Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

October 24

Image:What happened.png

Image:What happened.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nofrak (notify | contribs).

Image uploaded just to vandalize the What Happened article as per this comic. Also an orphaned non-free image due to removal from What Happened article. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2ndFloorAlbum.jpg

Image:2ndFloorAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Melesse (notify | contribs).

Probable hoax single cover. Singles in the Philippines are released for radio airplay and are not released commercially apart from the album. bluemask ^(talk) 04:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JealousNina.jpg

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

Probable hoax single cover. Singles in the Philippines are released for radio airplay and are not released commercially apart from the album. bluemask ^(talk) 04:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 - Unfortunately without either an article on the book, or significant sourced commentary in the house article about the book's cover, this image falls into the unnacceptable use section (images - point 8) of the Non-free content criteria. As it stood book's cover's image was used to illustrate an article on the subject of the image on the cover...which rarely meets the rules - Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ashcombe cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stronach (notify | contribs).

The book is mentioned only briefly, and the cover is not mentioned at all. A non-free image is not warranted. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from PUI, where this was accidentially listed)The cover was mentioned in the Ashcombe House, Wiltshire article, in the caption accompanying the picture here [1] before J Milburn's first edit removed the caption. I would argue the image is warranted, as it illustrates the house very well, and the book, although mentioned briefly, is about the house; unless anyone creates a page specifically about the book, it seems this is the most appropriate page to have the image. If needed, I can try to expand the section on the book - would that help? I'm loathe to lose the image as it shows the house far better than the lead image. Stronach (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, Twinkle probably shouldn't have removed the caption, that appears to be a bug. In any case, just because this is the most appropriate place for the image, does not mean that it should be there. Why is an image of the book cover actually needed? There's already a picture of the building itself, so it is not needed for that reason (and it probably could not be considered fair use anyway) and there's too little on the book to warrant an image. If the section on the book was expanded to include a discussion of its cover, I would be happy for the image to stay. Alternatively, an article could be written about the book itself, if it is notable, and the image could be placed in the infobox there. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the building in the lead image shows it a) at a very small scale and more importantly b) not as the house now is - it shows large parts that have since been demolished. The image on the book cover shows the house moreorless as it is today, and at a far greater scale. I'm actually not that bothered about the book cover per se - it's the picture that I think is important, as it illustrates the house far better than the lead image. If I were to expand the section on the book, could it stay? I won't be able to expand it til later today, though. Got work to do :( Stronach (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded as best I can with the sources available online. Can you hang fire, J Milburn? How's about this for dedication to the cause - I have ordered the book [2] (at £4.95 it won't break the bank) and can add pertinent details when it arrives. I have added information about the image on the cover - apparently it's a painting by Rex Whistler, made during Beaton's sojourn there. Hope that is enough to satisfy you! Stronach (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to the point where I buy/order books based on what I can get from them for Wikipedia as well- careful, it's a slippery slope! If we are to have a picture of the book cover, it must be there to show the cover itself- not just what is on it. This is because someone could create a free image of the building- as such, an image just to show what the building looks like would be replaceable- see the non-free content criteria. Unless the book itself is notable (and so the cover image could be placed on the book's article) I don't feel that this image should be kept. It's possible that the painting itself could be in the public domain in the US- if the painting was published in any form before 1923, you could tag it with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, and place it whereever you like. That wouldn't apply to the bookcover, but would apply to the painting- no doubt your new book would be able to shed some light on that. J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, slippery slope indeed. I added some text to the Ashcombe House, Wiltshire article yesterday with information about the cover - as it was painted by Rex Whistler sadly it's not early enough - it must date from sometime between 1930-1945 when he came to Ashcombe through Beaton. The picture was wrapped around the first edition dust jacket, with part of the image on the front showing the house, and the rest on the back showing the orangery; the cover of the 1999 edition reproduced the original. Is this enough to justify keeping the image, as the text does now indeed refer to the cover itself; just now I have added pertinent info on the cover to the caption as well. Will that do? What a convoluted rule, by the way. Still not sure I fully grasp it so I defer to your far greater knowledge. The books I think certainly is notable enough to have its own article. Maybe I'll get round to making one once I've read it. There's a new preface by Beaton's biographer which will probably refer to the reviews it got when it first came out. A last-gasp thought - if I were to email the author and/or publisher for their permission, would that suffice if they said yes? Stronach (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2008 (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:304903144 091e105f7d m.jpg

Image:304903144 091e105f7d m.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jay59 111 (notify | contribs).

Flickr page states "all rights reserved". No evidence of GFDL license Papa November (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Inifitids_Ep_Cover.jpg

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

orphaned image, absent uploader, image likely used on a deleted article on the band, license requires credit to the author but informaiton is not provided Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EvilHarrisonsCrawdaddylowres.jpg

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

orphaned image, absent uploader, image likely used on a deleted article on the band, no indication that uploader has the authority to freely license the image (ie no indication that photographer and uploader are the same person) Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Experimental_Station_DuPont.png

Image:Experimental_Station_DuPont.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Littelinfo (notify | contribs).

orphaned image, duplicate of Image:DuPont Experimental Station.jpg from the same source which is in use. Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eye-flash_Squid.JPG

Image:Eye-flash_Squid.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by UtherSRG (notify | contribs).

orphaned image, the uploader stated in the upload that the image is required to remain labelled as it is -- ie it must contain the large text watermarks identifying the source thereby preventing derivities. Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fall_sundance_1879_4.jpg

Image:Fall_sundance_1879_4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dirkjavery (notify | contribs).

orphaned image, absnt uploader, image is watermarked by the uploader/author, uploading this image was the user's first edit, additing to Digital Painting was his second -- There may be some COI/advertising issues. Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fargesia-Robusta1.jpg

Image:Fargesia-Robusta1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danielgull (notify | contribs).

orphaned image, absent uploader, there is no source provided for this image and no indication that the uploader has the authority to freely license its use. Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fierce_Range.jpg

Image:Fierce_Range.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Taipan198 (notify | contribs).

orphaned image, low quality (pixalization), unable to locate image at source but no indication on source that image would be free to edit and re-issue; license attached does not provide for the restrictions for use. Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FlatironToronto1.jpg

Image:FlatironToronto1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lapunkd (notify | contribs).

orphaned image, image is watermarked, there exists a whole category of images of this building on Commons already [3] Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:7desktop.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: - Delete - regardless of other arguments it's been orphaned now and apparently replaced by other images - Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:7desktop.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Althepal (notify | contribs).

This image does not increase the reader's understanding of Windows 7 as required by the Non-free content criteria as there are barely any UI changes shown with critical commentary in this specific screenshot ViperSnake151 21:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That's like saying you can't have a screenshot of Windows 98 just because it looks a lot like Windows 95. And as a matter of fact, there are some changes to the GUI from Vista. Note the little glass button on the far right of the toolbar, the glossyness of the toolbar, the size of the start menu button, and the little arrow by the status icons. If not for the screenshot, people would have no idea of just how similar or different Windows 7 looks from Windows Vista. Althepal (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every other (at least common) version of Windows has a screenshot of its GUI on the wikipedia page. The only difference I see is that the other screenshots all have applications open rather than a bare wallpaper. Having said that, the person submitting this screenshot could have at least double clicked that recycle bin icon beforehand.

I think one problem is that because Windows 7 isn't out yet, any discussions of "how similar or different Windows 7 looks from Windows Vista" are somewhat premature; there were probably early builds of Windows 95 that looked a lot more like Windows 3.1. Whether that means this image is useless or not, I'm not sure. - IMSoP (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that perhaps we should replace this version of the image with this screenshot: http://screenshots.winfuture.de/1223485050.jpg ? Althepal (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PDC will come soon. Let's wait for it.--

Meow ✉ 02:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete the current image. Having said that, every software article should have at least one latest screenshot! -- Tyw7, Leading Innovations ‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) 12:55, 28 October 2008 (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.

- Orphaned, Probable Copyright violation, Looks like a studio portrait. Uploader needs to provide more evidence he is the copyright holder. Nv8200p talk 22:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moviedoodyinvert_copy.jpg

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 22:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moviedoodysilenthill.jpg

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 22:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moviesetlogo.gif

Image:Moviesetlogo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blue.alphabet (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 22:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moyerport.jpg

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

- Orphaned, Probable Copyright violation, Looks like a studio portrait. Uploader needs to provide more evidence he is the copyright holder. Nv8200p talk 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moysito.jpg

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 22:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moz100.jpg

Image:Moz100.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Caligvla (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 22:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MozartFaceRecordingsLOGO.jpg

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 22:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mqo_Maphophe.jpg

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 22:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]