Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 22
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] May 22
[edit] Image:Biostudentgirl.jpg
[edit] Image:Newmainstreet.jpg
- - uploaded by Akhenaton06 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, unknown author per uploader, no details given as to why licensing given is correct User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ramekbuckeye.JPG
- orphaned image, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:DiscoveryShip.jpg
- orphaned image, sole contribution of user, licensed as GFDL-presumed, should be possible to get a cleanly licnesed version User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aeroponic-GraduateStudents-Hanio_Vietnam.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unsure of any encyclopedic use User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:B_macfadden.gif
- - uploaded by Jcmcapital (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, recently absent uploader, source is given as "unknown, history book", claims to be PD as published before 1923 but no proof provided User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:John_G._McCaskey.jpg
- - uploaded by Jcmcapital (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, poor quality photoshop of J. G. McCaskey.jpg User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Delfin1.jpg
[edit] Image:Delfine.jpg
[edit] Image:Marshal_Hilton_-1-2007.jpg
- orphaned image, photo likely incorrecetly licensed as PD-self User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Scotty_-1-The_Baja_Drop.jpg
- orphaned image, unlikely licensed as PD-self should be non-free promo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:C7S5183_Nailed_2006_-_Marshal_Hilton_as_Det._Esteves.jpg
- orphaned image, unlikely licensed as PD-self and should be non-free as either promo or screenshot User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Marshal_Hilton_as_Manasseh_McDaniel_-15,_EXODUS-2006.jpg
- orphaned image, unlikely licensed as PD-self and should be non-free as either promo or screenshot User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:The_prophet_naked.jpg
- - uploaded by Futurelight (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jana_jordan.png
- - uploaded by Bumblenews (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, uploader's only contribution, unlikely to be freely licensed given source User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:0sidl.png
- - uploaded by Heathcliff 2040 (notify | contribs).
- Redundant to Image:0sidl.PNG Iamunknown 03:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:0sidl.PNG
- - uploaded by Heathcliff 2040 (notify | contribs).
- No longer used in Sidewards after being removed by article creator and uploader (see history). Iamunknown 03:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1051017259_l.jpg
- - uploaded by Stevekheloussi (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, was originally used in Wilkes University (verified by uploader's contributions), but not particularly encyclopedic Iamunknown 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:139.gif
- Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic value Iamunknown 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:180px-FrancoiseLouiseWarens.jpg
- Redundant to Image:FrancoiseLouiseWarens.jpg Iamunknown 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Replace this image1.svg
[edit] Image:Burrowing owl.jpg
- Image at first appears to be in the public domain since it is from a U.S. Government website, however, if one hovers their mouse over the image from which the website is taken here, the text "Photo credits: Dave Showalter © All Rights Reserved, 2005" appears. — MONGO 06:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1boone.jpg
- - uploaded by Tmcmahon1945 (notify | contribs).
- No source given... well almost. Image uploaded by a user, source given by an IP address. Possible the IP address is the user, but not sure.... —— Eagle101Need help? 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gunbound.JPG
[edit] Image:1huy.jpg
- - uploaded by Laperlamusic (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader MER-C 10:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jam012.jpg
- - uploaded by Roycewegner (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader MER-C 10:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Royce.jpg
- - uploaded by Roycewegner (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader MER-C 10:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:TripleGinuwine.jpg
- - uploaded by Thatlilstudsora (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader MER-C 10:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ginuwinetripey.jpg
- - uploaded by Thatlilstudsora (notify | contribs).
- or ue ab MER-C 10:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned images
I am now nominating the following images from my watchlist for deletion. They are all unused (only used in deleted aticles).
- Image:1LN6.gif - Uploaded by Nuklear (talk · contribs). Rotating image of some molecule, marked as {{GFDL-self}}, possibly unfree. (See uploader's talk page for multiple copyright warnings.)
- Image:2iqo.gif - As above, marked as {{PD-self}}.
