Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 27

< January 26	January 28 >

January 27

Hard Core 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: Result is delete at this time, under NFCC#8. rootology (C)(T) 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hard Core back.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan56 (notify | contribs).

Rear cover of an album of which the front cover is already shown in the infobox. The rear cover is not mentioned in the article and does not significantly increase reader's understanding (fails WP:NFCC#8). As all it adds to the article is the track listing, which is already in the next, it is already effectively replaced with free content (fails WP:NFCC#1). The rationale is simply the boilerplate non-free rationale for album covers and is innappropriate for this image - it does not relate to the image it was placed on. The current top image is all that is required and this image adds nothing to reader's understanding (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aint no thing Dan56 (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It mean, no problem Dan56 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2009 (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.

Callejas.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Callejas.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scoburn1989 (notify | contribs).

no real source, no evidence of gfdl licensing Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2009 (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.

Servicestars.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Servicestars.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Husnock (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, originally intended for Service star article which now has better images. JaGa^talk 01:59, 27 January 2009 (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.

Chingbook.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chingbook.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Neihu888 (notify | contribs).

do not need to see a photo of cookbook in article on cook Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2009 (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.

ZiyaTong_Y.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ZiyaTong_Y.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PatRabbit (notify | contribs).

copyvio - sourced to imdb, marked PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2009 (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.

BritishChinese.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BritishChinese.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stevvvv4444 (notify | contribs).

three of the images are non-free: Ching He Huang, Ziya Tong, and Gay-Yee Westerhoff Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2009 (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.

Chinese_style_fish_n_chips.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chinese_style_fish_n_chips.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Neihu888 (notify | contribs).

"media use only" - not a free license Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2009 (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.

ChingChilli-prawns.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChingChilli-prawns.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Neihu888 (notify | contribs).

"media use only" - not a free license Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2009 (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.

Anjum_book_cover.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anjum_book_cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Neihu888 (notify | contribs).

don't need to use non-free book cover in article about chef Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2009 (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.

Rocky Johnson.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rocky Johnson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AcuraTL (notify | contribs).

Orphan Royal broil 04:12, 27 January 2009 (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.

Fuyanjie foreigner.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuyanjie foreigner.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Benlisquare (notify | contribs).

Screenshot (non-free) of a TV advert. As the linked article is about a product a free image could be created (image fails WP:NFCC#1) Peripitus (Talk) 05:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The picture has presumably been chosen to demonstrate the internet meme discussed in the article. The presentation is apparently sufficiently characteristic that the product has become infamous for it. Jheald (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The aim of the image is to visually depict the meme. It is of low resolution, low quality, and has minimal alternate information other than the product itself. If the image is removed, then the meme section of the article Fu Yan Jie will not make sense, and/or may not be understood by some. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is of foreigners advertising the product so we could easily do with a picture of the product and a note about the non-Chinese being in the ads. I think that a piccy of a cleanser pack and "Foreigners are used in some primetime adverts" covers it fairly well....we don't need to illustrate everything - Peripitus (Talk) 10:47, 28 January 2009 (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.

Keys to Ascension 2 booklet.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. The nominator's point that the image is replaceable by text and that there is excessive use of non-free images are based in policy, and have not been refuted successfully. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keys to Ascension 2 booklet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justin Foote (notify | contribs).

