| Revision as of 23:25, 17 December 2009 editBahamut0013 (talk | contribs)21,234 edits →File:Ada Perkins Flores.jpg← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:36, 18 December 2009 edit undoKleinzach (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,640 edits →File:OperababesRen.jpg: DeleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
| '''Question:''' What is the threshhold being used for "critical commentary?" I thought that I had at least covered the basis. ] (]) 02:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | '''Question:''' What is the threshhold being used for "critical commentary?" I thought that I had at least covered the basis. ] (]) 02:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| '''Comment''': The justification for using this image is weak IMO. As some editors obviously want to save it, I think the best solution would be to start a new article about the recording itself. That page should contain the image and a discussion of the 'album'. If that is ''not'' done and the issue is left hanging, I am minded to suggest deletion. --'']]'' 05:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | * '''Delete''' / '''Comment''': The justification for using this image is weak IMO. As some editors obviously want to save it, I think the best solution would be to start a new article about the recording itself. That page should contain the image and a discussion of the 'album'. If that is ''not'' done and the issue is left hanging, I am minded to suggest deletion. --'']]'' 05:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC) ''Delete as per my explanation.'' --'']]'' 02:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Keep'''. ]'s summary seems to me to be ''ad rem''. If there were a separate article it would be another matter, but at present there isn't, and the image is properly used where it is. ] (]) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | :'''Keep'''. ]'s summary seems to me to be ''ad rem''. If there were a separate article it would be another matter, but at present there isn't, and the image is properly used where it is. ] (]) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:36, 18 December 2009
| < December 14 | December 16 > |
|---|
December 15
File:Ada Perkins Flores.jpg
- File:Ada Perkins Flores.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image with unknown copyright holder (it was just downloaded from some fan-forum where it was posted as an ugly collage). Damiens.rf 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep-The subject of the image died over a quarter century ago, making it difficult to find many other images of her. As a beauty queen, it is appropriate that she be shown as she was at the heyday of her artificially and unfortunately short career, when she served as Miss Puerto Rico. There is no more relevant image of her than that. Is the image "needed", essential, indospensable? But neither is any other image in any other biography. Is it desirable, does it help the reader get a better "feel" as to the subject of the bio? Besides, I really do not think that a reputable institution such as "Univision" would permit an image with copyright restrictions, just my humble opinion. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- For god's sake, Marine. Didn't you learn a thing? In your 121-word-long reply (not counting the vote) you failed to address what is questioned in the nomination, and preferred to explain how convenient it would be if we could just use this image. Have some admin-dignity and stop asking us to ignore our policy. Yes, of course the reputable institution "Univision" gives a shit for the copyright status of what their users post on their foruns, just look at all the fan-work on the very page you downloaded this image from to check that. --Damiens.rf 19:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- How incredibly rude. I believe you owe Tony an apology! bahamut0013deeds 23:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Aiwasegacd.jpg
- File:Aiwasegacd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brazil4Linux (notify | contribs).
- Photograph depicts a product that was sold in low volumes in Japan, making it a replaceable non-free image. Was tagged as such, however, I've declined the speedy, and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Arne Jacobsen.jpg
- File:Arne Jacobsen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Republicfurniture (notify | contribs).
- Only rationale provided is "visualize"; non-free image of person is not needed in this article about a company. (ESkog) 13:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Fritz Hansen factory.jpg
- File:Fritz Hansen factory.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Republicfurniture (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image; purpose of use only stated as "visualize" which is clearly insufficient. The terms of use seem overly restrictive as well. (ESkog) 14:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Bayandmatt.jpg
- File:BayandMatt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MagicMatt1021 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan file (user page used to link to it and now does not) MagicMatt1021 (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Oxford chair.jpg
- File:Oxford chair.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Republicfurniture (notify | contribs).
- Purpose of use seems wholly insufficient to justify yet another non-free image in this article. (ESkog) 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Duffylogo.jpg
- Logo used in the artist's article without critical commentary. Was tagged as such, however I've declined the speedy and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: The logo is used in the artist's article without critical commentary against Misplaced Pages:Logos#Band logos and Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. Aspects (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Marshal of IAF Current.jpg
- File:Marshal of IAF Current.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sumanch (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image of a living Indian used in many articles that would not suffer from the lack of it. Damiens.rf 16:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Tangail Airdrop.jpg
- This badly sourced non-free image shows airplanes dropping paratroops in some relevant event. Although, the use of this image also violates WP:NFCC#8 since the event can be understood without the aid of this picture. It contains no essential information that is not already covered in the articles text. Damiens.rf 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Gnat-Scramble.jpg
- File:Gnat-Scramble.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Incidious (notify | contribs).