- Image:Receptor activation.gif - Diagram of some chemical reaction (?), uploaded by the same user as the images above.
- Image:AVi Image.jpg - Uploaded by GopalMan (talk · contribs). Company logo.
- Image:Mrguy.jpg - Uploaded by Nonoffensive (talk · contribs). Supposedly uploader's personal picture, more likely a film screenshot. Used on uploader's user page (or would be if he knew how to include it). Uploader is currently serving his one-month block for vandalism.
- Image:PC310078.JPG - Uploaded by Simonsays123 (talk · contribs). Personal picture, user has no other contributions except some editing experiments a month ago.
- Image:Sweet Facial Hair 009.jpg - Uploaded by Brandon Connors (talk · contribs). Personal picture, uploaded half a year ago, only one edit since.
Mike Rosoft 11:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Xmascluster.jpg
- Delete - This is an ugly, low-quality image that includes several "enhancements" that are inappropriate for Wikipedia images (such as a border and word art). Moreover, it is unclear as to where the unprocessed image came from or what the copyright status is of the unprocessed image. Other images of the object are already in use in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete very low quality 132.205.44.134 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Image-PGR.jpg
- Delete - This is an ugly, low-quality collage of galaxies that includes word art and other image effects that are inappropriate for Wikipedia images. Moreover, it is unclear as to where the unprocessed image came from or what the copyright status is of the unprocessed image. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it looks like its a copyvio? 132.205.44.134 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Compare neb map2.jpg
- Delete - Aside from this being an ugly image, the image refers to a "Philippine Nebula", which is effectively a neologism (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Nebula. The image is misleading and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete low quality 132.205.44.134 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Location NGC2264 2.jpg
- Delete - Aside from this being an ugly image, the image refers to a "Philippine Nebula", which is effectively a neologism (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Nebula. The image is misleading and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused and misleading 132.205.44.134 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Philippine Nebula2.jpg
- Delete - Aside from this being an ugly image, the image refers to a "Philippine Nebula", which is effectively a neologism (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Nebula. The image is misleading and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete very low quality 132.205.44.134 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:DrAngelRamos.jpg
- - uploaded by Marine_69-71 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary unfree image of a magazine cover. Other than showing how a given living person looks like, iit doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. The mazine issue in quenstion is only mentioned in a sentence that reads "In February 1993, Ramos was interviewed and featured on the cover of DeafLife magazine, discussing his role as a deaf Hispanic advocate" Abu badali (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I totally disgree! The magazine is mentioned and referred to in said article and the image has been placed in the section where such reference is made. 2.The magazine features the subject of said article and is noteworthy because it serves as a visual aid to the reader as to the notability of the subject. 3.If the image is properly sourced and it's copyright status in order, then I see no need for deletion. Tony the Marine 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use, points 7 and 8. The article's mention of the magazine issue in question is already sourced; it does not need an illustration of the magazine cover. This image does not serve to explain or clarify what is stated in the text about the particular magazine issue; instead it is being used to show what the person looks like. —Bkell (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Point #7 says: "An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply." (Bold is mine.) The magazine cover picture is not simply to show what the subject looks like; in the second sentence of #7, we see that the issue itself is notable enough to be a topic in the artice. This specific issue, which illustrates the subject's notability as an advocate for the deaf (by virtue of his selection to not only be interviewed, but also to be featured on the cover). #8 says, "An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like." But, as indicated, the purpose is not just to show what Dr. Ramos looks like. — ERcheck (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use is just a guideline that is intended to explain the real policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. If we found out that the guideline's text is not in accordance with the policy (or the foundation resolution), it must be updated. As a matter of fact, to keep unfree material usage to a minimal, we don't use unfree images of magazine covers whenever the magazine issue is mentioned. The cover image itself must be notable (as if it caused some controversy or had a monument build after it). --Abu badali (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Point #7 says: "An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply." (Bold is mine.) The magazine cover picture is not simply to show what the subject looks like; in the second sentence of #7, we see that the issue itself is notable enough to be a topic in the artice. This specific issue, which illustrates the subject's notability as an advocate for the deaf (by virtue of his selection to not only be interviewed, but also to be featured on the cover). #8 says, "An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like." But, as indicated, the purpose is not just to show what Dr. Ramos looks like. — ERcheck (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph.
