< January 19 | January 21 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Only used on a articles for creation page denied for being not notible :Jay8g Hi!- I am... - What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC 03:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Low quality, plenty of better images available :Jay8g Hi!- I am... - What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC 03:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Unused, a better image is used instead:Jay8g Hi!- I am... - What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC 04:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Redundant to File:Zeichen 393.svg (ineligible for F8 due to different file format) Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 05:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free product photograph of a 2004 smartphone, replaceable with free alternatives. Di-replaceable was declined in 2007 on the argument that this model was never actually sold in the US; however, the article also states that it did become available elsewhere, in Hong Kong, so free alternatives are possible. Pictures in fact exist out on the web, e.g. [1], [2]. Nothing in the article makes it necessary to display specifically the North American version of the product rather than the existing Asian ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free photograph of two country singers who were part of a now defunct band in the 1990s. Di-replaceable was declined in 2007 on the argument that the band no longer exists. However, this is not a complete band lineup photograph anyway, but only shows two important members of it; as such, it fulfills essentially the function of just two separate individual portraits, and in this function it is replaceable. Both individuals have free photographs in their own separate articles already. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free painting of an uncompleted historic US battleship. Not used to support commentary on the artwork, but merely to illustrate "what the ship would have looked like" if it had been completed. In this function it is obviously replaceable with somebody else's artwork that might yet be created. Replaceability tag was declined in 2007 on the erroneous grounds that making such a replacement would be difficult because it would require artistic talent; however, according to longstanding policy and multiple precedents this is quite irrelevant. Replaceability does not require that it be easy or that anyone could do it, merely that it could be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free photograph of a person showing an apparatus he has invented. Fails NFCC#8: the scene shown tells us nothing crucial either about the apparatus (an arcade machine) nor about the person. The machine is hardly discernible in the photo, and as a picture of the person it could obviously be replaced by a free portrait. Nothing in the article depends on seeing the precise gesture with which he is pointing to the machine, or his facial expression in doing so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Obviously replaceable non-free photograph of a commercial electronic device. Replaceability tag was declined in 2009 on the erroneous argument that the device is relatively rare, which is obviously bogus. It's a normal device that you can buy for about 70 USD at Walmart. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free photograph of a medical apparatus from the 1990s. Replaceability tag declined in 2008 on the mistaken argument that the company that produced these no longer exists. However, the machines do exist and are still in use. Photographs of surviving items abound on the net (e.g. [5], [6]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free satellite photo of a town in the early 2000's, used to illustrate article about a battle that took place in the town. Replaceability tag removed in 2008 on the erroneous argument that the town changed as parts of the area shown were destroyed in the battle. Nevertheless, the same information could obviously be conveyed by a free, self-created map. The image is used merely for showing the overall geographic structure of the area; nothing in the article hinges on any specific photographic detail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free photograph of a snake. Obviously replaceable (used to illustrate article on an extant – albeit presumably rare – species); deletion was declined in 2007 on the erroneous argument that we have a "for-Wikipedia-only" permission for it, which is obviously irrelevant for assessing the replaceability issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free map diagram displaying a temporary diversion scheme of urban bus lines during construction work. Obviously replaceable with a free map that could be created (and would actually be preferable, since to the non-local reader the present map hardly makes it clear how the lines were actually changed.) It might also be questioned whether the whole topic is notable enough for the article anyway; it's just a routine and temporary public transport measure. Replaceability tag was declined in 2007 for reasons that remain quite incomprehensible to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free photograph of a person sitting in a car with a camera and laptop, used to illustrate the concept of "lifecasting". Replaceability tag was declined on obviously false grounds in 2007, because at that time the person in question was still pursuing this activity, so a free photograph of her during it could still have been created at the time, even if none existed then. As of 2013, she has apparently stopped lifecasting, but there is still an obvious NFCC#8 failure here: we do not need to see a photograph of her in her car with a camera to understand the information that she carried cameras with her in her car. There is also no tangible argument why of all people who have ever done lifecasting, this particular person is in special need of having an illustration in the article. (There are other, free images illustrating lifecasts of other people.