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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC) There's a duplicate on commons. [1] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per F9. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under the spirit of F8, which is what I believe Presidentman meant; F9 is for copyvios. They're not the same file format, so it can't be deleted under this criterion, but I don't believe that we really need to keep the local image. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. As the delete arguments have pointed out, this is a clear violation of WP:NFCC#1. — ξ^xplicit 02:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green Boots.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gobonobo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Note: This is a photograph of a corpse on Mount Everest.

The non-free media rationale for this file includes the argument "As the subject is deceased, no free equivalent could reasonably be obtained or created to replace this media". That's, on the face of it, ridiculous, as I understand it, the corpse continue to exist in the same place and condition this photograph was taken. The boilerplate "As the subject is deceased..." argument is intended to be used on photographs of people who were living when the photograph was taken, and are no longer--that's what makes the photograph irreplaceable.

As the photograph would be (with very great difficulty, but no greater difficulty than involved in the creation of this photograph) replaceable, I feel that the free-use rationale here is invalid with respect to both articles it is used upon, and fails NFCC#1. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note that the related article, Green Boots, is at AfD. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While it is remotely possible that someone will climb up Mount Everest, snap a photo of Green Boots, and upload it to Wikipedia, they would clearly be putting their lives in danger to do so. The replaceability field could be returned to the original language, which read "As the subject is located in an extreme environment, while it may be possible to create a replacement image, it would potentially put any photographer in mortal danger." Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 03:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for several reasons:
  • Replaceability: While climbing Mount Everest is difficult and expensive, it has become a routine enterprise. Hundreds of people do it every year. All of them presumably take cameras with them, and many of them put photographs online (free or not). For the replaceability criterion to kick in, it is not necessary that it should be easy and effortless for you or me to go there merely for the sake of getting a free photo; what counts is that there are people who have the opportunity of doing so, and could release their images for free if they wanted to.
  • NFCC#8: I doubt an image of the actual body is in fact necessary for adequately understanding the article. A textual description ("a frozen body clad in mountaineer garb, lying on the ground and half covered in snow") is quite sufficient.
  • Ethics: photographs of corpses may be perceived as culturally insensitive and offensive. While Wikipedia is "not censored", displaying such a photograph would require a very good reason. Per the above argument, I'm not seeing such a compelling reason here.
  • Formalities: The image is currently liable to be speedily deleted for several formal reasons too:
    • It has no FUR for the article it is currently used in (I have removed one FUR and removed the image from the list article; it is now used in Green Boots but has a FUR for Tsewang Paljor.)
    • The verbiage of the FUR copies the standard wording about irreplaceability of live photographs of deceased people; as the nomination rightly points out, that verbiage is nonsensical if applied to the photo of an (endurable) corpse.
    • The image is incorrectly tagged as a "unique historic photograph", which it is not. (That makes it liable to immediate speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F7) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I suspect the Green Boots/"Tsewang Paljor mistake is the result of a move, the latter is a redirect to the former, for what it's worth. I think you make a good case with respect to NFCC#8 as well, one that's even stronger, in my view, with respect to the list article. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not exactly buying the replaceability argument or the ethics argument. I don't really think of this picture as being offensive. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Unless a lawyer says we're at risk here. I mean, the above arguments sound plausible to me, but its not free of doubt and my view is that AutomaticStrikeout's position is preferable and at least as equally plausible.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • AutomaticStrikeout's? Huh? AutomaticStrikeout expressed no argument whatsoever. He merely said he "isn't buying" the other arguments, but he didn't say why. So, can you please answer me this then: within the next 12 months, several dozens if not hundreds of people will almost certainly walk past that same spot again, just like dozens and hundreds have done in every year before. Why do you think that none of these dozens or hundreds of people could possibly do the same thing Dominic Goff did, take a photograph at that point? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly replaceable. Just travel to Mount Everest and take a photo. Lots of people travel to Mount Everest all of the time and take lots of photos there. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as nom The photograph is tagged as a "unique historic photograph". This similar but non-identical image (note snow patterns) contradicts the claim of uniqueness. Am I missing something? --j⚛e decker^talk 17:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: speedy delete under F8, can be found at File:Pontifical Xavierian University study area.jpg. — ξ^xplicit 02:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Biblio2.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alextrevelian 006 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

LQ, OR, UE Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NVI, DNWII. Thincat (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not going to be useful. Thincat, what do you mean? Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was being excessively oblique in deprecating the nomination. If LQ means "low quality" (I don't think it can mean WP:LQ), then in technical terms it is not too bad. If OR means "original research" then the only documented application to photographs is WP:OI which seems an absurd claim in this case. If UE means unencyclopedic as discussed at WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC then that claim is, by itself, vacuous. However, I think the photo is Not Very Interesting and, concerning its subject, I Don't Know What It Is. In other words WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Since my last remark I have found the photo's supposed purpose here after which someone wisely removed it from the article. Thincat (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those rationales frequently come up here at FFD... especially LQ for any image lower than infinite-megapixels in size... and OR (orphaned) for files that are currently being used -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If OR does mean orphaned in this part of the world then that is another matter. I have also found images tagged as orphaned when they are not (and were not at the time of tagging) and images wrongly nominated here for the same reasons. Links from user space or talk space are sometimes ignored, even for free images. However it does look as if this image is indeed orphaned (but used not to be). This of course, no argument at all for deletion. Thincat (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to commons under a different name. The image is of adequate quality, is not original research, and could have a value in WP and Commons. Being orphaned is not a valid criterion for deleting a free image. Thincat (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, and the fact that two of the keep arguments were based the "the album cover is not similar to the poster anymore" rationale that didn't address WP:NFCC at all. — ξ^xplicit 02:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gabbar singh cd cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Raghusri (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Previously deleted per Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012 October 24#File:Gabbar singh cd cover.jpg as superfluous near-duplicate (soundtrack CD cover very similar to a movie poster used in the same article). Was re-uploaded, correctly tagged for G4, but another admin declined the G4 out of process because he didn't like the result of the previous FFD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose You are telling that another admin declined the FFD discussion that was previously held. Then how can you add FFD template again. And due to that similarity problem only i have re uploaded a new film poster. By this that problem solved which was also accepted by admin Nyttend. Please respect other admins. Being an admin doing like this is unfair. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 11:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, it's the other way round. A regular process led to deletion. "Respecting" the work of other admins means to respect that decision, which was arrived at through due and proper process. Anybody who disagreed with that decision (either you or the second admin involved) ought to have taken it to WP:DRV rather than simply ignoring and overriding it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • O wait. Now I understand what you're saying. So, at the time the first deletion was done, the CD cover image and the movie poster image were indeed near-identical. Then, you uploaded a slightly different movie poster image, and re-uploaded the same CD cover image, arguing that they are now different enough to be both kept? Right. But unfortunately that opens up a new can of worms. If there are so many different movie poster images that you can just arbitrarily exchange the one against the other, how can we still argue that either the one or the other serves as the "primary means of visual identification" of the movie? Are these posters in fact official? (There seems to be an awful lot of inofficial fan art floating around on the internet in Indian movie matters.) If there isn't one official promotional image to identify this film, why do we need any image in the first place? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nowhere near a "near-duplicate". - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nominator came here in bad faith and has made a factually erroneous nomination. Presidentman hits the nail on the head, because G4 does not apply to images that have not been deleted here. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wrong. Nothing factually erroneous about nor bad faith about this nomination. The previous deletion [2] was here at FFD, was clearly valid (obviously policy-conformant nomination and no keep votes), and was for the exact same image as this. The keep argument is merely that the conditions have changed because some other image was changed in the meantime, but even then restoration ought to have gone through DRV first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Assume Good Faith on the actions of others. This goes for everyone. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NFCC criteria #8 requires that non-free images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." When reading Gabbar Singh (film), I do not think the image's omission would be detrimental to understanding the film. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It doesn't fail " WP:NFCC criteria #8 " because if you read Gabbar Singh (film) article, image's omission is detrimental to understand the film. This image is an album cover, so that people will understand that the album cover of the film is placed there. And they can see this image if they don't see elsewhere in the web because " Wikipedia " is more popular than other sites. So deletion of this image is unfair. Raghusri (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the fact the album had a cover is important, readers can be told the album had a cover without them needing to see it. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What man how can you say like that. Deletion is not at all fair. It's unfair. Raghusri (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NFCC#3a tells that you should use as few non-free images as possible. In this case, there is a film poster which is very similar to the CD cover, so it is enough to use only one image in the article. The image was previously deleted for this exact reason, and the original deletion reason still applies. See also Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 17#Endukante... Premanta! which is an identical situation where an image was deleted (and apparently reuploaded without any deletion review). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Doesn't fail WP:NFCC#3a because in this case how is it possible. Film poster and album cover both are different. Only one image, either film poster or album cover don't do the same job for both purposes in the film articles. Both will be needed. I have stated this so many times in the Previous discussion for Endukante premanta article. Nobody understood what i have said there including the admin (who has deleted the page) also in that case. Deletion is totally unfair. Raghusri (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Um, no, since there is a film poster which is almost identical to an album cover, all you need is a simple statement which tells that the covers are almost identical. No need for multiple images at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Non identical. So consensus for the above is Keep the image. Raghusri (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not whether the images are identical for the moment, but whether identical images exist. In this case, we know that an identical image exists, and the identical image is, if I remember correctly, available for administrators at Special:Undelete/File:Gabbar singh poster.jpeg. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have struck out a few bolded "keep"s. Raghusri, it's no problem if you want to comment several times here, but please don't mark more than one posting with bold-face "keep" or "delete". Those bolded strings are conventionally used for keeping tracks of vote counts and it may confuse readers if one voter adds several of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment MOS:FILM#Soundtrack states that there is consensus against having images of soundtracks in film articles even if the image is different from the poster. There is now also a request for comments about the issue at WT:NFC#RFC: Soundtrack covers in articles about other media (films, video games, etc.). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radio - Lana Del Rey cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Thevampireashlee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fanmade cover. It clearly says "loudTALK" in the bottom. Plus, the source is commonly known for not using real covers. Statυs (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Here's the real artwork: [3]. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 as G7 by TexasAndroid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Was an old personal photo that was uploaded unknowingly from my account. I would appreciate it if it were to be deleted ASAP. Many thanks. --DakotaDAllen (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:File name.ext (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:#File:File name.ext listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

203.99.208.6 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.