- Strong keep. One of the stranger requests I've seen to delete fair use. First, it illustrates Angel Ramos, the subject of the article; this goes to the very intent of fair use. Second, it illustrates an aspect of Ramos, namely his hearing disability. Third, the magazine in question is discussed in the article itself. There are almost too many examples to cite where this is acceptable, but Shah Rukh Khan, John Courtney Murray, and Jack Abramoff, to name just a few of the thousands of magazine covers to illustrate an article and its subjects. This RfD is mistaken, or someone will have quite a bit of cleaning up to do on Wikipedia.--David Shankbone 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed we have. But the cleanup is already taking place. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 2 for similar cases. --Abu badali (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep when the image is the only one that is available to be put on the article, I don't understand how it could be deemed unnecessary.... though if there are more suitable images that can be found then they ought to go in. However the current image shouldn't be removed before any replacements (if there are any) are found, otherwise we're just leaving a hole? SGGH speak! 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. How does image expand the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. "Dr Ramos was interviewed and appeared on the cover of DeafLife magazine" is perfectly clear. Does the article need the image? No. Does it make the article look nice (as SGGH says, without it "we're just leaving a hole")? Yes. Ergo, it's a decorative use and fails WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Because there is no graphic representation of the individual. It shows what he looks like. Under your logic, there is no need for images on Wikipedia at all, since a written description will suffice. It does not. --David Shankbone 23:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the article could use a picture of Dr. Ramos, but if the magazine cover is to fulfill that purpose, then that specifically fails WP:NFCC #1 -- non-free images should not be used simply to show what the subject looks like when a free replacement could be made by someone. My argument above only applies to non-free images. howcheng {chat} 00:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because there is no graphic representation of the individual. It shows what he looks like. Under your logic, there is no need for images on Wikipedia at all, since a written description will suffice. It does not. --David Shankbone 23:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The magazine cover is placed in the section where reference to said magazine is mentioned (maybe in only one section, but it is still cited). It is no longer placed near the opening paragraph, so I still fail to see the big deal. I can understand the deletion of images that fail the copyright status or are unsourced because of the legal implications, but I fail to see what harm is being done with this particular case. Tony the Marine 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about harm or legalities, it's about freedom -- the freedom for anyone to do whatever they want with the content. We can't eliminate every single non-free image, but we can keep the number to a minimum by only using the ones that are absolutely necessary. This article will not suffer as a result of not having this image. howcheng {chat} 05:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep, the magazine photo is a representable image of Dr. Ramos. If it is good for a magazine cover, than it is good for this site. Let's concentrate on other things on this site that will benefit others. Deleting this image only will create a gap in providing a reasonable image of Dr. Ramos. --162.83.132.164 02:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — by my reading #8 of the non-free content criteria — "Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose." — the use of this image is acceptable free use as it illustrated specific, relevant points...in the text. — ERcheck (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- What's the part of the text that needs illustration and is helped by this unfree image? --Abu badali (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. Look at Billy Ripken -- without the baseball card showing the F-word, the reader doesn't get the whole idea. That article needs that specific image. This article already told me that Dr Ramos appeared on the cover of a magazine. Seeing the cover doesn't increase my understanding any further. Ergo, decorative. howcheng {chat} 05:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- What's the part of the text that needs illustration and is helped by this unfree image? --Abu badali (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep— this is not about a "text that needs illustration", this is about the fact that the magazine itself is mentioned in the article and the uploader has not violated any of Wikipedias copyright policies. On the cover the magazine states that Mr. Ramos is an activist for the deaf as is mentioned in the article, therefore the magazine cover collaborates and serves as a reference to what is stated in the article. Antonio Martin 05:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dispute - I'm sorry but it is about "a "text that needs illustration". We don't use unfree magazine covers everytime the magazine issue is mentioned because, by out policy on unfree content usage, we don't use unfree material whenever it's legal and useful. We use it only when it's necessary for the article's comprehension. --Abu badali (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Per the exact same reason Antonio listed above my post. -凶 11:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Sorry guys, it pains me to do this but policy is policy, and it's pretty clear to me that the magazine cover must be notable itself, no matter who is on the cover. I know it hampers Wikipedia's quality (many great articles can never reach FA only because of this clause), but we don't establish these rules. Personally, I think this approach of enforcing policy is just paranoia affecting many worried minds. And I do not appreciate Abu badali's style of bulldozing through many good faith efforts by established editors without taking the time to talk to them, especially after reading this. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, policy is policy. But, it seems that various editors here have a different interpretation of the policy. It illustrates a specific, relevant point of the article; thus, many here interpret the policy as saying that, in this case, policy allows it. — ERcheck (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, what is this image illustrating? The information "John Smith was interviewed by Mimes Magazine and appeared on the cover of it's September 1985 issue" doesn't need an image to be understood. Using an image is just decoration, something the we only do with free material. --Abu badali (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Policy is pretty clear on that. It sucks, but it's clear. And I don't think this is a policy that consensus will easily change, not with the intervention of legal advisers and such. Abu's arguments are based on the established policy, and not his opinion (maybe). However, this is just one small picture. If you wish to establish your views on Fair-use in all its aspects, this is the place to do so. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding featured content, I haven't been to FAC for a while but I doubt this policy would stop articles from becoming featured. Garion96 (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, what is this image illustrating? The information "John Smith was interviewed by Mimes Magazine and appeared on the cover of it's September 1985 issue" doesn't need an image to be understood. Using an image is just decoration, something the we only do with free material. --Abu badali (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, policy is policy. But, it seems that various editors here have a different interpretation of the policy. It illustrates a specific, relevant point of the article; thus, many here interpret the policy as saying that, in this case, policy allows it. — ERcheck (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete The image fails the non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Howcheng, image fails non-free content criteria. --Iamunknown 20:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Danny.png
- unencyclopedic — Senordingdong 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Daniel O'Keefe Jennifer McIllroy Andrew Docherty.png
- unencyclopedic — Senordingdong 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ordesa_Casada.jpg
- where does it state this is under the creative commons license indicated on the image page? Yonatan talk 16:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Move to WP:PUI insteadWhy must you on purposely pick faults in every single image on wikipedia?!?! Besides, even if it is not. Withdraw this request and move it to WP:PUI if there is a problem. Because it possibly is public domain as it was taken by an average person and they have not put any restrictions on copyright on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telcourbanio (talk • contribs)
- Delete: If the copyright holder doesn't "put any restrictions", it defaults to "All Rights Reserved". --Abu badali (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- I mean they unleash all rights. Plus I found the image on google earth for features so it is to public domain. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 19:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- You obviously misunderstand public domain. All works are copyrighted unless it is explicitly stated that it is not. howcheng {chat} 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- As a handy notice, the uploader Telcourbanio has just been indef blocked. --Abu badali (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sylar-Boom.JPG
- Duplicitive purpose non-free media: Used to illustrate fictional character, when other non-free media is present performing the same function. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete- per nomination then. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Although Image:Heroes.S01E22 end.png is available, I'd say we don't want overloading of stuff. --Addict 2006 22:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Doesn't the framegrab for the "Landside" page pretty much resemble this? --Brad Rousse 02:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - That's what I said Image:Heroes.S01E22 end.png was for. --Addict 2006 13:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Sorry on that, Addict. --Brad Rousse 01:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Just been orphaned with replacing it with said image. --Addict 2006 13:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:BritishMandatePalestine1920.jpg
- superseded by Image:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png which is on commons Yonatan talk 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only difference between this image and the one on commons is that two words are set in slightly larger font so that they can be read on the thumbnail. So there is no good reason to keep this. I.e., delete. --Zerotalk 12:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- n.b. blue link points to Commons. --Iamunknown 20:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Yonatan, TewfikTalk 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Graham Burchell.gif
- - uploaded by Authorburch (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned after the deletion of Graham_Burchell — bd_ 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Regine123456789.jpg
- - uploaded by Everythingstaken (notify | contribs).
