely allow the use of a promotional poster in articles about movies as it implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the it conveys. (I am extrapolating this from arguments for the use of cover art because we treat movie posters like cover art even though they are not.) This image does the same. Just like this boxing event, movies are not consistently accompanied by the any one item of of "cover art." There are usually a couple of different posters and still images presented in coverage of the movie. Also, there are dozens of similar promotional posters of bouts that not in IFD. This one is no different -Nv8200p talk 22:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Holyfield vs Bowe.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Beast from da East ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Was deleted at FFD and listed at DRV Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_31. The outcome of the DRV was relist.

The key argument at the DRV by Thincat was '' The WP:NFCI#4 guideline says non-free posters may be allowed and this was not rejected on a proper basis. The inappropriate "cover art" criterion was discussed which has different considerations. The poster illustrated the subject of Evander Holyfield vs. Riddick Bowe. This article does not have "critical commentary" on the poster itself but it does have commentary on the event. Moreover, the consensus of earlier RFCs and discussions has been that when an image illustrates an article topic it (as a guideline) inherently has the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8.''

As DRV closer this is a procedural listing and I am neutral. Spartaz Humbug! 04:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. As closer of the first discussion, I found that the delete rationales were grounded in firm policy. The image is replaceable by free images of the two competitors. A promotional poster doesn't identify a fight in the same meaningful way that a book cover does, for instance. Separately, I'm also concerned that this is the first I've heard of the DRV. The first point at DRV very clearly indicates that the closing admin should be involved, preferably even before the decision is made to list at review. I'm always happy to give further reasoning for my closure of any deletion discussions - but can't do that if no one asks. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the uploader of the said image as well as many others like it, I completly disagree with ESkog's controversial statements. Mr. ESkog stated "A promotional poster doesn't identify a fight in the same meaningful way that a book cover does", but that's just an opinion rather then a cold hard fact. These posters, much like the posters for movies or other pay-per-view events (including professional wrestling and MMA events) serve a HUGE purpose in the article as a means of identification. A random picture of a grinning Bowe or smiling Holyfield, besides having almost nothing to do with the article, would be completely detrimental to any of these articles should the be removed. Beast from da East (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - As this discussion really pertains to a class of images, I've started a broader discussion at WT:NFC. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't show box art in articles about frying pan models. Sports events seem similar to frying pans: no one uses box art, advertisements or programme covers to identify a sports event. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "No one uses box art, advertisements or programme covers to identify a sports event" Again where are the facts Stefan? That is nothing but an untrue opinion. First off who in the world compares a boxing fight to a frying pan? These are multi-million dollar pay-per-view events, what is wrong with displaying the official fight poster? Beast from da East (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The topic of the article is an important boxing match and it deserves a worthwhile article. I just don’t go along with the suggestion that (free) photos of the two boxers would provide the sort of significance that would oust a non-free image of the fight which did have “contextual significance”. However, to me the poster itself just provides photos of the two boxers (in 1992 so there is a bit of context). OK, the poster is associated with the topic but to my eyes it isn’t too good in providing “visual identification” of the topic (the fight). If it were an iconic poster things might be different but then the article should explain that to me. If it is the "official" poster that helps a bit but the article should say that it is.


 * I have diligently looked for free photos of the actual fight and have not found any. A free one would trump a non-free image. However, there are some non-free images and http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1010/lineal.heavyweight.champions/content.9.html looks good to me. It is credited to “John Biever/SI” and he is (or was) a Sports Illustrated staff photographer, not a press agency photographer. So whether or not the image of the poster is deleted at this FFD, would the article not be improved by having a photo along these lines? The image could be reduced in resolution, given an FUR and have commentary in the article describing how well it is showing the particular incident (which would also benefit the article). For me it scores on both aspects of contextual significance. Am I too optimistic in thinking that this photo (or one similar) would both meet our image policy and guidelines and also help build the encyclopedia? Thincat (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the analogy to an album cover is strong. It is the most significant visual representation for most fights (some may have iconic pictures that aren't the the promotional poster I assume) as far as I can tell.  I'm not seeing a clear distinction between the album cover, a book cover and the poster for a fight. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I said previously that a different non-free image might be preferable in this situation. However, that is not a matter for FFD to decide. WP:NFCI #5 explicitly gives guidance that posters may be acceptable and my understanding is that the "critical commentary" relates to the topic of the article and poster, not necessarily to the poster itself. Regarding policy, issues for me are WP:NFCCP #8, Contextual significance. I think that the poster, because of its strong association with the boxing match which is the topic of the article, does have sufficient significance. Also, WP:NFCCP #1, No free equivalent. Photos of the two boxers other than in association with the particular fight are not an equivalent. The "topic" is the boxing match. No new free image of the fight can be created and it seems no free image is available. Do we need "visual identification"? Generally, it has been accepted that visual identification may sufficiently desirable encyclopedically to permit the use of a non-free image. I think this is the case here. Thincat (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - But I can see the inconsistency with album covers. With some notable exceptions they give the same kind of info as this image and should actually be deleted as well. Garion96 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just for the record, I'm restating my vote from the first FFD, verbatim: I'm not convinced of any need for a visual "identification" of a boxing fight. Boxing fights are exhaustively identified by the names of the two contestants, the date of the fight, and perhaps the place and the organization that sponsored it. I don't see that these events are consistently accompanied by the visual presence of any one item of "cover art" in the mainstream media coverage of them, nor that our readers would be likely to consistently associate such an event with such an image, nor that the visual presence of such an image would be necessary for our readers to understand which event we're talking about. In this respect, there is no analogy between the use of cover art for books or movies and the use of posters for athletic events. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 19 July 2013 (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:Tv hi fairlyoddparents 01.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 ⚡  21:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Tv hi fairlyoddparents 01.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ycolonna@cox.net ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC. Image is from the blocked user. JJ98 (Talk) 04:40, 8 June 2013 (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:First Gentleman&

 * 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 F5 by AnomieBOT ⚡  08:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * File:First Gentleman& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Scanlan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free book cover being used to illustrate an article on its author. The book may not be notable enough for its own article but that doesn't justify using the image here. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it is being used to illustrate the book section of the article, which has many references, so seems notable enough that the book could be separated into a separate article. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the book cover image is used to illustrate Orr's cookbook, which is cited throughout the Bill Orr (Nebraska first gentleman) bio article with news pieces from as far back as 1988. Used specifically to illustrate the book only. Scanlan (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The image is being used in an article to illustrate part of the author's accomplishment and is not arbitrary in in its usage or placement. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates WP:NFC §9. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't apply. It isn't being used to illustrate what the person looks like, it's being used to illustrate what the book looks like, and the book is discussed in the section where the picture is located. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, it violates the footnote to WP:NFCI §1 instead, since the cover only belongs in an article about the book. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2013 (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:Battle of Saint-Marie.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 ⚡  21:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Battle of Saint-Marie.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Sovietmessiah ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Does not appear to have any encyclopedic use and they uploader has not responded to my query. Eeekster (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2013 (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:Who Owns My Heart music video.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 ⚡  21:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Who Owns My Heart music video.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Ipodnano05 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Mulpile reasons of NFCC failing. Fails NFCC#8, since does not contribute to reader's understansding and neither are these screenshots neing vividly analzyed in the article. Fails NFCC#3a, because multiple instances from the video but does not indicate what is the necessity for adding them. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 11:05, 8 June 2013 (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:Albertgaynewhitman.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 ⚡  21:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Albertgaynewhitman.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Pepso2 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Source site is here; this is a commercial site with the primary purpose of selling these images. Our use violates WP:NFCC #2. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:02, 8 June 2013 (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.