Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 27

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 27)
< August 26 August 28 >

August 27 edit

Image:000.jpg edit

Image:000.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Advent Fall (notify | contribs).
  • The image is a picture of a Band. The description explains in length the formation of that band and would be more suited in an article but I think this article wouldn't survive an AFD anyway. The picture is orphaned.- -- lucasbfr talk 10:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its an orphaned image of a non-notable band. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted, Commonsbleed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:N845205594 864336 8194.jpg edit

Image:N845205594 864336 8194.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rdasteele (notify | contribs).

Image:N845205594 914761 1484.jpg edit

Image:N845205594 914761 1484.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rdasteele (notify | contribs).

Image:Photo 57.jpg edit

Image:Photo 57.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rdasteele (notify | contribs).

Image:Photo 124.jpg edit

Image:Photo 124.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rdasteele (notify | contribs).

Image:Arcángel.jpg edit

Image:Arcángel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vze4ptyq (notify | contribs).
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:

Image:Halloweentrio.jpg edit

Image:Halloweentrio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CyberGhostface (notify | contribs).
  • Fair use image of living actors, replaceable with free use image, adds nothing to the article that cannot be explained in words, and in addition, it has no source Ejfetters 11:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I seem to have missed the part where Michael Myers was a real person. That, and the image shows the director of the film and two (or one) of the major characters in the film. Its certainly not replaceable by a 'free' image.--CyberGhostface 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above explanation--the image shows the new version of this iconic horror film character as well as the child actor playing his younger version, presumably with the clothing and demeanor with which he appears in the film playing a 10-year-old psychopath. This production image properly appears in the Production section of the article and conveys much more about that production and what sort of person the film's director, Rob Zombie, is than text alone could.—DCGeist 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the page is about the person, and the character of Michael Myers was not created by him. Furthermore, he has done other films as well, and promotional pictures of them are not listed there either. A wiki link to Michael Myers would be sufficient, and the image of the young Michael from Rob Zombie's adaptation should be placed there, better to be maybe a screen cap that would be more easily traced to its source and copyright verified. It just doesn't work in the article. It does not tell us what kind of person he is either. Ejfetters 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejfetters (talk • contribs)
What do you mean, the page is about the person? The picture is not on any of the articles of the actors in it. The picture is about the film. And further note, I don't think any screenshots are going to show or demonstrate the same effect as the director with the two Michaels in his film.--CyberGhostface 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Adheres to fair use policy (low-res, non-replaceable, etc.) and is a good addition to Halloween (2007 film) –Dream out loud (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way words cannot Ejfetters 05:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Intentional double vote Ah, no mistake. Double vote here as well from Ejfetters.—DCGeist 06:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again - we are not voting on keeping or deleting, we are giving our reasons for keeping or deleting, how many votes an item gets has no bearing on what an administrator looks at. There has been several images that got countless Keeps and the admin still deleted it because they felt it was violating policy. Not a democracy, again, we're not voting, listing our reasons on our opinions. And i was just stating another reason to delete it. Ejfetters 06:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejfetters (talk • contribs)