- Falsely claimed as own work
[edit] Image:St Mary's Grammar School.gif
- - uploaded by Ireland2000 (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Tlatows.jpg
- - uploaded by Blakefoodfight (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Brucenight.jpg
- - uploaded by Cormacalian (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary unfree image. Doesn't add any noteworthy informations that isn't already conveyed with text. Source info in incomplete (just a link to a jpg file on geocities) Abu badali (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Roy_Keane.jpg
- BBC image was not relased "for any purpose" as stated. Abu badali (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep- except adverts. Generall 99% of images on the internet do NOT show licensing, and I think this wikipedia rule is extremely inapropriate, we need to lessen the image restrictions. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- <sarcasm>Sure, let's make Wikipedia a haven for copyright infringement. Then we'll get our pants sued off and everybody will be free of Wikipedia at last!</sarcasm> howcheng {chat} 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- As a handy notice, the uploader Telcourbanio has just been indef blocked. --Abu badali (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Udinese_vs_roma.jpg
[edit] Image:panogd.jpg
- Apparently false claim of authorship, possible copyvio. Possible source of the image: [1] — Jespinos 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Richard_Henry_Dana,_Jr.jpg
- - uploaded by Hugh Manatee (notify | contribs).
- Obsolete by Image:Richard H Dana Jr 1842.jpg. howcheng {chat} 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment are they really the same image? It seems like the former is a sketch of the latter? Unless there is an unfree issue (no sign of that on the IDP), perhaps this should be moved to Commons? TewfikTalk 02:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Shahrukhkhan_200502_ng.jpg
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover from a magazine issue that isn't even mentioned in the article. Abu badali (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Khan's appearance on the cover of National Geographic magazine was a very rare occurance. Celebrities of most kinds from the movie or song world are not a cover choice for this magazine. However Khan got this rare honour when his image appeared on their Asian edition for a article on Bollywood. I had neglected to mention this in the article, since I felt it was self explanatory. I have since made this mention under Other recognitions. Please retain this image.--PremKudvaTalk 05:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The description you wrote above would be perfectly sufficient in the article. However, I don't need to see the actual magazine cover for it to resonate with me. Showing the magazine cover does not expand my understanding in a way that words alone cannot. In order to illustrate what you've just described, you'd have to have some sort detailed analysis of National Geographic covers and show a really large selection of them, including this one, in order for the reader to get the impact that celebrities rarely appear (and even then, a table of percentages gets the point across just as well). howcheng {chat} 06:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed: And as an obvious evidence, the The Hindu news item used as a reference in the "Other recognitions" section also didn't found it necessary to use the magazine cover image to talk about this person being on the cover. --Abu badali (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please re-considerThat is not much of an evidence to base this image deletion issue. Compared to the print editions online newspaper can be very miserly in putting up images on their pages. Like this article Maninder took cocaine to beat stress: Cops, in my print edition there was an image of the dude who had allegedly taken cocaine.--PremKudvaTalk 05:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- We are very miserly in putting up unfree images in our articles. We do it only when we can't do without it. And, if "The Hindu" could do without it, so can we. --Abu badali (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please re-considerThat is not much of an evidence to base this image deletion issue. Compared to the print editions online newspaper can be very miserly in putting up images on their pages. Like this article Maninder took cocaine to beat stress: Cops, in my print edition there was an image of the dude who had allegedly taken cocaine.--PremKudvaTalk 05:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed: And as an obvious evidence, the The Hindu news item used as a reference in the "Other recognitions" section also didn't found it necessary to use the magazine cover image to talk about this person being on the cover. --Abu badali (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If it was not too much trouble, I would prefer to see an image.--Sureshkamath 09:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep We have an img which complements the text. No doubt all content can be written without any imgs, but if the img can add to the article, then it should be kept. xC | ☎ 04:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to be disputing the policy, and not either or not this image violates it. --Abu badali (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Time-magazine-cover-john-courtney-murray.jpg
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover used solely to illustrate the person depicted on the cover. Abu badali (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Shahrukh_Khan_in_DilwaleDulhaniaLeJayenge.jpg
- No evidence this unfree image of a living person was released as promotional material. Abu badali (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Time_Cover_Abramoff.jpg
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover. There's a claim for the notability/importance of the magazine issue, but this unfree image doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the image has an adequately written fair use rationale. -N 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The words "Jack Abramoff appeared on the cover of TIME magazine after pleading guilty to charges..." adequately describe the information. I don't need to see the magazine cover in order to understand this concept. Ergo, this is a decorative use which fails WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Howcheng, the image is entirely unneeded and may simply be addressed in the text. --Iamunknown 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Blackbody-colours-vertical.png
- Better vector replacement available — Joelholdsworth 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- n.b. points to Commons. --Iamunknown 21:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dores-Boiler Cycle diag1.png
- - uploaded by Dore chakravarty (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic, very crude hand-drawn diagram. Contacted uploader (see his Talk page) and he said that he cannot redraw or upgrade the diagram (see my Talk page). - mbeychok 20:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The diagram name (Dores-Boiler Cycle diag1.png) seems to inadvertently indicate that the uploader is the originator of the boiler cycle ... which he is not. That cycle is fairly generic and widely used in many, many power stations. - mbeychok 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep freely licensed image. Wp:nor#Original_images: "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles." -N 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the image is accurate, I don't see what the problem is. If you don't like it, make a better one. howcheng {chat} 22:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a matter of whether I like it or don't like it. WP:IFD says that being unencylopedic is a criteria for deletion. Please take the time to look at the two diagrams in Fossil fuel power plant and you will see by comparison how very crude and unencyclopedic is this poorly drawn diagram of a power plant. As for telling me to make a better one, that could be said of all requests for deletion of an image ... and really defeats the purpose of Wikipedia having a protocol for requesting images to be deleted. - mbeychok 03:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Unencyclopedic" (to me) means it has no place in an encyclopedia, which in this case would be if the diagram were completely inaccurate or misleading in some way. That being said, this is not a matter for IFD; this is a matter for the article talk page. I don't know jack about air preheaters, but I'll bet the people who edit the page do. Get consensus to remove it from the article for being wrong or bad or whatever, and then it can be deleted for being an orphan. howcheng {chat} 05:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Someone orphaned this image from the articles it was on. Pity, if I could remember which they were I'd put it back in. -N 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:John_Downey.jpg
- Obsolete by actual photo of subject, Image:John G. Downey.jpg. howcheng {chat} 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Move to commons. -N 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless source and photographer are given. This image is not automatically in the public domain, as it is not a slavish reproduction of an image, but is instead a photograph in three-dimensions of the painting and the frame. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. does not apply. --Iamunknown 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:800px-RuneScape server location map.png
- RuneScape international server map incorrectly portraying Germany as a host (there are two servers in German language but located in Finland). — CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fizzy1.jpeg
- - uploaded by Mc hammerutime (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Novickas_children.jpg
- orphaned iamge, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo, low quality User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Move to Commons, a free image (released by uploader to pd) can be encyclopedic in some context (For example to illustrate article about concept of a child). We should not delete free images.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Too blurry. howcheng {chat} 05:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Howcheng; of limited use. TewfikTalk 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Novickas_dog.jpg
- orphaned iamge, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Move to Commons, a free image (released by uploader to pd) can be encyclopedic in some context (For example to illustrate article about concept of a dog). We should not delete free images.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Without a breed identification, it's kind of useless. howcheng {chat} 05:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Howcheng; of limited use. TewfikTalk 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Novickas_cat.jpg
