FYI, Wikipedia is not a collection of files ... if an image is orphaned and there is no compelling reason to keep it, we generally get rid of it or ship it off to Commons. In this case, the image has a watermark on it. Watermarked user-created images tend to be frowned on.
BigDT06:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - How this image got even a single "keep" vote is simply beyond me. I didn't put the image up for deletion for no reason what so ever. Not only is the watermark frowned upon, but the
official policy clearly states "...user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself..." and that "all photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page." The image is a pretty clear violation of this policy. Roguegeek (
talk)
07:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - watermarked, and the low number of contributions from the uploader does not inspire confidence that the licensing is reliable (I know, assume good faith and all that, but still...)
CLW09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Moriturus (notify |
contribs). Highly likely to be a copyright violation, although I couldn't find the original through Google image search. It is a professional quality headshot of a successful film and TV actress that I dobut was taken by the uploader and even if it was is very unlikely to be released into the public domain. —
Gwernol01:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete it. The original can be found on
The CW's website.
Uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:Spcchurch.png listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] |
contribs). obsolete — Saint Paul Community Church 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC). If the image has been replaced by another image, also list that image in your reasons, in the format " Spcchurch.png - obsoleted by Saint Paul Community Church.png". User=Spcc
Uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:SaintPaulCommunityChurch.png listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] |
contribs). obsolete — Saint Paul Community Church 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC). If the image has been replaced by another image, also list that image in your reasons, in the format " SaintPaulCommunityChurch.png - obsoleted by Saint Paul Community Church.png". User=Spcc — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Spcc (
talk •
contribs)
go ahead and nuke it - the real version has underscores instead of dashes and is used in numerous pages. As for "low quality" - it's in an icon - it's meant to be small.
Debivort06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep until an image of reasonable quality is found or "created". If this image is under copyright, then it's fair use. The current rubbish alternative is awful and should not be used. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.10.210.113 (
talk •
contribs) 16:23, 30 December 2006
Delete. 82.10.210.113:
The criteria require that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."
Let's break that up. First: "No free equivalent is available or could be created" (my emphasis). A free equivalent could easily be created by a Wikimedia photographer who lives in or visits the United Kingdom or Ireland, the only countries where the browser has been distributed to the English-speaking public. However, no such photographer has yet shown interest, so I made the
Free (CC-BY/GFDL) image in question as the best possible replacement outside the British Isles. In addition, {{promotional}} states that it should be used on images that are "unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it" (my emphasis), not merely "unrepeated, i.e. a free image has not already been created to replace it". Per policy, a Free image is better than a higher quality proprietary image. By at least one interpretation of policy, even the possibility of making a Free image
trumps the highest quality proprietary image.
Second: "that would adequately give the same information." Though I (the photographer) admit that the Free image's photographic quality leaves something to be desired, it does "adequately give the same information" that the browser software fits in the DS slot and a memory expansion pak fits in the GBA slot, just as the promotional photo does. --
Damian Yerrick (
☎)
02:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - this image is a free image. It is allowable for these types of images to be used in templates and on user pages. This user has been around for more then a year and is a regular contributor. No reason to delete.--
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - As the subject and generator of the photo in question, I am, in some measure, offended that I should have to justify my existence. Have we nothing better to do than delete photos of users? Here's a suggestion: write an article and contribute something to the world's knowledge base, and stop policing user photos. It's a tiny little picture of my face. What's it hurting? I'm going off to sulk now. Happy new year to you all.
Iamvered16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC) (by the way, for the humor-impaired, that's sarcasm)reply
FYI, Wikipedia is not a collection of files ... if an image is orphaned and there is no compelling reason to keep it, we generally get rid of it or ship it off to Commons. In this case, the image has a watermark on it. Watermarked user-created images tend to be frowned on.
BigDT06:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - How this image got even a single "keep" vote is simply beyond me. I didn't put the image up for deletion for no reason what so ever. Not only is the watermark frowned upon, but the
official policy clearly states "...user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself..." and that "all photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page." The image is a pretty clear violation of this policy. Roguegeek (
talk)
07:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - watermarked, and the low number of contributions from the uploader does not inspire confidence that the licensing is reliable (I know, assume good faith and all that, but still...)
CLW09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Moriturus (notify |
contribs). Highly likely to be a copyright violation, although I couldn't find the original through Google image search. It is a professional quality headshot of a successful film and TV actress that I dobut was taken by the uploader and even if it was is very unlikely to be released into the public domain. —
Gwernol01:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete it. The original can be found on
The CW's website.
Uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:Spcchurch.png listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] |
contribs). obsolete — Saint Paul Community Church 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC). If the image has been replaced by another image, also list that image in your reasons, in the format " Spcchurch.png - obsoleted by Saint Paul Community Church.png". User=Spcc
Uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:SaintPaulCommunityChurch.png listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] |
contribs). obsolete — Saint Paul Community Church 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC). If the image has been replaced by another image, also list that image in your reasons, in the format " SaintPaulCommunityChurch.png - obsoleted by Saint Paul Community Church.png". User=Spcc — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Spcc (
talk •
contribs)
go ahead and nuke it - the real version has underscores instead of dashes and is used in numerous pages. As for "low quality" - it's in an icon - it's meant to be small.
Debivort06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep until an image of reasonable quality is found or "created". If this image is under copyright, then it's fair use. The current rubbish alternative is awful and should not be used. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.10.210.113 (
talk •
contribs) 16:23, 30 December 2006
Delete. 82.10.210.113:
The criteria require that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."
Let's break that up. First: "No free equivalent is available or could be created" (my emphasis). A free equivalent could easily be created by a Wikimedia photographer who lives in or visits the United Kingdom or Ireland, the only countries where the browser has been distributed to the English-speaking public. However, no such photographer has yet shown interest, so I made the
Free (CC-BY/GFDL) image in question as the best possible replacement outside the British Isles. In addition, {{promotional}} states that it should be used on images that are "unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it" (my emphasis), not merely "unrepeated, i.e. a free image has not already been created to replace it". Per policy, a Free image is better than a higher quality proprietary image. By at least one interpretation of policy, even the possibility of making a Free image
trumps the highest quality proprietary image.
Second: "that would adequately give the same information." Though I (the photographer) admit that the Free image's photographic quality leaves something to be desired, it does "adequately give the same information" that the browser software fits in the DS slot and a memory expansion pak fits in the GBA slot, just as the promotional photo does. --
Damian Yerrick (
☎)
02:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - this image is a free image. It is allowable for these types of images to be used in templates and on user pages. This user has been around for more then a year and is a regular contributor. No reason to delete.--
Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - As the subject and generator of the photo in question, I am, in some measure, offended that I should have to justify my existence. Have we nothing better to do than delete photos of users? Here's a suggestion: write an article and contribute something to the world's knowledge base, and stop policing user photos. It's a tiny little picture of my face. What's it hurting? I'm going off to sulk now. Happy new year to you all.
Iamvered16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC) (by the way, for the humor-impaired, that's sarcasm)reply