Misplaced Pages

Image:128292588561683750puturmoneein.jpg

Image:128292588561683750puturmoneein.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aliheartheart (notify | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic, being used for the sole purpose of creating nonsense pages Nick—/_Contribs 08:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Head-cat.jpg

Image:Head-cat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aliheartheart (notify | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic, being used for the sole purpose of creating nonsense pages Nick—/_Contribs 08:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stanley_baldwin.jpg

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

• nndb is not a valid source for images (they're just a website using images). Besides, after being properly sourced, this non-free image should be removed from some of the 18 articles it's currently used in Abu badali 11:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Crown copyright in Mother England is 50 years after publication - given that the guy took a dirt nap in '47, it seems fairly likely the image is actually PD. I'll investigate. WilyD 14:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/search/Object.asp?object_key=10678 The photo was taken previous to 1929, as it was purchased by the UK government in 1929. This suggests to me it's not actually covered by Crown Copyright there (if you go through the long gibbering about it, works really need to be produced for the Queen, not just bought be her later, to qualify as crown copyright. I'll therefor suggest this is covered by ordinary UK copyright. http://commons.wikimedia.org/Template:PD-UK-unknown - Commons suggests we can reasonably infer the image is PD, given that the image was bought by the government art collection in 1929, for display, and was (presumably) displayed. While one might be able to wedge a sliver of doubt in there, it seems very likely it's PD - let's hold off on any purge of appearences for the moment. WilyD 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Time-magazine-neville-chamberlain.jpg

Image:Time-magazine-neville-chamberlain.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jengod (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image of a magazine's cover, used in an article that do not mention the cover (nor event the magazine) Abu badali 11:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Evel_Knievel_-_Pinball_Machine.jpg

Image:Evel_Knievel_-_Pinball_Machine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jerkmonkee (notify | contribs).

• A full-page ad, used in an article that doesn't mention the ad – Quadell 13:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:EvelynBrent1.jpg

Image:EvelynBrent1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DCGeist (notify | contribs).

• Non-free photo of a person who is barely mentioned in the article – Quadell 13:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The claim above is patently in error. There are multiple significant mentions of the subject in the article, Film Booking Offices of America:

"B. P. Fineman became the studio's production chief in 1924; Evelyn Brent, his wife, moved over from Fox to become FBO's top dramatic star."

"Fineman and Brent both departed FBO around the time of the purchase."

"Evelyn Brent was FBO's most prized non-Western star."

"Tod Browning directed two Gothic Pictures specials in 1924 starring Evelyn Brent: The Dangerous Flirt and Silk Stocking Sal."

"A masked Brent in the title role of Lady Robin Hood (1925), directed by Ralph Ince. Her cowering foe is played by Boris Karloff..."

(and, in the caption of the photo in question:) "Publicity photo of Evelyn Brent, star of 14 FBO films between 1924 and 1926."

Note also that the article passed FAC with this photo and the relevant text in place (I would supply a diff, but in fact the article has not been edited in the slightest since its promotion to Featured Article status in June).—DCGeist 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:ESP_Xtone_Ad.gif

Image:ESP_Xtone_Ad.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by QelDroma06 (notify | contribs).

• Ad, used only decoratively – Quadell 13:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kirk_Hammett_ESP.gif

Image:Kirk_Hammett_ESP.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by QelDroma06 (notify | contribs).

• Ad, used only decoratively – Quadell 13:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:ESP_Anniversary_Promo.jpg

Image:ESP_Anniversary_Promo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by QelDroma06 (notify | contribs).

