Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 October 24

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 debate was: - Delete - Unfortunately without either an article on the book, or significant sourced commentary in the house article about the book's cover, this image falls into the unnacceptable use section (images - point 8) of the Non-free content criteria. As it stood book's cover's image was used to illustrate an article on the subject of the image on the cover...which rarely meets the rules - Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ashcombe cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stronach (notify | contribs).

• The book is mentioned only briefly, and the cover is not mentioned at all. A non-free image is not warranted. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from PUI, where this was accidentially listed)The cover was mentioned in the Ashcombe House, Wiltshire article, in the caption accompanying the picture here [1] before J Milburn's first edit removed the caption. I would argue the image is warranted, as it illustrates the house very well, and the book, although mentioned briefly, is about the house; unless anyone creates a page specifically about the book, it seems this is the most appropriate page to have the image. If needed, I can try to expand the section on the book - would that help? I'm loathe to lose the image as it shows the house far better than the lead image. Stronach (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, Twinkle probably shouldn't have removed the caption, that appears to be a bug. In any case, just because this is the most appropriate place for the image, does not mean that it should be there. Why is an image of the book cover actually needed? There's already a picture of the building itself, so it is not needed for that reason (and it probably could not be considered fair use anyway) and there's too little on the book to warrant an image. If the section on the book was expanded to include a discussion of its cover, I would be happy for the image to stay. Alternatively, an article could be written about the book itself, if it is notable, and the image could be placed in the infobox there. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the building in the lead image shows it a) at a very small scale and more importantly b) not as the house now is - it shows large parts that have since been demolished. The image on the book cover shows the house moreorless as it is today, and at a far greater scale. I'm actually not that bothered about the book cover per se - it's the picture that I think is important, as it illustrates the house far better than the lead image. If I were to expand the section on the book, could it stay? I won't be able to expand it til later today, though. Got work to do :( Stronach (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded as best I can with the sources available online. Can you hang fire, J Milburn? How's about this for dedication to the cause - I have ordered the book [2] (at £4.95 it won't break the bank) and can add pertinent details when it arrives. I have added information about the image on the cover - apparently it's a painting by Rex Whistler, made during Beaton's sojourn there. Hope that is enough to satisfy you! Stronach (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to the point where I buy/order books based on what I can get from them for Wikipedia as well- careful, it's a slippery slope! If we are to have a picture of the book cover, it must be there to show the cover itself- not just what is on it. This is because someone could create a free image of the building- as such, an image just to show what the building looks like would be replaceable- see the

PD-US-1923-abroad}}, and place it whereever you like. That wouldn't apply to the bookcover, but would apply to the painting- no doubt your new book would be able to shed some light on that. J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yep, slippery slope indeed. I added some text to the Ashcombe House, Wiltshire article yesterday with information about the cover - as it was painted by Rex Whistler sadly it's not early enough - it must date from sometime between 1930-1945 when he came to Ashcombe through Beaton. The picture was wrapped around the first edition dust jacket, with part of the image on the front showing the house, and the rest on the back showing the orangery; the cover of the 1999 edition reproduced the original. Is this enough to justify keeping the image, as the text does now indeed refer to the cover itself; just now I have added pertinent info on the cover to the caption as well. Will that do? What a convoluted rule, by the way. Still not sure I fully grasp it so I defer to your far greater knowledge. The books I think certainly is notable enough to have its own article. Maybe I'll get round to making one once I've read it. There's a new preface by Beaton's biographer which will probably refer to the reviews it got when it first came out. A last-gasp thought - if I were to email the author and/or publisher for their permission, would that suffice if they said yes? Stronach (talk) 14:16, 25 October 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.

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 debate was: - Delete - regardless of other arguments it's been orphaned now and apparently replaced by other images - Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:7desktop.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Althepal (notify | contribs).

• This image does not increase the reader's understanding of Windows 7 as required by the Non-free content criteria as there are barely any UI changes shown with critical commentary in this specific screenshot ViperSnake151 21:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That's like saying you can't have a screenshot of Windows 98 just because it looks a lot like Windows 95. And as a matter of fact, there are some changes to the GUI from Vista. Note the little glass button on the far right of the toolbar, the glossyness of the toolbar, the size of the start menu button, and the little arrow by the status icons. If not for the screenshot, people would have no idea of just how similar or different Windows 7 looks from Windows Vista. Althepal (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every other (at least common) version of Windows has a screenshot of its GUI on the wikipedia page. The only difference I see is that the other screenshots all have applications open rather than a bare wallpaper. Having said that, the person submitting this screenshot could have at least double clicked that recycle bin icon beforehand.

I think one problem is that because Windows 7 isn't out yet, any discussions of "how similar or different Windows 7 looks from Windows Vista" are somewhat premature; there were probably early builds of Windows 95 that looked a lot more like Windows 3.1. Whether that means this image is useless or not, I'm not sure. - IMSoP (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that perhaps we should replace this version of the image with this screenshot: http://screenshots.winfuture.de/1223485050.jpg ? Althepal (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PDC will come soon. Let's wait for it.--Meow✉ 02:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete the current image. Having said that, every software article should have at least one latest screenshot! -- Tyw7, Leading Innovations ‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) 12:55, 28 October 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.