Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 June 5

< June 4	June 6 >

June 5

File:Caucasian Lands 200BC.png

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead source, unable to verify that the file was freely licensed. — ξ^xplicit 00:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I cropped it from this which seems to have been taken from here. The creator is our very own User:Talessman. Actually, when I carefully looked at his maps, I saw a contradiction. These two maps [1], [2] are for 200 BC but if we closely look at the borders of Albani, we see that they are not the same. This rises question of reliability of the source. Gulmammad | ^talk 14:52, 5 June 2010 (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.

File:Polaris1.gif

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. No rationale given. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:18, 5 June 2010 (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.

File:Freewayslc.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, and a lot of windshield debris making it poor quality. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:44, 5 June 2010 (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.

File:Battle of Iconium.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image already exists in higher resolution at Commons under the name File:BattleIconium.jpg. It was possibly uploaded to Wikipedia because the uploader didn't know how to resize the image in the article. Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:10, 5 June 2010 (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.

File:Robert Fludd's depiction of Perception.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image already exists on Commons as File:RobertFuddBewusstsein17Jh.png. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Althogh the image already exists, it is not named correctly. His Surname is Fludd and that is his depiction of Perception. Thanks Alan347 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Instead of uploading the image with another name you should have asked an administrator to rename the file. But the names of images are rather unimportant anyway; they are not visible in articles. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:08, 5 June 2010 (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.

File:BernardHaring.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image has been copied from http://www.stpauls.it/vita03/0301vp/0301vp48.htm, and there's no evidence that it has been released under a free license. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This image is from the online archive of the vita pastorale magazine, specifically the "Quel tailleur in mezzo alle talari" article by Cettina Militello in the January, 2003 edition. The copyright for the archived copy of that edition is "© S.P.I.C.S. srl, Via A. Severo 56 - Rome - Italy". —RP88 ^(talk) 14:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bernhard Haring is a public figure. He needs a photo on his wikipedia page. That's the best photo available of himself for publication. I will contact S.P.I.C.S and request permission.Alan347 (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to contact Studio Paolino Internazionale della Comunicazione Sociale in order to ask them to license that image under a free license, permit me to refer you to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for some recommendations and the necessary steps. —RP88 ^(talk) 14:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no confirmation of permission to use this image has been provided. It can be reinstated if suitable OTRS permission is received. ww2censor (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2010 (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.

File:Trevor Linden draft photo 1988.JPG

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Does not increase the reader's understanding of the fact that he was drafted. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a decorative non-free image that is unnecessary to understand the article. ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a clear cut case of failing WP:NFCC#8. Zero discussion of the image, shows nothing other than typical NHL draftee. --Mosmof (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2010 (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.

File:Lindenmclean1994.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. While allegedly a significant point in Trevor Linden's career, does not increase the reader's understanding of that "defining moment". VernoWhitney (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a decorative non-free image that is unnecessary to understand the article. ww2censor (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An iconic moment doesn't necessarily make for an iconic image, especially when there's no discussion of the image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. --Mosmof (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2010 (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.

File:010405r.png

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools vandalism is not a huge deal, but this is disparaging toward a living person (Ashlee Simpson). I'd tag it for CSD, but it's been through a deletion discussion already (for different reasons). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for BLP reasons. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2010 (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.

File:010405x.png

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disparaging toward an editor, referring to him as a "Smooth Newt". Been through a deletion discussion, but not for this reason. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:30, 5 June 2010 (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.

File:05 - Breakeven.ogg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sample of this song exists already, making this a duplicate. File:The Script Breakeven.ogg Dawnseeker2000 23:27, 5 June 2010 (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.

File:The Script Breakeven.ogg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in the article. The article is a short one that mentions the video and chart performance, but not the significance of the song or its meaning. The sample is too long. Dawnseeker2000 23:40, 5 June 2010 (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.

File:Ificouldgo.ogg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F3. Improper license. Dawnseeker2000 23:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The uploader has stated that he's J. Austin or Sacario. However, the article does not contain sourced commentary about the song content. Dawnseeker2000 15:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he owns the copyright to the songs, then he needs to confirm it via OTRS. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2010 (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.

File:Ringtonerunthistown.ogg

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: Keep; solution offered - file just needs fair use rationale. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improper license. Dawnseeker2000 23:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The file has a better license now. It needs a rationale though.--Rockfang (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2010 (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.