Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 17

< April 16	April 18 >

April 17

File:Ramon d'Abadal i de Vinyals.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic photo being used under a claim of fair use. The giant watermark renders the image inappropriate for use here. B (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is encyclopedic. i see that when you said: "For someone who died 30 years ago and was not somewhere that a public domain photo would be likely (US federal government, college pre-1978, etc), fine, have at it." that you were mistaken; would you care to refactor your remarks? WP:WATERMARK: "Free images should not be watermarked": tag it, don't delete it. maybe i'll drop a line to the catalians; they'll be amused. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 01:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say this photo is replaceable - I said it's unencyclopedic. --B (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you will of course now understand, why i will not believe a word you say including and, and the. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭

Unwatermarked version uploaded. – JBarta (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you clean the image or did you find it from a different source? If the latter, could you note that source, please? --B (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, upon further review, the source given credits the image to http://www.enciclopedia.cat/enciclop%C3%A8dies/gran-enciclop%C3%A8dia-catalana/EC-GEC-0000041.xml?s.q=Ramon+d%27Abadal#.UW4zKMpvD-4. (If that link is temporary, please go to http://www.enciclopedia.cat/ and search for "Ramon d'Abadal", then click the second link.) This site credits "© Fototeca.cat". I don't read Catalan, but from using Google translate on http://www.fototeca.com/ftp/fototeca/condicio.htm, it looks like this website is a commercial content provider that is in the business of selling licenses to these photos. In other words, it's forbidden by WP:CSD#F7 and WP:NFC#UUI #7. --B (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how it matters as the image is the same whether it's gotten from hither or yon. That said, I found another copy rather than clean the existing, and the specific web site I got it from was here. – JBarta (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It matters because we give the source of images here. --B (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're putting in a lot of effort to show that this particular file is not allowed. I wonder if you are willing to put an equal amount of effort into finding an image that is. – JBarta (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia respects copyright - we don't ignore it. There is no fair use defense for using a photo from a commercial content provider (unless you are doing so to comment on the photo itself). Think about it - you're a professional photographer. News organizations pay you for your photographs. If "fair use" were a legitimate defense, then no news organization would ever pay you - they would just claim "fair use". You would have no income. --B (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone could spend all day finding reasons to delete stuff if that's how they wish to spend their time here. There's really no glory or great challenge to that at all. It's a whole lot more useful and satisfying to build than to go around randomly with a wrecking ball... no matter how justified you feel you are in doing so. As I said earlier, if you spent as much effort trying to get something to work as effort spent saying it won't work... then that would be nice. Then again, in the time I spent futilely arguing with you, I could have done something useful instead. – JBarta (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff that was uploaded in violation of our policies needs to be deleted. If you'd like a website where you can upload anything and everything without regard to copyright, then you have the rest of the internet available for that. You're suggesting that copyright violations should simply be ignored and that is not and never has been the attitude of Wikipedia. --B (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting some discretion and reasonable judgement be applied. Just as not every driver is ticketed for exceeding the speed limit, not every minor infraction here needs to be deleted. Severe application of rules is counter-productive. If your goal is to get deleted as much material as you can for any reason you can muster, you'll find yourself quite busy... but not very useful. – JBarta (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did exercise reasonable discretion and judgement. Slowking4 uploaded a whole slew of fair use images - working through categories of dead people in alphabetical order and blindly uploading photos he found from googling at a rate of 5 minutes or so each. I did not delete all of them or nominate all of them for deletion. Rather, I reviewed each one and only nominated the most egregious cases. --B (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's fair enough I guess. You might as well comb through my uploads too... I've added quite a few images of dead people without too close a look at where they originated. If you're hot after stuff to delete, I'm sure you'll find a few egregious cases there as well. Happy trails... – JBarta (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is hard to read the Catalonian text, but I get the impression that Fototeca.cat is a commercial photo agency. In that case, the image violates WP:NFCC#2. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fototeca.cat belongs to the Grup Enciclopedia Catalana. Using it from the web is the same than scanning it from the printed version, or from their online article. Diego (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as commercial image. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2013 (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:Yvonne Brill.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: deleted F7 to make way for free image under same title from Commons --B (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic photo of a recently deceased individual. There is a gigantic watermark running across the middle of the image. She worked for NASA, so in all likelihood, there's a free photo of her out there. http://www.uspto.gov/about/nmti/recipients/brill.jsp might be (the one of her and Obama is not, unfortunately, but the photo of her at the top might be). B (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