- This non-free image shows an airplanes neing prepared on ground to take part on a very important conflict. Despite of the conflict relevance, and despite the undeniable fact that one can not make a new picture of a past event, the use of this image in Indian Air Force violates WP:NFCC#8 since the conflict situation can be understood without the aid of this picture. The image contains no essential information that is not already covered in the article's text. Damiens.rf 16:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Major Muhammad Akram.jpg
- File:Major Muhammad Akram.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Falcon007 (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Jawan Sawar Muhammad Hussain.jpg
- File:Jawan Sawar Muhammad Hussain.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Falcon007 (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable badly sourced non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Pilot Officer Rashid Minhas.jpg
- File:Pilot Officer Rashid Minhas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Falcon007 (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable badly sourced non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Major Raja Aziz Bhatti.jpg
- File:Major Raja Aziz Bhatti.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Falcon007 (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable badly sourced non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 16:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Lance Naik Muhammad Mahfuz.jpg
- File:Lance Naik Muhammad Mahfuz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Falcon007 (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable badly sourced non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Major Tufail Muhammad.jpg
- File:Major Tufail Muhammad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Falcon007 (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable badly sourced non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 16:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Captain Muhammad Sarwar.jpg
- File:Captain Muhammad Sarwar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Falcon007 (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable badly sourced non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 16:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:The element of freedom deluxe.jpg
- File:The element of freedom deluxe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kito0104 (notify | contribs).
- Alternate album cover, fails to meet WP:NFCC#3 as multiple non-free files are being used when one would suffice. Additionally, it does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as the file does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — ξ 17:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Abba-The-Album---Autog-466178.jpg
- File:Abba-The-Album---Autog-466178.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FotoPhest (notify | contribs).
- Alternate album cover, fails to meet WP:NFCC#3 as multiple non-free files are being used when one would suffice. Additionally, it does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as the file does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — ξ 17:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Bhu0-002.jpg
- File:Bhu0-002.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rama's Arrow (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image of a politician used as a decoration on his bio (there's a free main image) and as a general (i.e., replaceable) illustration for Mulsim Rajputs and Sindhi people. Damiens.rf 17:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Sindhi people3.jpg
- File:Sindhi people3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wasimawan (notify | contribs).
- Collage of images that do not attribute the source of original images and claims to release everyones work in the public domain. Damiens.rf 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:My Country My Life - Advani.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- File:My Country My Life - Advani.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sparkume (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation. Some book cover claimed to be own-work. The cover is probably not needed as non-free since the book is just a barely mentioned non-notable self-bio. Damiens.rf 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- 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:LK Advani.jpg
- File:LK Advani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Faarooqabdullah (notify | contribs).
- No evidence for the claimed rights release. Damiens.rf 17:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Kaleem Saadat.jpg
- No evidence for the claimed gfdl / cc-by-sa release. Damiens.rf 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Tikka003.jpg
- I doubt ] is the copyright holder of this work. Damiens.rf 17:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Rangroot.jpg
- File:Rangroot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Real rajput (notify | contribs).
- I'm sure User:Real_rajput has mistakenly claimed to be the copyright holder of this image (no bad faith assumed). Damiens.rf 17:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Graciela Rivera.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 Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- File:Graciela Rivera.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).
- No source, false licensing (subject was 2 years old in 1923). Damiens.rf 20:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, will proceed to delete myself. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- 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:Linux Logo in Linux Libertine Font.png
- File:Linux Logo in Linux Libertine Font.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Pohta ce-am pohtit (myself).
- Orphaned and replaced by File:Linux Logo in Linux Libertine Font.svg. Pcap ping 20:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:1979 Grand Marquis coupe.jpg
- File:1979 Grand Marquis coupe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sable232 (notify | contribs).
