Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 25

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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saddle and accessories.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Signaleer (notify | contribs).

• The relevant information contained on this non-free image is replaceable by free content. Damiens.rf 00:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- 'is replaceable'? i sure if someone else cobbled together the things, but it's unlikely. why not provide a link to the free alternative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.236.141 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Our non-free content criteria prevent us from using a non-free image (such as this one) if it's possible to create a replacement. Whether one exists at the moment or not is not relevant. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The source clearly shows it is a copyright violation and it's relatively easy to obtain a free alternative. Also, mistagged. "This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image" only applies to old images, not images of just old subjects. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Quadell, but "historic images" (of which this one is not) need not be old, but historic. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:59, 31 May 2009 (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: Delete; deleted as G7 by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nõi nemi szervek.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LouisBB (notify | contribs).

• This is the Hungarian version of File:Scheme female reproductive system-en.svg, and has no encyclopedic value for The English Wikipedia. The file was tagged as being on Commons (although I was unable to locate it) so I guess we can just delete that one. -- Luk ^talk 06:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGREEMENT: Please delete this file and all its versions as they have been erroneously uploaded here. It is now in the Commons, eg with the English version. LouisBB (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JHodgins2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KF (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image of living person could be replaced by a free alternative, per WP:NON-FREE Papa November (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should be replaced with a free image. Subject is still alive. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFC#Unacceptable use (I#12). American Eagle (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:00, 31 May 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krusty-o's.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SchmuckyTheCat (notify | contribs).

• Unused; I doubt the uploader is the creator. —Bkell (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This was used in Products produced from the Simpsons. Several rounds of "cleanup" edits removed this image in place of some other image. The other image was since deleted, leaving the section unillustrated. So I restored this image to that section. It is now used appropriately as it was for a very long time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• The licensing on this is totally wrong, however. I will fix that later. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Delete The picture of this box isn't needed in the article. No FUR either. The licensing needs to be fixed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:02, 31 May 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goettingen district coa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Baldhur (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned in main space. Replaced by higer-res image on Commons. Papa November (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This image should be deleted by CSD F8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment CSD#F8 allows thumbnails of commons images to be deleted, but this is not such a case. The local image has slightly different colouring, for example. Papa November (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historygerman2.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rex Germanus (notify | contribs), banned user.

• It is nonsense: inaccurate and unreferenced. Shows language borders that never existed. For good reasons not used in any article: [1]. Obviously a fake to "counter" File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG (which is problematic as well, but is at least referenced and is according to some historical maps in German literature). See also File:Historygerman1.png (and File:Historicalgermanophone.png on commons) -- PhJ (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unreferenced POV fork. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OI. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per all three above. American Eagle (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:04, 31 May 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historygerman1.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rex Germanus (notify | contribs), banned user.

• It is nonsense: inaccurate and unreferenced. Shows language borders that never existed. For good reasons not used in any article: [2]. Obviously a fake to "counter" File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG (which is problematic as well, but is at least referenced and is according to some historical maps in German literature). See also File:Historygerman2.png (and File:Historicalgermanophone.png on commons) -- PhJ (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unreferenced POV fork. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:04, 31 May 2009 (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: Keep. Image description updated. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daudelin-island.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Montrealais (notify | contribs).

• The sculpture is non-free and GFDL cannot apply to derivative photos. Image is unused in mainspace. Papa November (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Commons:Template:FoP-Canada. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Stifle. Good catch. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:04, 27 May 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daudelin-odalisque.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Montrealais (notify | contribs).

• Subject of photo is non-free 2D art and GFDL cannot apply to derivative photos. Papa November (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IndusTree-AmeracsSumic-45kbps.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Guaka (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned file. Uploader has added the source, but I'm not sure that it will find a use in the encyclopaedia. Papa November (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2009 (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: - Keep with a twist. While there is rough consensus that this image passes NFCC#8, I will follow BQZip01's suggestion and replace the lead image - Peripitus (Talk) 08:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Myhers and lindfors in weddings and babies.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stetsonharry (notify | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCC in lacking significance and WP:NFC#Images in being a screenshot that does not have any critical commentary to support it. Argument has been that the plot description is enough to support this screenshot, which is false since descriptions of primary sources are not inherently significant. A follow-up argument is that the screenshot illustrates a critic's analysis of the female character's performance, where it is originally claimed that the analysis can apply to any screenshot in which the female character is present. This is the equivalent of pushing a square peg through a round hole. This is a very new article, and it can do better; I've already suggested a better alternative in which a specific scene is thematically referenced. See full discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm grateful to Erik for pointing me toward a website which does indeed have other images, including one of a cemetery scene not discussed currently in the article. However, those are also nonfree images. I think that this particular image is worthy and that it meets the nonfree image criteria. The article is about a movie that is one of the earliest American independent films, and the plot surrounds two characters, both of whom are represented in the image. In the section in which this image is used as illustration, New York Times critic Bosley Crowther is quoted as saying "everything she [the actress illustrated] does—every movement, every gesture, every reaction, every lift and fall of her voice—is so absolutely right and convincing that the style drapes most fitly around her. . . She is the solid core of this film." This image conveys the nuances of her performance and the general nature of this film and I therefore thing that it meets the "significance" element of the nonfree image criteria. In addition, as I indicated previously in the talk page discussion, this scene is specifically mentioned in the plot summary: "As the film begins, Bea tells Al how anxious she is to get married and have children of her own." Stetsonharry (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone can detail any particular scene from the film's plot. Per WP:PSTS, we only treat primary sources, including films, in a descriptive manner. Since films do not convey significance on their own (only through secondary sources), it is original thought to deem the mere description of a scene as "critical commentary" to support a screenshot. Combining these elements with Crowther's analysis is synthesis, coming up with justification for the image where none existed before in secondary sources. Crowther makes no reference to any particular scene or shot in which Lindfors plays her character, so this is a case of picking a completely random screenshot from the film and applying the general analysis of the character to a moment that was never specified by the secondary source. It means nothing that the scene was described in "Plot"; anyone could watch the film and expand this section with other scenes, but this does not mean other screenshots can all of a sudden be included. When it comes to non-free images, there needs to be explicitly clear rationales for them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not engaged in "synthesis." The Crowther commentary was quoted at length before this image was questioned, I just did not have the sense to realize that it fully justified the image. I am really surprised there is such passion to delete this image. Given the nature of this film, it is almost impossible to write an encyclopedia article about it without noting that it centers around the relationship of two people, and that the performance of one of them was critically praised at length by Crowther. You are correct that he did not say, "I believe her performance was such because of scene X, Y or Z," but I hardly think it is as much of a stretch as is being portrayed here to utilize this image in conjunction with that particular commentary. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Screenshot merely depicts the actors. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Screenshot depicts a particular aspect that is discussed in the article. That is sufficient justification for the NFCC, because the discussion of a movie requires the visual presentation to permit understanding the discussion. Yes, this argument would permit a few more images than we sometimes have done, and so it should. It still meets the NFCC requirements, and the principle behind them, of using only that amount of nonfree content essential to the article. The most important part of fair use is to permit criticism. DGG (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I think that seeing the principle characters passes NFCC#8 and #1. I think that this passes #3 as well. It would be stronger with more sourced commentary, or with a more iconic image showing material directly referenced in reliable sources. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Quadell. Illustrating the main characters is important, though this could certainly replace the lead image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:11, 31 May 2009 (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: Delete; deleted as G7 by Papa November (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruernish201.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by donaldhenderson (notify | contribs).

• no longer wish it to be on wikipedia Donaldhenderson (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2009 (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: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dietmar Möbius Manipulieren in molekularen Dimensionen 1975.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CarsiEi (notify | contribs).

• Unused PDF document. No licensing information, likely copyright violation—this appears to be an article that was published in a periodical in 1975. —Bkell (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (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.