encyclopedic. WP:WATERMARK is for free images. tag don't delete. if you like that fair use one better replace it for this one. this image is better. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 02:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an encyclopedic photo if it has garbage running across the middle of it. --B (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a free image to Commons and deleted this one (F7 - invalid fair use). --B (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2013 (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:Adm. David Harrington Bagley (Derivative).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 as G7 by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a combination of File:Bagley, David Harrington.JPG and a different background of unknown origin. Aside from the specific problem of the added flag being a 50-star US flag while the portrait was taken in 1957 (US flag had 48 stars in 1957), there is the general problem of such materially altered images being a little too close to original research. – JBarta (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with this interpretation of WP guidelines however as the uploader of the file I am going to request expedited deletion of this image myself as I am really tired of dealing with this editor's unrelenting niggling over this derivative in the hopes he/she can find something else to obsess about. Centpacrr (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by some odd chance someone is interested in reviewing the "unrelenting niggling"... it is here. – JBarta (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2013 (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:Pepper Paire.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: Moot; original nominated file was replaced by JBarta. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball card being used in the infobox of a recently deceased person. WP:NFC#UUI #8 gives this as an explicit example of a prohibited fair use. B (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More appropriate image uploaded. Should be OK now. – JBarta (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the image originally comes from http://www.sportsartifacts.com/otherleag.html. (See "Pepper Davis Autographed 8x10 Photo." - the first one in the list when you scroll down.) The original source/copyright holder is not credited, so we have no way of knowing if it's a press photo. Of course, the flip side is that it might be public domain. --B (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half these old photos no one knows where they originally came from. I say it's good enough, we keep it, and we move on. – JBarta (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Baseball card[1] so violates WP:NFC#UUI §8. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a baseball card anymore. – JBarta (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2013 (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:Boatracelogo.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:

Logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify the specific reason you are requesting deletion. --B (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn pending further checks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2013 (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:BCT Logo.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, Local service of borderline notability. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2013 (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:El Deif Ahmed.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this really is irreplaceable. According to Commons:Template:PD-Egypt, non-original Egyptian photos published during the lifetime of this person, as well as non-original Egyptian photos published within 10 years after his death, entered the public domain in Egypt before the URAA date. I would assume that Egyptian sources usually didn't bother about US copyright formalities, so more or less everything published in Egypt during that time should be in the public domain in the United States. I would be very surprised if there are no published photos of him, since the article suggests that he was quite famous.

The source is listed as http://www.marefa.org/index.php/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B6%D9%8A%D9%81_%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF?uselang=en which uses the image http://www.marefa.org/index.php/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B6%D9%8A%D9%81_%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF.jpg?uselang=en and there's a duplicate at http://www.marefa.org/index.php/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:60050089815608332.jpg?uselang=en and those pages don't tell whether this is a published photo or not. Stefan2 (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2013 (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:Abraham Alikhanov.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic image with giant watermark running across the middle of it. The photo comes from a commercial content provider - http://www.sciencephoto.com/search?subtype=keywords&searchstring=Abraham+Alikhanov&Search.x=35&Search.y=7&media_type=images&license=all&channel=all - and thus violates WP:FAIR#UUI #7 and WP:CSD#F7. B (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is not getty or corbis or reuters. not commercial image supplier. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 12:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Commercial source, so violates WP:NFCC#2. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2013 (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:A. A. Allen.jpeg