• Ad, used only decoratively – Quadell 13:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg

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

• I am actually proposing that this image be removed from its usages on Philip E. Johnson and Intelligent design, although usage on the article about the book should be OK. The image should be removed from those articles per WP:NFCC#8 in that omission of the image from those articles would cause negligible detriment to the reader's understanding of the topic. I know this isn't the ideal forum for this, but the 'fair use disputed' tags keep getting deleted and there is no better forum to which to take this. Videmus Omnia 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. 1) ID is not aimed at the scientific community, but squarely at high school science students and thus school boards. As a cover of one of the primary ID books high school students and board members are likely to find in their library or waved furiously around at board meetings, it is indeed illustrative of the topic that they represent and thus are quite properly used at the articles at which they appear as the primary means of visual identification of the topic. 2) Videmus Omnia appears to have listed this image in a fit of pique. First he called for everyone commenting on a informal deletion discussion yesterday to "let an uninvolved admin decide" whether to keep the images. As an admin familiar with ID who had not been involved in placing the images I was asked to take a look and decide. And when I decided to keep them Videmus Omnia reverted once then immediately rushed to WP:IFD it once he realized an admin decided to keep. Clearly WP:NFCC#8 is being zealously over-applied here. FeloniousMonk 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please commment on contributions, not contributors. I'd ask that you please become familiar with WP:NFCC before making admin decisions on image issues, as the image has a pretty clearly invalid rationale - for example, it's in clear violation of WP:NFCC#10c in that it does not specify the article in which it is to be used. Videmus Omnia 14:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No offense, but 10c is a {{sofixit}} issue. It is not a deletion issue, ever. WilyD 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I can't fix that, because I don't see a valid reason for including this image in any other article but that about the book (at least not with the reasoning given). And images that don't comply with the policy have to be deleted per Item 4 of the Foundation's resolution. Videmus Omnia 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • You can fix any NFCC10c problems. It's easier than pissing in the shower, and twice as fun. Whether you can fix NFCC8 problems is an unrelated question. WilyD 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Videmius, you should become familiar with WP:BURO and WP:CON.SuperElephant 15:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm familiar with them, I invite your attention to WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • You link to it in every post. Do you really think I'm not aware of it's existence? WP:BURO and WP:CON are more important than WP:NFCC.SuperElephant 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per FM. Raul654 14:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — No deletion rationale presented <<<personal attack removed>>>. Matthew 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep per FM. And yes, I'm going to comment on the nominator--thanks for waste our time with your vendetta. OrangeMarlin 16:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - No rationale given. Once again, VO is using NFCC#8 as if it were self-evident. It isn't. Please explain why you think that the image makes no significant improvement to the understanding of the article. Guettarda 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So far as I can see, the impact on the reader's understanding of the topics above would be negligible if the image was omitted. How is this incorrect? Videmus Omnia 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Use only on article about the book - There's no need to multiply the use of non-free material as this. The other articles don't ask for the image. --Abu badali 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Insulting VO, or maligning his motives, is childish and not useful. His concerns are legitimate. – Quadell 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove from Phillip E. Johnson and Intelligent design. If this particular book were the subject of the articles, it would of course pass NFCC #8. But seeing the cover of the book does not help anyone understand the concept of ID or Johnson's ideas. It would be a useful decoration, but it does not provide any encyclopedic information about ID that words alone can't convey. In many, many previous deletion debates, it was repeatedly held that a book cover can't be used in an article unless the article or a major section of the article is specifically about the book itself. I can't see any reason to treat this case any differently. – Quadell 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just on copyright principles alone. I fail to see the issue here about fair use. Using the bookcover is going to fall under editorial use. I think that there is even a template for the use of this kind of image. I really question the motives of putting this up for deletion in the first place.-Nodekeeper 19:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It depicts books central to the topics that readers are likely to run into. VO has been hammering away at this and other related images to get them deleted long enough, it's becoming disruptive. Odd nature 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nady el zamalek logo.jpg

Image:Nady el zamalek logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ebsawy (notify | contribs).

• Image links nowhere -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chitra Ramanathan's series paintings.jpg

Image:Chitra Ramanathan's series paintings.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheDay (notify | contribs).

• OU a refuge of vanity (see Chitra Ramanathan). ccwaters 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)