  • My apologies. The rote nature of the brief argument, its exact duplication in two discussions, the fact that none of your (at that point) four submissions in these two discussions were signed in the conventional manner, and the vote-seeming nature of the repetition of the bolded "Keep" made me think you were voting... again. Now that you've clarified matters, could you please articulate all the words that you feel will convey the relevant information contained in this photograph so we can see whether we agree or disagree with your NFCC assessment? Much appreciated.—DCGeist 06:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you'd agree that the rote claim "does not increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way words cannot" is hardly a basis to delete the image, right? If someone who believes that, he or she should actually spell out the words that can do all the work that the image does, right?—DCGeist 04:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a promotional photograph designed to show one of the main aspects of the new movie's story, the evolution of Michael Myers from a psychotic 10 year old boy to the iconic presence that has become known as The Shape through the eyes of the writer/director of this new version, Rob Zombie. The actors are also in costume from the film, not in their "everyday clothes," which shows it is a promotional photgraph specifically for the film. Therefore, I do not believe there is a free version equivalent for the actors and the writer/director in the same shot portraying this same sense. UncleThursday 02:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The image has no copyright status, the original source is from a myspace page, and there is no information about the copyright status. We don't know who holds the copyright to this image, and what permissions said copyright holder grants. Ejfetters 12:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meaning, yes there is a copyright tag on the image here, but the copyright status of the image is theorized, and actually unknown. Could belong to the photographer, to the studio. The original source of this image needs to be found, along with it the original copyright status. For all we know it could be a copyright violation. Ejfetters 12:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In case you weren't aware, the MySpace page in question was Rob Zombie's official page for the movie, where he'd post exclusive images prior to the release of the film. So I think its safe to say that it is the original source.--CyberGhostface 12:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Myspace is not official in any standard I can think of. So you know for a fact that Rob Zombie is the copyright holder of this photograph? So he owns the copyright of the character image Michael Myers? I doubt he owns that. It is still too vague, and there is no copyright status on the page for the images contained in it. Ejfetters 04:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • MySpace itself, perhaps, isn't official but since the director of the film posted it exclusively on his official movie MySpace, and it later appeared on the official halloween-themovie.com website. I mean, if the copyright isn't owned by Rob, then its probably owned by Dimension films. Since the image is not replaceable (as Michael isn't real) there's no reason why this fails fair use. And if you're going to argue "Well, who owns Michael Myers?" then you might as well remove all the other Halloween images as well.--CyberGhostface 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But there again, probably owned. I could post any copyrighted material to my own myspace, and change the whole layout to say its the official site for some film as well. We need to know the original copyright holder and source of the image and its status. That it is officially released for promotional use like is claimed. Ejfetters 08:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Furthermore, just claiming it is not replaceable is not sufficient enough claim, as has been stated on other images listed here as well. Ejfetters 08:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, but in your case, it wouldn't be the official myspace. In this case, it is. Rob Zombie, the director of the film, is the one who posted it. The image is also on halloween-themovie.com, which is without a doubt official. (And this official site also links itself to the myspace, which is more proof that its the real deal and not some joe schmo pretending to be official.) --CyberGhostface 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per UncleThursday and DCGeist. It's a promotional photograph of film characters. Also, the article needs images. J Readings 02:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to rest my case here now and wait for an admins decision, which I will totally accept and then the discussion will be closed. I think all that can be said has been said and we're just repeating ourselves. Ejfetters 04:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very borderline case. I am satisfied that source and copyright-holder have been provided, so NFCC#10 isn't a problem, and no one seems to think NFCC#2 is a concern. As for NFCC#8 and #1, it's certainly tricky -- it shows the fictional character(s), which could not be replaced by free images, but it shows the director, which could. The look of the central character is certainly notable in the article, but the look of the director is probably not notable enough to pass NFCC#8. I would personally feel much more comfortable if this image were replaced by screenshot(s) of Myers and a free image of the director, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus in this marginal case, so I'm not deleting. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 discussion was:

Image:John Carpenter.jpg edit

Image:John Carpenter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dmoon1 (notify | contribs).
  • Fair use image, replaceable with free use image. Adds nothing of value to the Halloween movie article either Ejfetters 12:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in Halloween article (Changed analysis; see below) Agreed the image does not meet standard for lead/infobox image of professionally active person. However, the image does provide valuable information in the context of the Halloween featured article--it shows Carpenter while directing one of the most profitable independent movies ever made and one of the most influential genre movies ever made. The image helps us understand his youth and sense of style--both relevant to the film and its impact--as well as (through cues such as hair and clothing) significant information about the era and cultural milieu in which the film was produced and released.—DCGeist 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The image isn't just for describing John Carpenter, its John Carpenter in 1978 directing his arguably most famous film. I don't think it'd be too easy to find a free image of Carpenter directing Halloween.--CyberGhostface 18:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's nothing in this image that significantly increases readers' understanding and can't be conveyed in words (as WP:NFCC#8 requires) in either article where it's used. The fact that Halloween (1978 film) is a featured article is irrelevant. —Angr/talk 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The fact that the article is Featured is not determinitive, but it is indeed relevant. The article went through FAC with this image; in that process it was vetted by a significant number of Wikipedia contributors and readers who reached the consensus that it represents our encyclopedia's best work. As you can see, the image in question was part of the article when it was promoted to Featured Article status. In addressing questions of the "value" and "significance" of this or any content of the article to our readership, the fact that it went through and was deemed of highest quality in the FAC process is most relevant.—DCGeist 21:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halloween (film), I see zero discussion of images, which could just as easily mean the contributors to the discussion didn't take them and their fair use claims into consideration. That's actually most likely considering the discussion was back in early 2006, when the fair use policy was less strictly enforced than it is now. In short, the fact that no one then said this image wasn't sufficiently significant doesn't mean it is. How do we even know that he's directing Halloween in that image? The source doesn't even have a caption. Also, who's the copyright holder? The image description page says (c) John Carpenter, but this page says "Photos by Kim Gottlieb-Walker". Finally, the tag says, "This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media." Do we know this image come from a press kit for the purposes of reuse by the media? Our use of this image may well be impinging on Gottlieb-Walker's commercial opportunities, in violation of WP:NFCC#2. —Angr/talk 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for tracking this down. The image does definitely seem to be of Carpenter directing Halloween--it is specifically cataloged on the Carpenter site with Halloween Behind the Scenes Stills. On the other hand, (a) the weight of evidence suggests that the image is copyrighted by Kim Gottlieb-Walker; given that, it is significant that (b) no evidence has been put forth that this behind the scenes image was released for reuse by the media. I'll give the uploader another day or two to weigh in; if no more evidence is forthcoming I'll change my vote.—DCGeist 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the image itself may be that of Carpenter directing Halloween, but it is in no way an image that cannot be explained in words. At a glance, it isn't even noticeable that he is on the set of Halloween, all you see is a wall. Maybe that of him with the actors directing would be better, it would be known by looking at the image what the film being directed is. Still, I don't see what it contributes that words cannot. Saying Carpenter directed Halloween seems very sufficient and an image is not necessary for people to understand that he directed the film. I believe a criteria for images is they should contribute in a way words cannot, and this can clearly be explained in words. I say delete from both articles, and delete altogether. Ejfetters 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejfetters (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I uploaded this image when I was new to Wikipedia and my understanding of fair use policy was still not very clear. I am ambivalent about whether the image is kept or deleted. When I was working on the Halloween article it was the best image of John Carpenter on the set I could find online. Given the current opinion regarding fair use, it might be better to remove this image from the article. If consensus is to keep, however, I don't think it would be hard to edit the image page and adding the correct licensing tags and copyright information. Dmoon1 14:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way words cannot Ejfetters 05:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejfetters (talk • contribs)
  • Double vote We've just had a second vote here from Ejfetters. Might have been placed here by mistake intending it for discussion above where identically stated vote was cast.—DCGeist 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis is not a vote, we are not voting whether to keep it or not. This is where you voice your opinion on why it should stay or go. How many Deletes or Keeps have no bearing - an administrator will look at the image and the reasons stated and make a decision. Otherwise you can just say Keep because it looks cool - or Delete because its ugly. This isn't a democracy where we vote on these images. Ejfetters 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejfetters (talk • contribs)
  • As above, I understand now it wasn't a double vote at all. Also as above, could you please articulate all the words that you feel will convey the relevant information contained in this photograph so we can see whether we agree or disagree with your NFCC assessment? Thanks.—DCGeist 06:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the information located and flagged by Angr, the weight of evidence indicates that this a commercial photograph by Kim Gottleib-Walker; as it is not typical of publicity images released for reuse by the media, it is significant that no evidence has been put forth that it was so released. This raises an NFCC#2 concern, as Angr points out. Though our use of the image is not clearly "likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media," the concern does raise the bar for the image's assessment per NFCC#8. While the image does convey valuable information and that information relates to the visible age of the subject and the time in which the picture was taken, its informational value is not exceptional. There has also been no suggestion that it might be suitable for critical commentary and it is not iconic. It thus does not appear to be acceptable under our policy for non free image content.—DCGeist 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DCGeist, you want me to repeat my reasons for deletion again, I am confused? Read WP:NFCC#8 - that is my reason, I felt no need to copy and past the entire policy here. And as for signing, proper signature is four tildes. I can have my signature in any way I wish. Ejfetters 03:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejfetters (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as failing to fulfill WP:NFCC#8 (whose content has been duly explained above). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Non-free image being used for identification of a living person. -Nv8200p talk 04:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Lebanon11.PNG edit

Image:Lebanon11.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Diplodocusbones (notify | contribs).

Image:Myquestionelectrics.gif edit

Image:Myquestionelectrics.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kedi (notify | contribs).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_August_27&oldid=1086101970"