Misplaced Pages

:Files for deletion/2009 December 28: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:26, 29 December 2009 editScooter20 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,268 editsm →File:GreatestRomaniaInEurope.png: spelling← Previous edit Revision as of 16:11, 29 December 2009 edit undoSquash Racket (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers14,116 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 90: Line 90:
* Again, I vot for '''keep'''! * Again, I vot for '''keep'''!
] (]) 11:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC) ] (]) 11:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

'''NOTE''' Please also see the ] of the file where ''three'' editors already expressed their concerns in detail. Please see the ] for some context before making a decision. ] (]) 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====

Revision as of 16:11, 29 December 2009

< December 27 December 29 >

December 28

File:Imamhusayn.png

File:Imamhusayn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Afghana (notify | contribs).

File:2004 Washington gubernatorial results in depth.png

File:2004 Washington gubernatorial results in depth.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Surachit (notify | contribs).

File:17 Panzerdivision.JPG

File:17 Panzerdivision.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EA210269 (notify | contribs).

File:Blacktans.jpg

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

File:Doncairnseqbag.png

File:Doncairnseqbag.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cloveious (notify | contribs).

File:Whenicomearoundausingle.jpg

File:Whenicomearoundausingle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by StuckWithMeFan113 (notify | contribs).
  • Secondary cover art for a single, with no mention of what makes it unique. Tagged as missing a rationale, but one of our over-helpful volunteers tagged with FurMe without paying attention to what the image actually is... (ESkog) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's very different to the other cover; and the article makes apparent that this was because it was the cover for the "AU Single", which is described in the article and had a completely different track list. Jheald (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence whatsoever that this meets WP:NFCC#8 and for the purposes of demonstrating that the single was released with a picture cover (what else is it for?) one non-free image suffices so that this is not minimal use of non-free content either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Divestiture.jpg

File:Divestiture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by X570 (notify | contribs).
  • This was uploaded and added to the Bell System divestiture article on 9 December. It's a low-quality JPEG depicting a combination of the pre-breakup AT&T/Bell logo and the post-breakup AT&T logo (each split down the middle by a jagged line), composing an arbitrary construct that fails to meaningfully illustrate the article's subject. This is not an actual company logo (contrary to the boilerplate text, which states that it "illustrate the ... branding message" of an "organization" known as "Bell System divestiture"); it incorporates two copyrighted logos in an unflattering, unencyclopedic fashion (not, as claimed in the boilerplate text, one that "avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image"). Nonsensically, the article itself is listed as the image's source. —David Levy 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

File:BBC Two Copper 1991-1999.jpg

File:BBC Two Copper 1991-1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwoohoo (notify | contribs).
  • Not required within BBC Two 1991-2001 idents. Purpose fulfilled by other image. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reason I think it's useful on that page is that this was the first time the BBC had deployed a family of idents. I think it is useful to show two such idents to allow readers to assess what artistic features were shared as family resemblance: most notably the 2 itself, and the colourscheme; as compared with the diversity in the scheme -- and thus to get a sense of the artistic unity that resulted. Two idents out of over 35 discussed seems not unreasonable, per WP:NFLISTS. Jheald (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The descriptions given seem sufficiently clear that one image would be all that could be justified under WP:NFCC #1 and #8, and perhaps not even that one. Editors who disagree may wish to address whatever lack they perceive in the descriptions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Without this, the first ident has no context, and the distinct but of-a-piece character of the idents is lost. Two are needed to convey the idea the BBC were going for with these. NFCC #1 is about whether a free equivalent exists, Angus, hard to see what relevance you think that has here. #8 is "Contextual significance" which is precisely the point here. 86.44.26.167 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Duke flexible batch broiler.jpg

File:Duke flexible batch broiler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jerem43 (notify | contribs).
  • Boilerplate non-free content rationale claims this is an image which is not repeatable. But according to the article it is used in it seems to be the current model of "broiler" used in Burger King restaurants, so it should be replaceable. It also seems questionable whether this picture can add anything to the reader's understanding as WP:NFCC#8 requires. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep - You would need to trespass at a Burger King and a get a picture of the unit that is located inside of one of their kitchens, an area which is closed to the public. This is in clear violation of policies stated on signs posted on the front doors of their restaurants stating "No Photographs or video"; any image claimed as free would be in clear violation of the company's IP rights. Any image created by an employee would violate corporate-employee confidentiality agreements as employees of major fast food are not allowed to divulge company secrets; any image created as such would also have IP issues because of that. Furthermore, the section of the article it is in is about the said broiler, so the image is appropriate. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

File:ITV1 logo 2004-2006.svg

File:ITV1 logo 2004-2006.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AxG (notify | contribs).

File:Barbrahouse1.jpg

File:Barbrahouse1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Miserlou (notify | contribs).
  • The non-free content rationale provided for this image assures us that "s it represents the center of the controversy that created of the term, words are insufficient in describing the ideas and concepts relayed in the photograph". I do not believe that this, or any of the other parts of the rationale offered, are sound reasons for using this non-free content.

