Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 24

< June 23	June 25 >

June 24[edit]

File:Helping Hand (Body of Proof).jpg[edit]

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image of two people sitting on a couch. I've read the article and the non-free rationale and am underwhelmed. This image does not significantly add to reader's understanding and is simply decorative. The assertion that seeing them sitting somehow tells me about their acting performance, as is stated, is completely unsupportable. Peripitus (Talk) 01:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; user does not understand purpose of image: The user who is nominating this is completly missing the point. The image is not to allow the reader to understand more of them sitting on a couch. This image allow the reader t see both Megan and Bud in person, allowing them to understand why people at first did not reason with the double act; and now are. This image allows the reader to be able to see the two people, who are very different. This image is also one of the main scenes in the episode, so without this, the reader would a) be lacking visual aid of the two characters b) lack visual aid of a scene, widely commented by critics, and it would mean that the reader would n longer understand. I think, yes, the rationale should have been expalined more, but however, the noinator should have read the article in more depth. — M.Mario (T/C) 11:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Just two people sitting on a sofa. It doesn't help me understanding the topic better in any way at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, although you have come to your decision already, did you actually read my comment? It does extremly well allow the reader to signify the article, and as you said "two people sitting on a sofa" is not the purpose of the image. — M.Mario (T/C) 17:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with free images. Juxtaposing two free images should work just as well as this non-free image. Sadly, no free image of John Carroll Lynch is currently in Commons, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to get one. -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 17:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagre: Per as a reader, I feel that I would not understand why the critcis commented in the way they did. They critics obviously liked the double act, but if the image isnt present, I would not see the "uniqeness" of it. — M.Mario (T/C) 15:44, 29 June 2012 (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.

File:Header 12.jpg[edit]

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non free image; banner is not subject of commentary in article. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:48, 24 June 2012 (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.

File:Shutdownmessage.jpg[edit]

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use rationale does not justify why the non-free image from The Office must remain unmodified. This image could be replaced by blurring or otherwise obscuring everything but the ticker, leaving a sentence of text that is likely de minimis. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crop to show the shut down message, and not much else (so that you cannot identify much of anything except the banner) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment blurring would also work well. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:NFCC#8 failure. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's just about illustrating the use of running text, that can easily be done in, well: text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 26 June 2012 (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.

File:Adventures of Priscilla-CD.jpg[edit]

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

decorative non-free image with a standard boilerplate rationale that gives no indication of the "significnant understanding" the reader is supposed to gain from seeing it. Just spent an enjoyable time reading the article and got to the section with this image. There is no critical commentary, nor any commentary, on the image itself and I really cannot see what I, as a reader, was supposed to gain by seeing it. Peripitus (Talk) 11:06, 24 June 2012 (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.

File:Endeavour Radio.jpg[edit]

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: Withdrawn and re licensed as {{{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Thanks for the pointer folks - Peripitus (Talk) 11:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A visual logo is supposed to gain me significant additional understanding of an article about a radio station. I don't get this. I knew I was at the correct article when I read the english words telling me the name of the station. This logo is decorative and, for reader understanding, without a purpose Peripitus (Talk) 11:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wouldn't his be a candidate for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? — ξ ^xplicit 00:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree PD-ineligible would be most appropriate. Skier Dude (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2012 (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.

File:MediaBrainWash.png[edit]

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken/lost file. One of the files used in this collage was deleted because it had no good source. MGA73 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2012 (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.

File:Quantrill's Raiders reunion circa 1875.jpg[edit]

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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An incorrect/misleading date of 1875 is included in the jpeg description. I subsequently re-uploaded the same image on Commons under the name: File:Quantrill's Raiders Reunion.jpg Evenrød (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2012 (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.

File:OutcropfromdeWP.jpg[edit]

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, obsolete File:AufschlussSchwanberg.JPG Common Good (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2012 (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.

File:The Alternative 2008Cover.jpg[edit]

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous to File:IAMX the alternative.jpg, see WP:NFCC#3a. Seems to be an alternative cover for the same product. Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This image is relevant and should not be deleted. It is not a different cover for the same album. It is a cover for a different version of the album The Alternative. This version of the album and the difference in the cover is also mentioned and described in the The Alternative Wikipedia article. The owner of the image has provided me with it to be used here. I have written an "image license" email to the Wiki OTRS immediately after uploading this image.Lindadxx (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2012 (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.

File:Tom Cruise, The Oprah Winfrey Show, 2005.jpg[edit]

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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. We don't need a photo of someone jumping in a couch to tell that someone was jumping in a couch. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image is important to the understanding of the extremity of the event. It was one of the most shocking moments of The Oprah Winfrey Show and television in general, widely discussed in the media after the episode aired. The image I uploaded was to replace another image of Tom Cruise jumping on a couch. That image was uploaded under the same terms and wasn't nominated for deletion. The reason I chose to upload another image to replace the previous was because the previous image was of drastic low quality. The image I uploaded was to improve the general quality of the article in both it's appearance and professionalism. Justinboyer (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd agree. This is one of those "historic" moment pictures. This isn't just a random occurrence, or a random individual. It was the subject of much media frenzy et al.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't matter how "historic" the moment was. What matters is whether we need the image to understand it. We don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current text, "hopped onto a couch" and "jumps onto the couch" do not adequately describe this scene. I think it would be difficult to describe this scene adequately with words alone. -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 16:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you know 1) what Tom Cruise looks like, and 2) what a sofa looks like, then it is hardly difficult to visualise Tom Cruise jumping on a sofa. Completely superfluous to the accompanying text. Super Mario Man 00:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in order to describe the event, it helps the reader's understanding to have a visual representation of what it actually looked like. That we know what hopping on a couch looks like: the reader will still not have as good an understanding of the event. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2012 (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.

File:Demons TXF.jpg[edit]

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: Keep - although placed oddly, it appears to fit all of Wikipedia's criteria for fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just two people standing next to each other. Doesn't help me understanding the subject of the article at all. Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you'd read the FUR, you'd see that the filming technique is discussed in the article and that's why the image is being used. It really has less to do about showing "two people standing next to each other" and more about the shooting of the flashbacks. 1) It's sourced to "critical commentary" (The Production info), 2) it's discussed and critiqued (in the "Reception" section), and 3) it helps the viewer understand what "manipulating the film's negatives with filtered strobe lights" looks like (something that is rather difficult to properly explain solely with the words). All the bases are easily covered: perfect FUR.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the image is meant to illustrate the special effect, why is it not placed in the section that discusses that effect? Claiming that discussion as the justification for the image but then placing it somewhere else suggests somebody is merely using that discussion as a pretext for having a decorative image in the infobox. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Does it matter that much? The image is discussed critically and is placed in the infobox just to maintain consistency with the rest of The X-Files pages. Claiming I have a "pretext" is reaching. Just because I've justified using an image does not make me a member of a greater conspiracy.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Gen. Quon's reasoning. TBran dl ey 00:50, 27 June 2012 (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.