Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 28

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 Delete (non admin close) --Undeath (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nico Hoffman Memorial.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joshuaauger (notify | contribs).

• Picture for a soon to be deleted page. UE. The page it is on is an obituary. Undeath (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2008 (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 delete --Sherool (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:36141058.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aboveloan0239 (notify | contribs).

• The source is KCNA, which is a news agency. Per WP:NFC, nonfree images from news agencies are not acceptable unless the image itself is iconically famous. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:NFC: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: example)." This image is the subject of of sourced commentary in the article. Fair use.--Aboveloan0239 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• The photo itself is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article, rather, what the image shows is. Therefore, this is a copyvio. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep per Aboveloan0239. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Obvious delete. Let me give you an example: The Falling Man. This image is notable in and of itself. It's not being used in the September 11, 2001 attacks article to discuss how people jumped out of the buildings rather than be burned to death. howcheng {chat} 21:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• As a news agency image, would this be incompliance with WP:NFCC#2? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it violates WP:NFCC#2. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Copyvio --Zalinda Zenobia (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete per howcheng. Wikiacc (°) 02:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• keep Non-replacable image of a historic event, low-res so does not detract from commercial use. Meets all 10 criteria in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria 218.213.244.236 (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't. As an image from a news agency, it violates WP:NFCC#2; it probably also violates WP:NFCC#8 as removing it from the article would not significantly impair readers' understanding of the article. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Just curious, regardless of the fact it's from a news agency, why is NFCC#2 violated for a low-res image in low-quality GIF format? If they posted a full-size RAW or TIFF file, that would be a different story of course. But I can't imagine that any *commercial* (which is the point of NFCC#2) use can come out of this particular uploaded file? cf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale#note-resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.114.40 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Images in newspapers are also low-res and low-quality, and usually black-and-white to boot. But they still buy them. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:17, 7 March 2008 (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 Speedy deleted per CSD G3. — Edokter • Talk • 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nazi cyberman.jpg

Image:Nazi cyberman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mieklol (notify | contribs).

• image is only used to vandalise the article Cyberman See Here. TheProf | 2007 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete- vandalism image StuartDD _{contributions} 20:28, 28 February 2008 (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 delete. Since a nicer version exists on Commons at Image:NemanjicCrnojevic.svg, I changed the articles where this image was used to use the .svg version and deleted this image. -Nv8200p talk 01:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NemanjicCrnojevic.jpg

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

The image is based on Image:Serbian Empire Flag.svg.

Both of those images were created on the basis of fabricization of history using a Image:Flag of Serbia on the map of Angelino Dulcert.jpg (this map). They said to themselves, wouldn't it be nice to create something that has never been created. A Serbian Empire Flag from 1200ies. Nikola Smolenski supplied that small and unrecognisable portion from God knows where and they started firstly with that yellow flag.

Now they have set their minds to a new adventure - creating exactly the same (design wise) flag for Montenegro's Crnojevic Family. Because they do not want to contribute encyclopeadical content, they want to stirr up troubles and fabricize history to meet their agenda.

Please take this matter under consideration because this is a blatant hoax.

OR, UE

Imbris (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but are not being very nice over here. Could you please state what you mean by fabricization of history? And that is not flag of the Serbian Empire from the 1200s - the Serbian Empire lasted during the 14th century. Could you please elaborate further your objection and please read WP:CIVIL.

You are being very rude and non-constructive. Comment the content, and not the user. Please do not make outrageous claims without hard basis. This most definitely isn't Original Research, and I think that you have made a lapsus with UE. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are standard abreviations for Orphaned and Unencyclopeadical. Where are your sources, in some medieval festivals perhaps. An for that matter unsupstaniated material is unencyclopaedical beside the Empire that lasted (1346-1371) 25 years. -- Imbris (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I do not understand why are you so much aimed against me. There must be something deeper than this, so why don't you please just put all of your cards to the table? That'd be much easier for all of us.

The reason why it's orphaned is because you made it so, deleting all of its references to Wikipedia - and it's not unencyclopedic at all. There are sources a many, as depicted at the bottom of your talk page, the way you demanded it (fully elaborated, scanned and uploaded - and if I may add, wasn't an easy task either). The Empire collapsed after the Battle of Amsfeld, it continued to factually exist without an Emperor for almost two more decades. Its insignia was inherited amongst the succeeding states (one of which was Montenegro). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be orphaned before deletion. And the source that you claim is not recognizable to see. It is also clear that you use some modern source with a modern photograph. Anyone can claim that such flag exist and I belive that in Serbia and in Montenegro there are persons who create such nonsense. I do not have anything against you per se but your methods of a home historian are not encyclopeaedical. Deleting reference to false material is not unencyclopaedical at all it is negation to a negation therefore it is clearly encyclopaedical, even by your account. Modern usage of flags in medieval festivals are common throughout Europe but nobody is puting such content on Wikipedia and claiming "history". Your claims that it is deeper are void. I am not even a Montenegrin so the entire matter only in historical perspective without bad intent. On the other hand your doing is OR (meaning optional - your choice entirely). -- Imbris (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, my source is recognizable to me, I don't understand why it aint to you. And mostly, since sourced, I really do not understand where your basis lie - since there is a source. And it obviously isn't OR.

Then how do you explain your constant assaults upon my person? I didn't imply that you were a Montenegrin (which I am IMHO, at least through descent and self-styling), but that it seems as if you've got something personal against me. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your tactics is to ask eveyone about the nationality and claim that have something against you personally. Your sources are un-viewable and un-checkable you list some work that has not a year of publishing, a publisher and other info (meta-data) like ISBN. On your source - page 59 there is no evidence of what you are claiming. -- Imbris (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, I consider this an outrageous claim. Please show me where I have ever and anywhere asked anyone for his nationality. Considering my cosmopolitan attitudes, which are consequences of direct suffering and witnessing the terror firsthand, I am deeply insulted by this claim. Why are my sources unviewable and uncheckable? I have told you, ask me anything - I'll just scan & upload that which you want. It obviously does - it shows the flag presented which you want to delete. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you view anything from page 59 scan. It is a modern book which pretends to be a history book about the middle ages. It stated that the Crnojevic CoA is on that red banner and not some Scopi symbol -- Imbris (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily abandonment of this request for deletion until sources have been viewable and sorted out. Still there is no way that Serbian Empire flag is exactly the same as this flag/image we are talking about. -- Imbris (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the other flag, also which you want deleted ([Image:Serbian Empire Flag.svg]).

Due to the seriousness of your implications, I have to re-request evidence about the claim that I go and ask around people about their nationality. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2008 (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.