It would not be impossible or even difficult for the reader to conceive that this photograph existed without having seen what it looked like. Neither would not having seen it make it harder to understand what the Streisand effect was about. Indeed we could say that the Streisand effect having progressed from being a one-off incident to a general rule now no longer concerns this one particular picture or incident.

In the context of the article in which it is used this image appears to be replaceable in that the actual content of the photograph is less important than the fact of its existence. That fact can be and is conveyed by the article text. It also seems unlikely that seeing the content of the photograph rather than merely knowing that it exists adds anything to the reader's understanding. Nor do I see that not viewing the content will be detrimental to that understanding.

For these reasons I believe that this image does not meet one or both of points 1 and 8 of the non-free content criteria and that it should be deleted as a consequence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - indeed, the exact visual information on the photograph is not relevant for the article. All that's relevant is that the photo shows a beach-front property belonging to Barbara Streisand, and that information is already conveyed by text. The house could look anything different but with would make no difference. --Damiens.rf 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I do believe the image meets point 8, on two separate grounds. First, point 8 states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". While I don't believe there is a firm demarkation between "on" and "off" topic in an article I do beleive that the history of the term is part of "the topic". Moreover, specific aspects of the image, such as the level of detail available, are not as cleanly conveyed by way of text. Second, and this will probably be considered "too cute" a line of reasoning, the existence of the phtoograph within the article is in and of itself a demonstration of the Effect, self-contained and easily comprehensible. Moreover, I think the applicability of (1) depends on whether one agrees with my reading of point 8. As an alternative, the history of the term could be split off in part into an article about the lawsuit itself, which certainly meets notability guidelines, and in that case, the image would be on-topic. Personally, I thnk the article and history are better conveyed as a single article, but I can see this being a reasonable point for debate. --Joe Decker (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)#
  • Keep The image is a key point of discussion for part of the article, and as the level of detail of the image is part of the discussion then the image helps with the understanding of this. --Nate/c 10:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - I concede the "level of detail" on the photograph may constitute relevant visual information. Maybe, just by reading about the controversy, without really seeing the photo, I could imagine the picture was more close up or more invasive, (like, with discernible people at the pool or at the windows) when it actually just shows the house from a non-invasive distance. This is important to judge the merits of Streisand's case. --Damiens.rf 11:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Wkramer.jpg

File:Wkramer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 5b3TnY (notify | contribs).

File:GreatestRomaniaInEurope.png

File:GreatestRomaniaInEurope.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by scooter20 (notify | contribs).
  • Image description: "An alternate reality map showing possible maximum extent of Romania after World War I, which would have been possible if certain events in history would have been slightly different."Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ЛенинВладимир (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • 1.) "Unencyclopedic - "The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project)"
  • 2.) Orphan - "The file is not used on any pages in Misplaced Pages"
  • 3.) Per WP:NOT WP:NOT#OR: NO "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc... Personal inventions... "
  • 4.) Per WP:SOAPS: NO "political propaganda". ЛенинВладимир (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a free-content map created by an editor who is using it on their own talk page. The image is captioned "Possible extent of historic Romanian territories in Central and SE Europe" which seems about as accurate a caption as we can expect for any Uchronian image and not obviously soapboxing. Original research applies to articles, not to user space. Likewise contributors are allowed some leeway in their user space, including the use of "unencyclopedic" images. Orphaned is just plain wrong in this context. I wasn't sure if I disagreed with each of the four points when I started writing this. It turns out that I do. That'll be keep then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Being the author of the image, I obviously vote for keeping the image.
My arguments are:

  • This image, as specified in the description, portraits an alternate history view of a Romanian state which would have been possible if certain events in history were slightly different and which includes all territories which have / had demographic, linguistic and cultural ties with Romania at a certain level.
  • Since this image is just on my userpage and not on articles I don't see why it should be deleted.
  • Orphan isn't an issue here since it resides just on my userpage.
  • Original Research applies to articles not usepages.
  • Since this image's description (and I already explained it) is quite clear I don't see it as being a means for political propaganda!
  • Again, I vot for keep!

Scooter20 (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE Please also see the talk page of the file where three editors already expressed their concerns in detail. Please see the Treaty of Trianon for some context before making a decision. Squash Racket (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Withania somnifera2.jpg

File:Withania somnifera2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Madhav Gadgil (notify | contribs).

File:Ciriaco De mita.jpg

File:Ciriaco De mita.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Attilios (notify | contribs).
  • I couldn't find this image but the legal stuff on the Chamber of Deputies site doesn't seem to be big on Creative Commons licenses in any case. I can't translate "L'utilizzo ... è autorizzata esclusivamente nei limiti in cui la stessa avvenga nel rispetto dell'interesse pubblico all'informazione, per finalità non commerciali, garantendo l'integrità degli elementi riprodotti e mediante indicazione della fonte" word for word, but it certainly has "non commercial" and "no derivatives" in it. Our man here is only 81 which is hardly old enough to claim that he'd be hard to photograph on grounds of age. I'm not seeing a non-free content rationale here either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

File:HDR clouds.jpg

File:HDR clouds.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andy1703 (notify | contribs).