Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 7

< April 6	April 8 >

April 7[edit]

File:Leicester city council advert on Ugandan Argus.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: no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 it is not discussed in article, its presence does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. LGA _talk^edits 01:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was uploaded as part of an ongoing editathon. It is a unique, irreproducible, and historically significant image. The advertisement has generated insanely significant controversy and is still a subject of academic interest thirty plus years later - the person who it was uploaded for is literally writing her dissertation on it. Although the advertisement isn't directly discussed in the article at this moment, it will be in the immediate future. If Stella happens to have left the building by now, I will myself add at least a paragraph or so to the article discussing the historical significance of the image. We could delete it until that happens, but since we'd just reupload it in a day or so, it would seem not worth doing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph or so of information related to the advert to the article, and have passed a request to Stella to expand it as she has the time. A British council running an explicitly anti-immigration event is unprecedented, and Leicester's ad has had worldwide effect and generated huge amounts of discussion. I think a low res version of the ad used in the article even without Stella's hopeful future additions meets NFC#8 - an image of the advertisement conveys more to the reader than text alone could. (It also, obviously, isn't going to reduce the commercial value of the ad to the copyright holder, or any of those common concerns.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After talking with the person involved, apparently she had written up several paragraphs about the advert only to have her browser crash and her work lost. She'll be trying to add on to what I've written in the near future, but I think that the material I've already added likely meets the NFCC. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is there about this advertisement that could not be accomplished just by the text? It's unique, historical, controversial, etc, okay, fine, but the text seems to adequately explain it - why do I need a scan of the advertisement itself in order to understand it? --B (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The advertisement is unusual. If it was an ad from five decades earlier, a scan wouldn't be needed; people understand the sort of xenophobia that was accepted at that earlier time. It was not customary to run such advertisements by the 1970's, and it is hard or impossible to convey the absolute bluntness of the advertisement through text alone; a scan of the advertisement conveys to the reader the significance of the advertisement in a way that would be hard or impossible to do through text alone. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2013 (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:David Barton.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 as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo appears to be from http://texasallianceforlife.org/EVENTS/Dinner/2012/images/Dinner12_DavidBarton.jpg which is the website of the Texas Alliance for Life. It looks like Barton does not own the image, but TAfL does. At any rate, the copyright information is not known. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the copyright information on David Barton.png, so my request is for it to be put back on the article, David Barton (author). -Billybob2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybob2002 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not have copyright clearance on it, and it certainly does not meet the standards. Not only could a properly licensable image of Barton be made (he is still alive, and not a recluse), we actually have a licensed image of him on the page. -Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One more important point is that there is a free alternative at File:David Barton America A Call to Greatness.jpg. No need for a non-free image. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2013 (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:Whipping Tree - Sycamore located in Harvard, MA - January 2012.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 G7 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The owners of the house and tree pictured in the photo that I took decided that they were unsure about having me publish the photo at this time. I may re-add the photo at a later date. Msact (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2013 (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:James Rodriguez(screenshot).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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect this is a screen shot from TV LGA _talk^edits 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com/article/james-rodriguez-to-deny-manchester-united-transfer-and-stay-with-porto (which is blocked by the spam filter) uses the image and credits Getty Images. Deleted. --B (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2013 (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:NearlyFreeSpeech.NET Logo.gif[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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Axrtest (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2013 (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.