- The rationale for using this non-free content is: "There is no "free" equivalent of an actual factory photograph showing the Marquis coupe. It should be noted that the '79-'82 Marquis coupe is extremely rare." However, the image is in a section which deals with the 1979-82 model Marquis, and not specifically the coupe. There is an example of a freer CC licensed, but not free-enough, 1981 Marquis on Flickr. Better that than a non-free image according to WP:NFCC. There are also free ones on Flickr which might be the right model such as this (CC-BY-SA) if anyone who can tell the models apart checked. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
File:OperababesRen.jpg
- The album cover is used in the band's article without critical commentary against Misplaced Pages:Non-free content and is being used in the lead to illustrate the band and not the album itself against "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question" from the licensing agreement. The article only lists the release date and the peak chart positions of the album. The album cover also fails WP:NFCC#8 Aspects (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I disagree with this statement and am copying the discussion from the file's talk page:
- There is critical commentary on this album in the article Opera Babes, and the album has no article of its own, so Opera Babes is the only place where the album is described and critiqued. The critical commentary on the album includes the following from the second paragraph of the main section of the article, as follows:
- The Opera Babes released their first album, Opera Babes: Beyond Imagination in 2002 (ranking No. 1 on the UK classical charts for 11 weeks, and No. 4 on the U.S. billboard charts), contained classical and "crossover" numbers. Knight explained the group's strategy to BBC News as follows: "e have tried to maintain the classical integrity while making these things more appealing to a wider audience." They soon had a falling out with their producer, SonyBMG, which asked them to concentrate on studio work, rather than performing live. "We were originally discovered busking... so I would have thought it was obvious that we loved performing live, yet Sony weren't interested," said Karen England..... All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the above comment. There is no specific article on the album, which is only discussed in the Opera Babes article, so this is the correct and only place for the image to be until someone writes an article about the album. The 'Non-free' use tag fully explains this position. Based on that, I am removing the 'delete' tag. Jack1956 (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that this image, as used in this article, complies with the WP:FU guidelines. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- The first sentence is what I stated, the release date of the album and the peak chart positions. The second sentence is about the band's style and not about the album. The third sentence is about a fallout with the label and not about the album. So, the first sentence being the only one about the album is not enough critical commentary for fair use in the article. Also, you have failed to ever address the placement of the image since it shows it is being used to illustrate the band and not the album itself. Aspects (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- To address User:Aspects's objections, I have moved the image next to the discussion and added some information from a review of the album. The information about the album now reads:
- The Opera Babes released their first album, Opera Babes: Beyond Imagination in 2002 (ranking No. 1 on the UK classical charts for 11 weeks, and No. 4 on the U.S. billboard charts), consisting of classical and "crossover" numbers. In addition to the "One Fine Day" track being selected as the World Cup 2002 theme by ITV, British Airways chose another of the tracks, "Lakme H2O", a "stylish re-imagining of the Flower Duet from Lakme", for a commercial. One reviewer wrote "If you're a young individual with a remote interest in the classical genre, this disc is the perfect introduction". The artists soon had a falling out with their producer, SonyBMG, which asked them to concentrate on studio work, rather than performing live. "We were originally discovered busking ... so I would have thought it was obvious that we loved performing live, yet Sony weren't interested," said Karen England. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Critical commentary is suppose to be about the album cover, not the album itself. Clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. — ξ 00:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I had a situation a while back that was similar: At KMG Records there was the cover of an album, an "archives" release, one in over 100. The article did provide commentary: a review indicated that the covers were generic, providing minimal visual styling. The cover image was located beside the paragraph that supported it. Addditionally, you will see that the caption (alt text)lists the cover as "A typical Classic Archives resease", indicating that what was picuured represents the general form that these took, which again, was described by a magazine (a cited source) and called generic by the same. The diff for inserting the image.
Question: What is the threshhold being used for "critical commentary?" I thought that I had at least covered the basis. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete / Comment: The justification for using this image is weak IMO. As some editors obviously want to save it, I think the best solution would be to start a new article about the recording itself. That page should contain the image and a discussion of the 'album'. If that is not done and the issue is left hanging, I am minded to suggest deletion. --Kleinzach 05:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Delete as per my explanation. --Kleinzach 02:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Jack1956's summary seems to me to be ad rem. If there were a separate article it would be another matter, but at present there isn't, and the image is properly used where it is. Tim riley (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)