Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 23

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hare-Yukai (notify | contribs).

• Picture is not used in any articles. Plus, this picture with the dotted line is different from this picture [1], which the uploader apparently is trying his hardest to discredit. — Blueshirts 05:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC).
• Delete - In addition to Blueshirt's rationale, I'd like to add that no source is provided for the image. There is only an unverified assertion that it is in the public domain. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, image is only being used for purposes of original research. —Angr 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per above... Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 18:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep we JUST had a IFD on this less than 3 weeks ago[2]. There's no reason to nominate this again so soon. And it's not original research in the mainspace, it's used on talk pages to discuss something. That's perfectly ok, it's a talk page, people talk -Nard 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's unencyclopedic and I see no reason for the picture to be there. It's a doctored photograph used by nanking massacre deniers (or made by Hare-Yukai himself)to discredit a real photograph. It doesn't even look the same as the photograph it's trying to discredit. The man with his arm pointing toward the camera has his face and torso mashed and narrowed, whereas it looks normal in the undoctored photograph. There simply is no reason for this shoddily made crap to exist anywhere here, and it's not even good enough to be used as "evidence" for deniers. Blueshirts 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Not to mention, there's still no source for the image, only an unverified claim that it's in the public domain because copyright has expired. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think there could be some use for this, but also I object to the re-listing of a picture because the last time it was suggested the reviewing admin gave what a majority here may consider the "wrong answer". If it is "keep" again, will this be listed a third time? John Smith's 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Image kept. Image is considered in the public domain until proven otherwise and as such maybe used on talk pages to illustrate the issues being discussed. Discussion on a talk page does not constitute original research. -Nv8200p talk 18:43, 28 July 2007 (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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Eighth_Doctor_Publicity.jpg

Image:Eighth_Doctor_Publicity.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deej30 (notify | contribs).

• Non-free content used to illustrate fictional character on actor's page at Paul McGann. Further non-free content for this character is already at Eighth Doctor, illustarting the character's page itself. At Paul McGann there is no fulfillment of WP:NFCC#8 for this image. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep NFCC#8 is a pretty weak argument; describing him "as text" really does not do the same job. The section where this image is used specifically deals with Paul McGann and his involvement in this movie as an actor, while the Eighth Doctor article deals with the character he portrays. Those are seperate subjects and both images reflect that destinction. --Edokter (Talk) 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The Paul McGann article and its dealing with the subject of the actor's works doesn't need illustration unless there was anything particularly exceptional or different about how he appeared in this role. As far as I can tell, the actor looks the same portraying this role as he does in real life, making that special illustration unnecessary. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this image was already IfDed once and kept, reviewed (and presumably kept), and now it's going for IfD again. If the problem is that it's on a page it shouldn't be (which I don't believe is the case; Paul McGann is known internationally because of this role), it should be removed, not deleted. MSJapan 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The image hasn't been {{ifd}}'d before as far as I can ascertain. The Paul McGann article is about the actor, and unless there was something particularly exceptional or different about how he appeared in this role accompanied by referenced critical commentary, I don't see why copyrighted material needs to be used to illustrate the actor. As for the article Eighth Doctor, it already has further non-free content illustrating that fictional character. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, because it is only his most notable role he ever did? Thor, you seem to be the only one set to delete this image. Yes, the image is copyrighted, but it is a publicity photo, meaning the owner released it free of charge with the intention to get it spread and published as much as possible. So I think copyright is not the main reason you put the image up for deletion. What is your real reason? --Edokter (Talk) 16:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you arguing that because he is famous for the role, an image needs to be used? Is the actor famous for his specific appearance in this role? Did the actor look significantly exceptional playing this role? What specifically about the actor's appearance in this role needs to be illustrated in his article? Illustrating the character is appropriate on that character's page, but not here so far as I can tell by the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The role is associated with distinctive "looks" for its main protagonist, so it is a valuable addition to the McGann article to show what his "look" was. Jheald 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Are there any reliable sources associating Paul McGann with the distinctive look of the character he was playing; the article doesn't make any references to it? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Use your common sense. Jheald 19:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • My common sense tells me that barring unusual and/or special circumstances, the only correlation on Wikipedia between an actor and a copyrighted image of a character he once played is the decorative use of copyrighted material. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm sorry you feel that way; but even the most cursory examination of material on Doctor Who will confirm the association of very distinctive signature looks with each actor that played the role. Showing the look associated with McGann is a valuable addition to the article. Jheald 23:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
          • The article doesn't bear you out on that; if it did, with reliable sourcing, then the image might be appropriate to use in the article. As it is now, it's not. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - There's no verifiable source information to backup the claims that this is really promotional material. It's said that this image "is known to have come from a press kit or similar source" but no source info is provided. Saying that it's "© to the BBC" is not enough to determine it's "promotional". Without knowing when/where/why was this image released, we can't be sure that our use won't be competitive. --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. Image is copyright BBC but may not be part of a press kit. Not significant for the article on Paul McGann. -Nv8200p talk 00:29, 3 August 2007 (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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:TV_The_One_After_Ross_Says_Rachel.jpg

Image:TV_The_One_After_Ross_Says_Rachel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zanimum (notify | contribs).

• Non-free TV screenshot used without any critical commentary about the scene being depicted, violating WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Would appear to be being used entirely validly on Monica Geller and Chandler Bing to show "the relationship between Chandler and Monica". Jheald 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that we don't need a shot of them kissing to understand that they are in a romantic relationship. howcheng {chat} 03:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it's the only picture on the page to show what the other character looks like, and the picture seems a particularly appropriate one for the purpose. It seems reasonable to show how the relationship was depicted, when that's the subject of a major section of the article. Jheald 13:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Showing what a character looks like equals illustration, which is not a valid fair use claim. Brad 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, we generally do consider it a justifiable addition to an article or major subsection on a character, the showing of what that character looks like. It contributes to the understanding of the topic in a way words alone cannot. Jheald 23:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
          • "We"? Seriously, User:Howcheng's point is that no reference is being made to the scene in the screenshot, therefore it is just an arbitrary FU image sitting amongst some text. The Monica and Chandler articles go from talking about Ross's wedding, to either talking about the two moving in or the proposal. Why not replace it with a screenshot of them waking up in bed together? Now I don't mean to direct this at you personally, and your debates on the deletion of many Friends images have been thorough, but if an image of two people kissing "contributes to the understanding of the topic in a way words alone cannot" then obviously the wrong words are being used in the article. Even if the use of this image can be justified in the character articles, it certainly has no place where it is in the main Friends article as that section more or less contains only lists of which actor played which character. Brad 09:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note that right now both images of the fictional character Chandler Bing are up for deletion. At least one qualifies as fair use to identify the character commented on. WilyD 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • IMHO the best thing would probably be a frame from the title sequence with the actor's name superimposed on the character. howcheng {chat} 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I may be a nerd who does science by day and hangs out on the internet at night, but I don't own any Friends DVDs ... While I agree this might not be the best possible screengrab to illustrate Chandler (and in fact, the double chair one is probably better than this, too) ... I would suggest that "could be replaced by equally unfree image" isn't really a good deletion criterion - if it's replaced, then it'd be appropriate to delete. WilyD 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This image is somewhat a spoiler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.183.144 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 1 August 2007.

Image deleted. Image was not significant to the article and there was no commentary about the image. -Nv8200p talk 00:35, 3 August 2007 (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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Chandlerandjoey'sapartment.jpg

Image:Chandlerandjoey'sapartment.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VolatileChemical (notify | contribs).

• Non-free TV screenshot used without any critical commentary on the scene being depicted, violating WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Image provides illustration and identification of the important relationship between these two characters within the series. VolatileChemical 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• If I recall the scene, Chandler is telling the pizza place to leave the pizza across the hall. How does that identify the relationship between Joey and Chandler if they're not even communicating? A screenshot of them hugging or something might be better for the purpose you are describing. Brad 13:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep either this or the previous Chandler image - I suggest this. It's very easy to justify at least one screenshot of a fictional character as fair use - this is probably better than the one above - I think it captures the character better... WilyD 14:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. Image was not significant to the article and there was no commentary on the image. -Nv8200p talk 00:38, 3 August 2007 (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.

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.

[edit] Image:Alaud2.JPG

Image:Alaud2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ancientcoinsofindia1 (notify | contribs).

• Orphan image shows copyright notice that may not be owned by the uploader as claimed. The Ancientcoinsofindia1 user account is currently primarily being used to promote linkspam to a commercial coin site, and this image may be part of a spam promotional effort. Some other images uploaded by this user have the same problem. — Buddhipriya 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC).
• PD Bridgeman vs Corel Jheald 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I used to think coin images fell under bridgeman but now I'm not so sure... -Nard 15:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: A coin is a three-dimensional object and thus subject to challenge. Further, this image is watermarked with a promotional copyright. Buddhipriya 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I had removed the IFD tag from Image:Alaud2.JPG. All coins are mine and the scans / photographs are taken by me . So don't hesitate to use the image or information .You can remove the copyright tag and add the copyright details as the image used by PHG Image:EranVidishaCoin.jpg, If you follow the same i dont have not have any objection .Amol N Bankar Ancientcoinsofindia1 19:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept but should go into an article. Will tag for Commons move. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 31 July 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Daisy Duke in Jeans.jpg

Image:Daisy Duke in Jeans.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Darksasami (notify | contribs).

• Possible copyvio. There should be some way to verify that the uploader actually obtained the rights to release this under a free license, as he claims. Maybe he did, but seems kind of unlikely to me. — The Parsnip! 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• This should have been listed at WP:PUI rather than here, but I agree, release seems unlikely. So much so that I wouldn't even bother to move it to PUI. -Nard 13:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Hah, do you have any idea how difficult it was to explain free licensing to Ms. Bach's publicist? If I had been faking it, I would have gone for a better picture. Her publicist's contact information is freely available at catherinebach.com if you want to follow up on it. --Darksasami 02:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please forward any communication you received from her publicist to OTRS. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've done that, though the meat of it was done over the phone. I hope I sent it to the right address; it's a little confusing trying to figure out where it's supposed to go. --Darksasami 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Should have linked you to Wikipedia:Permissions instead. -Nard 00:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Moved to WP:PUI -Nv8200p talk 00:44, 3 August 2007 (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.