- orphaned iamge, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo, low quality User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Move to Commons, a free image (released by uploader to pd) can be encyclopedic in some context (For example to illustrate article about concept of a cat). We should not delete free images.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this one. It's too blurry to be of much use to anyone else. howcheng {chat} 02:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Howcheng; of limited use. TewfikTalk 02:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Novickas_house.jpg
- orphaned iamge, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Move to Commons, a free image (released by uploader to pd) can be encyclopedic in some context (For example to illustrate article about concept of a house). We should not delete free images.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Commons move for this one, especially if the architectural style can be identified. howcheng {chat} 05:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Uploaded to the same name and placed in commons:Category:Identify. Support deletion of this and the other Novickas images. --Iamunknown 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Iamuknown's move to Commons. TewfikTalk 02:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:GBASP.jpg
- - uploaded by Explosivedog boom (notify | contribs).
- orphaned iamge, absent uploader, unencyclopedic and low quality due to small size User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Japanese_Terrier1.jpg
- - uploaded by Bernielindsey44 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wiki-nail-face.JPG
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:DVI.JPG
- orphaned image, absent uploader User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Grandad_Pose.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kgv_now.jpg
- orphaned image, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Victory-Tingle.jpg
- - uploaded by Brian Mattocjk (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ug_rg.jpg
- - uploaded by Vivekanandpv (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gurukul.jpg
- - uploaded by Vivekanandpv (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tysan_Pierce.jpg
- - uploaded by FloweringHearth (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo, claims only use with credit but tagged with GFDL license User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Telephone-card-chip-advert-1987.jpg
- orphaned image, unsure this is actually PD licensed User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sozzle.jpg
- - uploaded by Dickiedark (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SocialistWorkerStallSOAS20041016_CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg
- orphaned image, unsure of an encyclopedic use User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rollo.jpg
- - uploaded by BabyDweezil (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support deletion - Image was uploaded by permanently banned disruptive user, BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). No great loss with this image deleted. -- Smee 22:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:RadATmindlessDOTcom.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:LubosMotlPubMini.jpg
- orphaned image, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jeep_TJ.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:JOE_ROBINSON1.JPG
- - uploaded by Rrrobinsonjr (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Httpmarkvlincoln.jpg
- - uploaded by 79collectors (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pmvase.jpg
- - uploaded by Nikkicraft (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:FPLP_Sonya_Lee.jpg
- orphaned image, obsolete by Image:FPLP Sonya Lee.png User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dirtymexican.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dobkin-sombrero.sized.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hwang_Woo-suk-cloning.jpg
- - uploaded by HappyApple (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image from a news agency, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. --Abu badali (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:DrHwang-and-president.jpg
- - uploaded by HappyApple (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image from a news agency, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. --Abu badali (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dr-hwang-and-team.jpg
- - uploaded by HappyApple (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image from a news agency, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. --Abu badali (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- This image does seem to be an irreproducable image of an historic event that receives critical commentary in the article about Dr. Hwang. WilyD 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- What receives critical commentary, the image or the historical event? --Abu badali (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Doctor-hwang-surroundedbyreporters.jpg
- - uploaded by HappyApple (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image from a news agency, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. --Abu badali (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Durantth13-277.jpg
[edit] Image:CSFoltz.jpg
- Obsolete by larger Image:Clara S. Foltz.jpg. howcheng {chat} 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Its a free image, shouldn't we move it to the Commons? TewfikTalk 02:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](http://s61.photobucket.com/albums/h49/caglieri/?action=view¤t=panogd.jpg){kind=link}