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 nom. INeverCry 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a famous American "evangelist" who died in 1970 being used under a claim of fair use. He appeared frequently in public in America and we have reasonable expectation that public domain photos of him exist. You could even contact the successor to his ministry - http://www.miraclevalleyarizona.com/ - and ask if they can provide us with a public domain photo (I would bet that church bulletins were published without copyright notices all the time) or one that they hold the copyright to and would be willing to provide under a free license. But by bulk uploading fair use photos with no effort to find a free one, you eliminate any chance of finding a free photo. B (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no, i have no reasonable expectation that someone will upload a free image, after 40 years of not having done so. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 12:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not say 1000 years of not having done so? Wikipedia didn't even exist for most of those 40 years. Maybe the reason none exists is nobody has tried, but we certainly have a reasonable expectation that one exists. --B (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no, i do not. you speak for yourself, not for me. the free proselytizing is not required by policy, if you want it to, gain a consensus. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 00:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This newspaper (page 9 according to Google's numbering) tells that there was a TV broadcast titled "A. A. Allen" on "Channel 13–ABC–Asheville". Other newspapers, including newspapers from other years, mention a programme with the same name, so I would assume that this was something broadcast once a week or something. A search for "A A Allen" at http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ returns no hits, so I would assume that all programmes in this TV series are {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I would assume that you can find old TV programmes in some archive somewhere in which case you could take a screenshot from one of those TV programmes. The image clearly violates WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this chain of "I would assume"s is so long, it's farcical. go to the website, and replace with free, until then keep. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 00:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurd to think that a free photo does not exist of a person who was a prolific public figure in the United States pre-1978. Defunct newspapers before 1963 often did not get their copyrights renewed. Church bulletins almost never have copyright notices. This is the very definition of replaceable. We have a reasonable expectation that someone willing to go to do some legwork in a library near him would easily be able to find public domain photos. I did a copyright renewal search for his name and the names of some of his books that were published before 1963. I didn't find any of them. If any of them have his photo on the book jacket, then it's public domain. PD Not renewed is through 1963, inclusive, right? Well, here is a November 1963 magazine with A. A. Allen on the front (I think that's him on the left, right?). Am I correct (help me out Stefan2) that if the copyright had been renewed, it would show up in a search at http://www.copyright.gov/records/? When I search for "Miracle Magazine", I get no relevant hits. So I think this is a public domain photo of him. has other issues of the same magazine. There's a much better photo of him on the cover of December 1965 but unfortunately, we have no idea if it's public domain without spending the $2.99 on the magazine and seeing if there is a copyright notice. May 1956 has now that if this photo is of him (I'm not 100% sure on that), it's probably a better photo than the 1963 one. It is even possible that if you ask really nicely, the people that run this website, who seem to be devotees of A. A. Allen, might even send us a nice high quality scan of one of the clearly public domain photos of him. And this is the whole point. I've found two almost certainly public domain photos (pending confirmation by stefan2, who knows this stuff more than I do). I've offered ways that a public domain photo could be obtained. But you're not even trying - you're just declaring "not possible - done". --B (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is beyond stupid. If a free photo ever pops up, use it. Until then, use this one. Geez. – JBarta (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if an editor really feels a free photo may be available from somewhere, go find it and upload it. Unless you're willing and able to find that free file from wherever you think it may exist, don't nominate the existing one for deletion. Running around finding half-assed reasons to delete stuff is not useful. – JBarta (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2013 (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:Delia Akeley.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#1 as this image is easily replaceable with a modicum of effort. She wrote a book and there are books about her that are out of copyright. For example, there's a low-quality photo of her on page number 181 of [2] (page 239 in the online viewer, page 180 of the printed page). I would bet that if you find a paper copy of this book, you can get a higher quality scan. This is the very definition of replaceable. B (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A photo and a drawing of her were published in The Milwaukee Journal on 29 May 1927.[3] A quick search in the Catalog of Copyright Entries (1955) shows that the copyright to the newspaper wasn't renewed. A photo and a drawing of her were published in The Day on 28 October 1930.[4] A quick search in the Catalog of Copyright Entries (1958) shows that the copyright to the newspaper wasn't renewed. Free images exist (although you may wish to use a better copy of the newspaper than the one provided by Google). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2013 (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:Meer Akselrod.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a scan from a printed publication, for example a newspaper. No evidence that the image satisfies WP:NFCC#2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2013 (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:Martin Aku.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; it is additionally problematic that we cannot verify the actual source or copyright holder. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Template:PD-Togo, photos are protected for 25 years from creation in Togo. Photos of him published before 1 March 1989 and first published in Togo should normally be in the public domain. It does not seem unlikely that such photos exist. Stefan2 (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

image from france. "Le site interne de production est dupliqué à l’extérieur de l’Assemblée nationale et accessible sur la toile, à partir d'un serveur d'hébergement et de diffusion géré par la société Claranet." [5] contact info [6] Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 16:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since he was born and died in Togo, there should be photos which were first published in Togo. More or less all of those photos should in the public domain in the United States if published before 1 March 1989. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2013 (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:Ku. Alagirisami.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFC#UUI §9: "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." The initial upload looks like a book cover, and the second upload is just a crop of the first one. Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2013 (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:José Águas.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §9 (see Ebay). Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (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:Coffeeprincemaincast.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2013 (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:States governors political party.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, obsoleted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Governors_map.svg User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:16, 17 April 2013 (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:CarpatEuroreg.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the quoted source, I'm skeptical about a self claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was a mistake, please go ahead an delete it! Scooter20 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2013 (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:DaughtersOfTheDragon1 COV.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, used only for decoration with no critical commentary in article, Christina Strain NtheP (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2013 (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:Kidal suicide attack.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 INeverCry 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image currently fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #1 (free equivalent could be created), #3 (image uploaded at full resolution found at source), #8 (image of a street does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the event), and #10 (tagged as software, incomplete rational). AuburnPilot (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added changes to it, the image is accepted by owner EthanKP (talk · contribs) 20:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ethan, who is the copyright holder? Meaning, who is the person who held the camera in their hand, aimed the camera at the subject, and pressed the button? In order for the image to be acceptable to use here, because it does not meet our fair use requirements, the copyright holder must explicitly license the image under an acceptable license, such as the GFDL or the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license. Are you in communication with the copyright holder? If so, could you ask him or her to forward a letter of permission, similar to the one found at WP:CONSENT, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org? If not, then the image is not appropriate for use here and will have to be deleted. --B (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold pending OTRS - email has been sent to OTRS [7] so please hold off on deleting until we get confirmation of a free license. --B (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OTRS email received but not enough information to determine if correct permission received. NtheP (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2013 (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:B.edited.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace image is of Ben Skywalker from the Star Wars universe. There are many photos without the background edited online, including here -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:52, 17 April 2013 (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:Clip image002deathpenalty.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan blurry image of a graph, no encyclopedic value, can be easily replaced with updated information as well. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:22, 17 April 2013 (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:Clipboard02Jakob.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan screenshot of former table at Group (mathematics)#Second example: a symmetry group which has been updated with better quality image. No forseeable use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:27, 17 April 2013 (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:Australian original $5 polymer front.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: Keep. Many pieces of currency look similar, but that doesn't make the images redundant to one another. It would be difficult to textually describe the differences between these two images. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant to File:Australian $5 polymer front.jpg. Same image, just different colours. Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep It has different colors, so it's not the same image. We need a less subjective rationale here. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm? You've got WP:NFCC#3a: you should not use more non-free images than necessary, and the colour differences are easily presented in text instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not agree with your opinion. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keepI strongly disagree with this deletion. I believe that as a history of Australian bank notes, the changes in colour are as substantial as the change in design of the $5 note. The notes are still valid and (occasionally) in circulation, so I believe the image is relevant and useful to the article.Crashdown13 (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2013 (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:Australian original $5 polymer back.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: Keep. Many pieces of currency look similar, but that doesn't make the images redundant to one another. It would be difficult to textually describe the differences between these two images. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant to File:Australian $5 polymer back.jpg. Same image, just different colours. Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep It has different colors, so it's not the same image. We need a less subjective rationale here. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm? You've got WP:NFCC#3a: you should not use more non-free images than necessary, and the colour differences are easily presented in text instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not agree with your opinion. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2013 (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:S-Curve Records logo.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's someone's really bad photograph of the label logo. A nice SVG version of the logo would be much more acceptable. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 23:55, 17 April 2013 (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.