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic, personal artwork by uploader who only made a few edits in 2006; no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Very small, low quality picture of an unidentified person (probably Ira Mathur). Orphaned, likely copyright violation. Was originally uploaded with self-contradictory tags, describing it as both "own work" and "non-free". Uploader only made two edits in 2007. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free photographs of military helicopters in Sri Lanka, used in article about Sri Lankan airforce. Replaceability tag was declined in 2008 on the erroneous argument that photography in military areas is restricted; while this may be true, we have plenty of free images of the same type of helicopter elsewhere (see commons:Category:Mil Mi-35M), which could serve as illustrations just as well. It is not necessary to have an image specifically of helicopters owned by this force in order to understand the information that this force also owns some of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Low-quality, non-free photograph of a speaker at a conference, used in article about the organization that hosts the conference. Replaceability tag was declined in 2007 on the mistaken grounds that it was taken at a "one-time event". While this particular speech was certainly held only once, that is not what the image is used to illustrate; it's just a generic image of some random speech by some random person in an event that happens every year. No case was brought forward that this particular speech, or even just this particular yearly conference, was particularly in need of illustration, let alone what unique information the image contributed towards understanding it. Thus an obvious NFC failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Frontpage of a newspaper with a headline reporting on an historic event, used in article about that event. Not used to support commentary on the newspaper publication itself, hence obviously false use of {{ Non-free newspaper image}}. Replaceability tag was declined in 2008, but it could of course be replaced with textual coverage (including a quotation of the headline), if needed. Purely decorative use; obvious NFCC#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free photograph of a submarine. Replaceability tag was declined in 2008 on the grounds that a replacement might be "too difficult" to come by. However, we do have free images of exactly identical sister ships (see commons:Category:Delta-IV class submarines and Delta class submarine). No case was brought forward why (1) if free images of K114 are possible, free images of K407 are not; and (2) why the article can't be illustrated with an image of an identical sister ship anyway. We don't need to have images of every single ship of this class to understand what they look like, when they all look the same, so this one is a clear NFCC#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free photograph of a rocket-launching vehicle during a firing exercise. We have several higher-quality free images of the same type of vehicle. Replaceability tag was declined in 2008 on the grounds that (a) it shows a slightly different sub-type, and (b) it shows it in a situation (launching its rockets) where the public normally has no access. While both claims are true, we still have an NFCC#8 failure: (a) whatever differences exist between this subtype of the vehicle and the others in the free photographs, this provides us with no visual information about them, because the photo is far too small to show any details, and (b) we don't need an illustration of the firing in order to understand how it works (the only thing this image tells me is that when you fire it, some fire and smoke comes out, which is trivial.) The image caption says something about the speed of firing, but that is of course not something the image can convey, certainly not better than text can. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free photograph of a tram station, obviously replaceable. Deletion was declined in 2007 on the grounds that it allegedly showed an historical, non-recoverable state of the building. However, the change between then (early 2000s) and now is quite minor and entirely trivial – apparently an entrance sign in Russian has been replaced with an Ukrainian one. This is obviously easy to cover in words. Moreover, the historic change is not even the subject of the article at the point it is used. It's now in the infobox of the article about the station, an existing present-day structure, so a free photograph showing the present-day state would not only be acceptable, but actually far superior as a replacement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: closed
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-free photograph of a car from 1969, obviously replaceable. Deletion was declined in 2007 on the grounds that surviving cars of this type would be "very hard to find" and that "one can't just walk into a random parking lot and have any chance of seeing one of these". However, this is far from the threshold of non-replaceability dictated by our policy. Replacements don't have to be trivially easy; they just have to be possible. A Google search proves that multiple items of this type still exist and can be photographed (there are at least a dozen on Flickr alone, though unfortunately none of them freely licensed at this point.) We also have free photographs of near-identical models from multiple other years (1967, 1968, 1973), so why would the 1969 ones be impossible to come by? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply