While it was encyclopedic at one point, a US map celebrating just Obama's Iowa win isn't that useful. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Possibly unfree? Kellyhi! 03:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actively trying to get a translation of the top text, at which time the image may be deleted. Please leave it until then. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris should have a reasonable time to do this, say 2 weeks. If still orphaned, he can take it off line via a saved copy and seek translation by other means. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told by native Arabic speakers that the Arabic text was drawn by someone guessing at what the text should be, and didn't get the characters right, so it is untranslatable. Go ahead and kill it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and I'm not sure I believe the public domain claim—according to our article, the artist Liubov Popova died in 1924, so the {{PD-art}} tag, which refers to a "copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years", cannot be accurate. —Bkell (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and I'm not sure I believe the public domain claim—according to our article, the artist Liubov Popova died in 1924, so the {{PD-art}} tag, which refers to a "copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years", cannot be accurate. —Bkell (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and I'm not sure I believe the public domain claim—according to our article, the (presumed) artist Pascin died in 1930, so the {{PD-art}} tag, which refers to a "copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years", cannot be accurate. —Bkell (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and I'm not sure I believe the public domain claim—according to our article, the artist Pascin died in 1930, so the {{PD-art}} tag, which refers to a "copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years", cannot be accurate. —Bkell (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and I'm not sure I believe the public domain claim—according to our article, the (presumed) artist Pascin died in 1930, so the {{PD-art}} tag, which refers to a "copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years", cannot be accurate. The uploader may own the work of art, but that doesn't mean he or she owns the copyright. —Bkell (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and I'm not sure I believe the public domain claim—according to our article, the (presumed) artist Pascin died in 1930, so the {{PD-art}} tag, which refers to a "copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years", cannot be accurate. The uploader may own the work of art, but that doesn't mean he or she owns the copyright. —Bkell (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and I'm not sure I believe the public domain claim—according to our article, the artist Pascin died in 1930, so the {{PD-art}} tag, which refers to a "copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years", cannot be accurate. The uploader may own the work of art, but that doesn't mean he or she owns the copyright. —Bkell (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and I'm not sure I believe the public domain claim—according to our article, the artist Pascin died in 1930, so the {{PD-art}} tag, which refers to a "copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years", cannot be accurate. The uploader may own the work of art, but that doesn't mean he or she owns the copyright. —Bkell (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and I'm not sure I believe the public domain claim—according to our article, the (presumed) artist Pascin died in 1930, so the {{PD-art}} tag, which refers to a "copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years", cannot be accurate. The uploader may own the work of art, but that doesn't mean he or she owns the copyright. —Bkell (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and I'm not sure I believe the public domain claim—according to our article, the (presumed) artist Pascin died in 1930, so the {{PD-art}} tag, which refers to a "copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years", cannot be accurate. The uploader may own the work of art, but that doesn't mean he or she owns the copyright. —Bkell (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unused personal picture Nv8200ptalk 04:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reaction was to say "move to Commons", but ... we already have many pictures of German Shepherds and this one, although it is high-resolution has a cluttered background that detracts from the main subject of the image (the dogs). Neutral. Black Falcon(Talk) 22:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Kellyhi! 07:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The uploader agreed to let the article this was in be deleted as not being notable enough for coverage. Since I assume that if the organization becomes notable, the image can be undeleted and restored under the same license, there is no issue. MBisanztalk 08:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad name RT | Talk 12:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 consensus and that there are not enough references to support all the claims made on the map which would qualify it as original research. -Nv8200ptalk 01:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The categories used for colouring the world map are simplistic, unexplained, and massively distort the complex issue of "universal health care"; in particular, the meaning of "attempting universal health care" and "some type of universal health care" are not explicated.
The claim that Iraq and Afghanistan have universal health care provided by the US military is not prima facae credible, and is contradicted by two related articles on WP, Iraq and Reconstruction_of_Iraq#Healthcare and Afghanistan. The two references to support the claim (brown colour) have recently been inserted, and are quite inadequate for reasons spelt out here.
It appears highly unlikely that any contributor will be able to fix these issues, which involve complex concepts and shades of meaning that will need consensus. I suggest that the map is so far off the mark in terms of WP's requirements of accuracy and NPOV that another be started if an editor is subsequently motivated to do so. TONY(talk) 12:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion - Strong keep.
The tag requesting more sources was only placed on the image by the nominator three days ago.
The sources cited showing Iraq having universal health care ARE VERY CREDIBLE in that they come from both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. military. These are primary sources as opposed to secondary sources such as the press or think tanks, which usually rely on the U.S. government for funding information, etc. The references cited are:
Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations; Article stating that the U.S. "is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage"; Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science.
The fact that WP articles contradict it is irrelevant since WP is never supposed to be cited as a source.
And finally, it is common for government to attempt universal health care reform before it is fully instituted, as the Kaiser Family Foundation (a nonprofit organization that specializes in analysis of health care issues), so correctly states in this example:
These issues are all countered at the talk page. In particular, the problems were first raised on 15 March. I have posted no "tag requesting more sources" as claimed by Lifeguard; it was done here by another user: ( diff). Lifeguard has said: "I may or may not add further sources, as my time is limited, but rest assured that I will oppose a deletion". He has recently added the references in web sites run by the US administration, which can hardly be put up as NPOV; in any case, nothing in the references claims that "universal health care" is available in those two countries, and the funding claimed is not credible for that purpose. The third reference is uncontested, but is not the subject of the deletion tag. The WP articles I cited are supported by external references. "Attempting universal health care" needs to be explained in a little detail on the map or the info page; the jurisdictions coloured light blue are highly likely to vary considerably in the politics, administration and funding of their "attempt"; this is just too vague to stand as anything but a gross (admittedly unintended) distortion.
The map would be very useful if it could be transformed into a more accurate representation; but this is a difficult task, given the complexity of the issue—the pegs just don't fit into so few holes. Deleting the map is important, since it is used in a host of articles in which the details are not sufficiently treated, and readers are likely to be misled by the presence of the map. TONY(talk) 04:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references cited that are being questioned by Tony are not put up by the "administration," but by the opposition party (Democrats) and the U.S. military. These are not propaganda tools of the Bush administration/White House. The March 15 date mentioned by Tony only refers to the talk page, no tag was placed on the image on that date. --Lifeguard Emeritus (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's yet another query (complaint?) today on the talk page that concerns the simplistic categorisation that the map is based on: "Why Belarus is marked as having no universal health care? They have better one then for example in such EU member states as Latvia, Lihuania or Poland!" TONY(talk) 13:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I find the map useful. --Avala (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may find it useful, but that is not a reason to keep it: is it accurate, are the categories clear and logical, and is it properly verified? TONY(talk) 01:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
A quote from the first reference: "The contract by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) seeks to "help facilitate rapid, universal health service delivery to the Iraqi population". The word seeks does not support the information on the image indicating Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding. There could be a significant gap between seeking and providing.
A quote from the second reference: "We've accomplished a lot in our partnership, but there is still so much to do". That doesn't imply Universal?
The third reference doesn't seek to support the information on the image.
Is there a more up-to-date reference that indicates that "universal" has been achieved?
Comment I'm not sure whether I support or oppose deletion for the time being, but the image is not adequately sourced as it stands now. I might give the poster a bit longer to fix the sourcing problems, though. Both countries labeled as having universal health care and not having universal health care need to be sourced; any country not sourced either way should be given a different color. I suggest that a List of countries with universal health care might be useful; such a page could list countries with and without universal health care with each country fully cited. That would then be an easily verifiable reference to ensure the accuracy of this image. I have more specific comments (which I don't think directly pertain to deletion) at the talk page. ASHill (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, this is a completely ridiculous map. Everyking (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC
Delete This is a very strange image. Why do Iraq and Afghanistan are singled out? I am sure not all 100% of costs are covered by the USA? At any rate do they have laws stopping the subsidized medical care after USA withdrawl? Why Belarus and Noth Korea are shown as having no UMC? I would support returning back the image if:
No POVed singling out of Afghanistan and Iraq;
Special color for the countries with no data on UC
References to reliable, non-political source for the each country mentioned Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alex Bakharev and Tony1. This map is far too simplistic, and is used on an awful lot of pages relating to healthcare policy and also, oddly, Ukraine. I concur that there would need to be a non-controversial source for each country shown on the map, should it remain or return. Risker (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it grossly oversimplifies and misleads on the issue, and in so doing violates our NPOV policy. Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I infer from this map that bombing people into oblivion is the most universal, and certainly the most permanent, of all forms of health care. Perhaps that is the point. Antandrus (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like an article that needs further referencing, this merely needs further referencing. No arguments have been made that it is inherently POV to have such a map; merely that the gradations are too broad. In which case decisions can be taken at the individual article level. I don't see that any of the arguments seen so far are strictly relevant to immediate deletion.--Relata refero (disp.) 08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this masterpiece of black humor (and send it to BJAODN if that still exists). If the US military proclaim that Iraq and Afghanistan have universal health care, well, less-than-universally popular occupying forces do say the durndest things. Since swathes of each nation are, famously, outside the control of the nominal government, I infer that the US military has a high regard of the health care offered by such entities as the Mahdi Army. However, it occurred to me that my knowledge of these two nations may have been distorted by long dependence on the "reality-based" journalistic community (i.e. pinko reporters), so I made my way to the website of the furthest-right newspaper I could think of, the Washington Times. Its 31 March article "Green Zone comes under fire again" tells us that "The fortified Green Zone came under fresh attack today [....] The rocket or mortar attacks on the nerve center of the U.S. mission and the Iraqi government continued more than a week of near-daily fire mostly from Shi'ite-dominated areas of eastern Baghdad." So even the Daily Moonie is implying that what one might expect to be the securest part of Iraq is "under rocket or mortar attacks". Putting aside Afghanistan for now, I respectfully suggest that anyone who thinks that Iraq has universal health care should have his head examined. ¶ If you want a world survey of health care, let's have one published by a reputable, peer reviewed medical journal or at least by the World Health Organization. -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Reasons: --Gomeying (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Although not in good quality, China do have an universal health care system. The country used to have a decent health care system but since 1980, with the implementation of the market economy, the health care system is limited to certain level at different province and cities. Nevertheless China is having a reform on health care which aims to provide the entire population with health care. To say China has no universal health care system and is not trying to have one is totally unfair and untrue.[reply]
Delete. For starters, any assertion the United States is providing "universal health care" to the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan while bombing and slaughtering swaths of them will not stand, never mind the rest of this map is clearly simplistic and sloppy original research meant to "fill in the blanks" for the odd (and flawed) point it is trying to make. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Continuing from Gwen Gale's point, any assertion the United States is providing "universal health care" to the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan while it is denying such to its own citizens should be met with some skepticism. Furthermore, does this "universal health care" include coverage for the 4.5 million internal and external Iraqi refugees created by the US invasion and occupation? Moving on... teams of researchers have devoted years of work to producing world maps (even atlases) to illuminate and explain health care and related issues... and still failed (Jeremy Black surveys a range of failures, and some successes, in his book Maps and Politics). The point being, it is not merely a question of adding a few more sources, the map is profoundly flawed. If a useable map on this issue is to be created and added to Wikipedia it needs to be thought through carefully from the start (as was not done with the existing example), and basic questions resolved: what is the definition of "universal health care" (e.g. though Canada has a system of universal health care, mental health, optometry, dentistry, physiotherapy, etc. are not covered, and pharmaceuticals are merely subsidised; other countries have more or less coverage and may or may not include private/corporate "participation"), which sources are reliable and unbiased (I'd think that military and political sources from occupying regimes aren't likely to be reliable on the subject of the countries they're occupying), which and how much information is to be included and how indicated? Pinkville (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of it's misleading nature. --DerRichter (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Apart from the issues already described above, I could add that even the key isn't satisfactory, at least in my opinion. It's not just that Iraq and Afghanistan are singled out; they are actually placed first (they should be last, as a special case). Furthermore, it would make more sense to place the light green between the dark green and the grey, whatever the order (dark green or grey first, although I'd prefer the dark green). That is, of course, if we accept the current categorisation, which is debatable. Waltham, The Duke of 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very misleading. Mønobi 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... so what happens now? Looks like overwhelming consensus for deletion. TONY(talk) 11:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happens now? - I think it's time for a pile-on. Delete per Tony1. Hesperian 23:33, 6 April 2008 (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.
I incorrectly uploaded the file with the wrong name. Read or Dead logo.gif has been replaced by Red or Dead logo.gif and relevant links from original article have also been changed. BalazsH (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned: associated article on Coprocessor tuning was deleted via AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coprocessor tuning); this image has no use outside of this article. The article was suspected as a hoax, so it is likely that this isn't even what it claims to be. nneonneo (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned and unencyclopedic map illustrating a non-existing “Islamic emirate” which, according to this map, is supposed to include parts of Turkey and Georgia; Cryptic legend ("Game is over"); Absent uploader. KoberTalk 15:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Copyright violation Kellyhi! 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason there is an enormous amount of text with this photo. Almost every image search I did today using Image: and containing the word "up", this image came up #1. It is a problem, copyright or no copyright. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC) In fact, every search, reagrdless of the words, came up with this image. There is something amiss here and I have no idea how to fix it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Kellyhi! 19:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this image wasn't intended to be orphaned as it is now. I made it for the Kelly Pavlik article. But unfortunately, it appears someone was ahead of me. So the least I can do is keep this way for a while. By the way, what do you mean when you say this pic is unencyclopedic?Sreggin (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, it appears my image has been added to the Kelly Pavlik article. This means it's no longer orphaned. Sreggin (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Kellyhi! 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
deletion is fine by me, it's not a particularly good or recent photo, that being said, I'm not convinced that the photo currently in use at Gavin McInnes is actually of Gavin McInnes. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Name and description were false (my apologies), photo has been re-uploaded with correct information, making this version irrelevant and needs to be deleted.
sorry about this, I guess I was a bit quick to upload it but then was corrected and had to change it.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (not work safe) Kellyhi! 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is any reason to doubt the licensing, weak keep long enough to transfer to Commons. Doccuments well known nude beach in Miami, Florida (though a less obviously cheesecake oriented image might be even better). -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is appropriate for an article on "Nude beaches", and also the heading it falls under, nude beaches in the U.S. Living in Miami, I would say this is not is not a 'cheesecake" photo, but one that is representative of the clientelle there. As far as being "not work safe", I would hope no one would be looking up "Nude beaches" at work. The "Nudity" article also has photos of people, well, "nude". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachnut4 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
