Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 31

< July 30	August 1 >

July 31

File:RonaldoVFootballtitlescreen.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - no commentary about this image on the page, does not appear to be crucial to understanding the subject. Mosmof (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition, being so similar to the cover art makes it unnecessary even for identification purposes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 31 July 2010 (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:Toros BCN 2010.jpg

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary to the reader's understanding of the topic. The article is on the ban on bullfighting in Catalonia, not bullfighting in Catalonia itself. (Even if an article on bullfighting in Catalonia were created, it would be easy to show a photo of an actual bullfight in Catalonia under a free license.) Yes, there is a section about the La Monumental event, but the section does not discuss the poster. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant use of image in article per the non-free content criteria guidelines. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:49, 2 August 2010 (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:Teddy Blue Notes.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - no specific discussion of the image itself. Mosmof (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article now references the Soul Train appearance with Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes that the image was taken from. It is now contextually significant.Atari2 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFCC#8 is about discussion of the image itself, where the image has significance beyond just providing a visual to accompany the text. Mosmof (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2010 (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:Pendergrass 2002.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - No discussion of the image itself. I understand the argument that it shows him performing in a wheelchair, but that's something that could, and should be described with sourced text. Mosmof (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image, as I just found out through some research, was part of his second live album. Is it not then relevant to the content of the article? While not necessarily of the same historcal signifigance, the article on Michael Jackson contains File:Mjthriller.jpg. It makes no mention of the zombie dancers or any other features of the video in the main article, and still does not violate fair-use. It has about as much direct reference to the video as the Teddy Pendergrass article has to File:Pendergrass 2002.jpg. If mentioning an album, and then a particular video produced as part of the album for a particular song (A music video) qualifies as fair-use in one case, why not the next, especially when it has the dual purpose of showing him in a wheelchair? I understand that using it simply for indentification of Pendergrass is unacceptable, but with the entire background of the concert now included in the article, is it not now in compliance with WP:NFCC#8? The first and third paragraphs of Teddy_Pendergrass#Later_career reference the music video and his wheelchair-use following his accident, which the image shows both of. Is that not a valid usage? Atari2 (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that the use of File:Mjthriller.jpg in Michael Jackson similarly fails WP:NFCC#8. Yes, you mention that the clip is on YouTube (as if that's meaningful), but mentioning the image does not contextual significance make. If the image were to be removed today, I wouldn't have any trouble understanding that section. You don't need a picture to understand that Pendergrass performed in a wheelchair because we have textual sources to verify the information. Hence, it's decorative. Mosmof (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2010 (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:Prettywomenhighlife.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - no specific discussion of this image Mosmof (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2010 (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:DavidBannerHulkFilm.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8: Neither the image nor the character's appearance is discussed to the extent that the article would suffer without it. Mosmof (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2010 (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:PrettyWomenshot1.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - no specific discussion of the image; the appearance of the characters does not seem crucial in the section where the image is used. Mosmof (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2010 (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:Turninmeon.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the file does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article. The caption reads: "Hilson pushing aside men and featured alongside Lil Wayne in the video." Text alone adequately describes what's in the screenshot. — ξ ^xplicit 07:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passes WP:NFCC is stated in the section and then gives a visual. Candy o32 23:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed with Candyo32. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I believe this is true here, its describing the video, screen shot is relevant to the text, so it passes WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC#1 plays a role here, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." No free image exists, so it passes. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me
There is no need for a non-free screenshot of the music video when the text can—and does—perfectly explain what's going on in the video. I fail to see how removing this screenshot would be detrimental to the readers' understanding that Hilson stands next to two muscular men in one scene, then standing next to Lil Wayne in another. And look at that, the text I provided does an amazing job describing the screenshot. Hence, it's not needed and fails NFCC. — ξ ^xplicit 01:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. I believe it meets all criteria. It increased my understanding of the video as i didnt have to go actually watch the video. Explain to me exactly what part other then NFCC#8 it fails as #8 is really dependent of the person reviewing it. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are arguing that the text explains the screenshot, well thats what the synopsis section is suppose to do, the image is to increase the readers understanding of the video, which it addiquitly does. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you state the screenshot increases your understanding. If the image were removed, would you not able to understand that Hilson stood next to two muscular men on either side of her in one scene if the text said just that? Would you not be able to understand that Hilson stood next to Lil Wayne in another scene if the text described just that? I really doubt you wouldn't, which is why I nominated the file in the first place. By this, the image also fails WP:NFCC#1: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer... is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion. Non-free screenshots are used in music video sections if the text alone can't do the job. In this case, it clearly does. — ξ ^xplicit 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually watched the video? The screenshot adequately describes the video. Top image is described in the text "Hilson is performs choreography such as the Bird Walk, which according to MTV Buzzworthy is Aaliyah-style choreography, while being flaunted by shirtless, muscular men and donning "on" and "off" finger rings.". I would like an image describing this, Candyo32 has done this. Reading the text alone last week before the image was added i didnt really know what that meant, now i do. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've watched the video several times. "Hilson is performs choreography such as the Bird Walk, which according to MTV Buzzworthy is Aaliyah-style choreography, while being flaunted by shirtless, muscular men and donning "on" and "off" finger rings." Most of that description isn't even in the screenshots. The bird walk isn't on the top (where Hilson pushes the men aside) or the bottom (where she stands next to Lil Wayne, making completely unrelated hand gestures) screenshot, so the comparison to Aaliyah choreography is moot. Flaunted by shirtless men? Yup, and the text describes it very well—to the point where a screenshot isn't needed. The "on" and "off" rings aren't in the screenshot either, so you're understanding concepts not even being shown. — ξ ^xplicit 02:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, ive uploaded a new image. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, new image has been uploaded, it now passed all of NFCC. Previous issues were #1 and #8. Number one can not be conveyed by text alone and the image now adequately represents the text. Number eight is no longer an issue because it now significantly increases the readers' understanding of the article by showing what "the bird walk" is and what she is doing with her "on" and "off" rings". (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 23:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete old image; delete new image also as using two screenshots is not permitted. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC does not in anyway say you cannot use more then one image as long as they mean guidelines. Which they do - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the accompanying text adequately expresses the concepts depicted in the image. It does not add significant additional information - Peripitus (Talk) 01:57, 8 August 2010 (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:DavyJones400px.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the file does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article, as well as WP:NFCC#3 as the article's main image is sufficient to show the character. This image does not show anything that text alone can not describe. — ξ ^xplicit 07:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, it fails WP:NFCC#3. Article contains many non-free images that better enhance the readers understanding. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:41, 1 August 2010 (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:BathingSuit1920s-cropped.jpg

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned crop of File:BathingSuit1920s.jpg. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not in use, crop does not detail original, just cuts it smaller Hekerui (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2010 (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:John-Deacon.jpg

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 CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr uploader's account is full of copyvio images, clearly not taken by them. feydey (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2010 (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.