Booklet cover that is already full described with the (from the text) line On the sleeve, the image's predominant colour is magenta, but the booklet features the painting in its original blue colouration. - as replaced with free text it fails WP:NFCC#1. There is already one non-free image in the article (the magenta one mentioned above) and this extra one also fails WP:NFCC#3a as excessive use- Peripitus (Talk) 10:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Peripitus (Talk) 10:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ Keep. Since the blue one was the original version of the painting, I think it does add some understanding to show how the cover was changed. And "Yes" albums are quite regarded for their cover artwork in its own right. I'm not sure that, merely by telling the reader that the cover was blue rather than magenta, they would necessarily visualise this. Jheald (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to credit reader's with at least the imagination to not need a blue thing shown to think of a blue thing. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, I have the imagination to think of lots of ways a thing could be tinted blue -- different shades, different intensities, different coverage etc. Given that "Yes" albums are quite regarded for their cover artwork, I think it does add to the reader understanding to show precisely what was blue, and which blue, and what the tonal effect of that was, in the original artwork compared to the sleeve version. Jheald (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adds to reader's understanding and meets the requirements of NFCC#8 are a long way apart. How much will the reader be lacking critical knowledge to understand the subject by not knowing the exact shade of blue used ? Are you sure that the uploader properly colour matched and took this under neutral light ? What, in fact, does it really matter ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes" covers form a recognised noteworthy body of work, by the same artist, in a characteristic style, spanning 35 years. In that context, yes there are people to whom it matters what the original painting looked like; and we needlessly impoverish the understanding they could get from the article, if for no good reason at all we remove an image that would be perfectly legal to include, both for us and for our commercial downstream reusers. Jheald (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then where in the article is the commentary that would make inclusion of this almost identical picture mean anything at all to a reader. There is nothing in the article at all that would give the reader more than the thought "the other one is blue". Without sourced commentary it can only mean something significant to those who already know that the blue means something (which it does not to me) - not to general readers. NFCC#8 is aimed at readers gaining significant understanding of the subject, not those who already understand the topic to be gratified we included the blue image - Peripitus (Talk) 00:01, 3 February 2009 (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.

Pgus2.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pgus2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fantailfan (notify | contribs).

Re-release cover that is, at least for the resolution we have, functionally identical to the existing non-free album image in the article. fails WP:NFCC#1 (replace with the text "artwork was the same for the re-release" WP:NFCC#3a (excessive use - one image does the job ok) and WP:NFCC#8 (there is no way the reader will need two identical images to get what the album looked like) Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 27 January 2009 (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.

JimmyEatWorld(Blleed America) Self-Titled.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JimmyEatWorld(Blleed America) Self-Titled.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gen. Quon (notify | contribs).

Extra album cover - for a self-titled version - that is close to identical to the lead non-free image in the article. Can easily be replaced by the free text "it was also released with the same cover artwork though self-titled" - Fails NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative. As a close to identical image it also does not significantly increase reader's understanding (fails WP:NFCC#8) and is excessive use of copyrighted content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 27 January 2009 (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.

All livery image files for Toronto subway and RT stations

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 - Peripitus (Talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:
- File:TTC North York Centre Station - Digital Rendering.PNG
- File:TTC Finch Station - Digital Rendering.png
- stations that used the nominated files are listed in this template:

Uploader: all by user:Suigi
Reason:
- per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, not travel guides
- should use SVG format

-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They've been released GFDL and seem harmless enough. Why not show them, if the patterns are distinctive to each station? Jheald (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does that mean EVERY (unofficial) livery CG image of structures is tolerable in Wikipedia? Or else this opens a really bad precedent. You know in WP there're tons of enthusiasts who urge to contribute the similar uncyclopedic things. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless there's some concern about inaccuracy. It shows this livery in a way that a text description cannot. And if enthusiasts want to contribute free content like this, why not let them? — PyTom (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, there's concern of inaccuracy regardless of creator's skill. They're created purely based upon personal experience. Unlike route map it can be done with many official source. In this regard, a photo (w/o needless PSing) is actually more appropriate than a CG. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I have not looked at all the station images, but have looked at a good sampling, and they do appear to be accurate; I am a Torontarian and TTC-er. They are rederings of subway platforms design -- each station has unique tiling. In regards to the deletion reason provided -- WP:NOT -- these images are not a travel guide. They do not give travel advice - the articles they are in are more travel guides then these images. Note - I have added the image deletion notification on the talk pages of the two specifically nominated image articles, plus Wellesley station. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment. Their function would be better served by actual photographs, but that isn't a sufficient reason to pre-emptively delete them. I can't see any sense in which they could be called a travel guide, and the fact that they aren't SVG would only be an objection if we had an SVG version with which they could be replaced. David Arthur (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After all the reason to keep them remains harmlessness, although they don't actually has any encyclopedic quality, neither historic nor awarded ~~architecture~~ livery design. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The design of TTC stations (though not particularly to my taste) has made a significant and prominent contribution to Toronto’s architectural heritage, and is definitely worth illustrating, even if this isn’t the best way to do so. David Arthur (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some does, but some doesn't, e.g. Yorkdale (TTC) and Dupont (TTC). While media did mention the architecture of TTC stations, they were not particularly praising the station name tag design, but something else like wall and pillar. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2009 (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.

Paphiopedilum_malipoense.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paphiopedilum_malipoense.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cs_california (notify | contribs).

wikipedia-only permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2009 (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.

ADSL_Modem_Chip.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ADSL_Modem_Chip.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JamesR (notify | contribs).

wikipedia-only permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2009 (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.

Den_cuthbertsonii_red.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Den_cuthbertsonii_red.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cs_california (notify | contribs).

wikipedia-only permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2009 (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.

Claranetwork_2006_nov.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Claranetwork_2006_nov.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lochii (notify | contribs).

no documentation of permission, source site says copyright Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2009 (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.

Paph_armeniacum1.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paph_armeniacum1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cs_california (notify | contribs).

wikipedia-only permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2009 (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.

Paph_emersonii1.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paph_emersonii1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cs_california (notify | contribs).

wikipedia-only permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2009 (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.

Paph_micranthum1.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paph_micranthum1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cs_california (notify | contribs).

wikipedia-only permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2009 (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.

Paph_delenatii1.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paph_delenatii1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cs_california (notify | contribs).

wikipedia-only permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2009 (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.

Den_cuthbertsonii_pink.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Den_cuthbertsonii_pink.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cs_california (notify | contribs).

wikipedia-only permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2009 (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.

OmoaFort.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 - No publication date and though the photo is credited to "Honduras Institute of Anthropology & History photo" no author. Unverifiable source so we cannot be sure about the copyright (as a side note: without a source it would not meet the NFC requirements for a non-free image either) - Peripitus (Talk) 00:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OmoaFort.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Infrogmation (notify | contribs).

source is not verifiable, Omoa says this photo is from the 1930s. why is it public domain Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Scanned from original in my own collection, from souvenier view that was already old when I aquired it in 1980. (Someone apparently knowing something more about the date of the view than I must have added the "1930s" date.) If this were a US publication it would certainly qualify as PD-US-no notice, which is probably what I was thinking of when I scanned and uploaded. However as published in Honduras, so Honduran law would be relevent. UNESCO link for Honduras copyright law seems down at present and I didn't find anything Honduras specific at Commons:licensing; so I can't say. Anyone know about Honduras? -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2009 (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.

Konkordat.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Konkordat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eloquence (notify | contribs).

Relacable fair use image, the file originaly had a wrong license tag (PD-US) so it is excessive used. Now a free image is available at Commons. I was told to open a deletion request instead of tagging it with rfu. --Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2009 (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.

At_ice_skating_on_home_return.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:At_ice_skating_on_home_return.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Victor_D (notify | contribs).

Unused personal photo. Sherool (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (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.

Ask.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ask.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jamie8763 (notify | contribs).

Unused due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AskQuickly, no other ensyclopedic use. Absent uploader. Sherool (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2009 (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.

Ariona.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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ariona.JPEG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Novelist1982 (notify | contribs).

Not used as the assosiated article is deleted, aparently uploaded by the author who says he have obtained permission from the published to use the cover to promote the book on any site, not clear however if this equates to releasing the cover to the public domain though. Sherool (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2009 (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.

CL28.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CL28.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DonJay (notify | contribs).

Image from the Canadian Forces Web site aparently. Per the copyright information copied to the image description page by the uploader they only permit non-commercial use of their material and only withuot change. To qualify as free licensed both commercial use and modification needs to be permited, tagging this as public domain is clearly not apropriate. Also won't qualify for use on Wikipedia if simply re-tagged as non-free because we already have a free licensed photo of this plane (granted not in flight, but don't believe that is nessesary) in the article. Sherool (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2009 (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.

Argus_1.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argus_1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs).

Image from the Canadian Forces Web site aparently. Per the copyright information copied to the image description page by the uploader they only permit non-commercial use of their material and only withuot change. To qualify as free licensed both commercial use and modification needs to be permited, tagging this as public domain is clearly not apropriate. Also won't qualify for use on Wikipedia if simply re-tagged as non-free because we already have a free licensed photo of this plane (granted not in flight, but don't believe that is nessesary) in the article. Sherool (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2009 (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.

At_musikahan3.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:At_musikahan3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pnoi (notify | contribs).

Unused personal photo. Absent uploader. Sherool (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (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.

WilliamACoulter2.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WilliamACoulter2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KevinOKeeffe (notify | contribs).

The same image is on Commons as Commons:File:William Coulter - San Francisko.jpg. The only differences are the one on commons has more resolution, and lacks the surrounding frame. The image is PD and also used on pl:William Coulter, so Commons is the ideal location. Rob (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have seen the file available on Wikimedia Commons, I would actually prefer to use that one in the article on William A. Coulter anyway. Forgive my ignorance, but is it possible to use a file from Wikimedia Commons in a Wikipedia article? And if so, how does one go about incorporating it into such an article? Or does one simply download it, upload it to Wikipedia, explain that one got it from Wikimedia Commons and hence its kosher, so to speak, and proceed accordingly? I would be very grateful if someone would answer my questions here (or at my Talk page; I don't care), so that I could then go about using this superior image file from Wikimedia Commons. On that basis, I would have no reason to contest the deletion of File:WilliamACoulter2.jpg. Thanks. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone else has already replaced the image I uploaded with the superior image from Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for that, and I no longer have any conceivable basis for objecting to the deletion of File:WilliamACoulter2.jpg. I suspect I can examine what that person did, and thus figure out how to implement files taken from Wikimedia Commons on my own, via reverse engineering, if you will. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2009 (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.

Aqualin_1979.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aqualin_1979.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MarkMGottlieb (notify | contribs).

Not used due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqualin, absent uploader. Sherool (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2009 (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.

Gothenburg University seal.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gothenburg University seal.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Axt (notify | contribs).

Has been replaced by SVG image File:University of Gothenburg logo.svg. Axt (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2009 (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.

Memyselfandimusicvideo.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Memyselfandimusicvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).

Video shot that is simply Beyonce looking into camera. The shot tells nothing about the video and is used in a simply decorative fashion. The rationale does not address why this image is required to significantly increase reader's understanding - Image fails NFCC#8 - removing it will not decrease reader's understanding of the articles subject in any significant way Peripitus (Talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new version of the file has been uploaded, which i believe illustrates more than the previous image. Please look into it. "Legolas" (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete new version too, four different shots violates NFCC#3a as excessive use. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2009 (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.

Touch My Body (Remix).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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Touch My Body (Remix).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JuStar (notify | contribs).

Remix single cover of the song Touch My Body. Except for the text "Rick Ross and The Dream" and "Remix" , and the location of the other text it is identical to the existing free image in the article. As such it can clearly be replaced by the simply text "For the remix by ..... the same artwork was used, though the text was changed slightly" - fails WP:NFCC#1. As an extra and redundant image it also fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a as not significantly increasing reader's understanding and being excessive use of non-free images Peripitus (Talk) 21:12, 27 January 2009 (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.

GrooveMachine.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GrooveMachine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mikay (notify | contribs).

Single cover used to illustrate an article on the musical group with the rationale "For illustrative purposes". There is no information on the image page, nor text in the article, that makes this image satisfy the significance requirement WP:NFCC#8. It is used as decoration on a list of singles only Peripitus (Talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is being used to show the identifying image of the single, since we do not have an article on the single itself. That would seem legitimate. Jheald (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFC is very clear here Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). - there is zero critical commentary and the simple existence of the single is not commentary in and of itself. - Peripitus (Talk)

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.

NSEW.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NSEW.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mikay (notify | contribs).

Single cover used to illustrate an article on the musical group with the rationale "For illustrative purposes". There is no information on the image page, nor text in the article, that makes this image satisfy the significance requirement WP:NFCC#8. It is used as decoration on a list of singles only Peripitus (Talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Decoration" is not quite fair. It's being used to the show the identifying image for the single, since we do not have a separate article for the single itself. That seems legitimate. Jheald (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFC is very clear here Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). - there is zero critical commentary and the simple existence of the single is not commentary in and of itself. - Peripitus (Talk)

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.