Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 14 July 16 >

July 15[edit]

File:FAH-SMP.jpg[edit]

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⚡ 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Screenshot of copyrighted software (Windows Task Manager) used to demonstrate something unrelated to the software (Folding@Home client CPU usage).--Vladimir (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not DELETE Opera users who can only program in assembly don't know what they're talking about. No other way to show CPU usage exists without showing the task manager on Windows computers. 128.231.77.33 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 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.

File:Reeves 12.JPG[edit]

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⚡ 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reeves 12.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IndianCaverns (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free promo-photo used to illustrate a film that (according to its article) is in the public domain. Some screenshot should be used instead. Damiens.rf 01:43, 15 July 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.

File:Coat of arms of Western Sahara.png[edit]

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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Western Sahara.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mabuhelwa (notify | contribs).
  • Okay, this is confusing. I deleted (admin-only link) this image as WP:CSD#F4; it was restored a few days later. One user tried (twice) to tag it as a recreation of deleted material, but both times it was declined for reasons that I really can't quite understand (I don't want to delete it as such myself because I was involved). The primary concern seems to be a lack of a source... but it does have the generic FUR source. I'm pretty much neutral on this deletion, but I think that a discussion here is more appropriate than another possibly incorrect speedy deletion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been involved in this one too, this is the right venue to discuss this. The picture can certainly be used under fair use as there is an article on the topic. The issue is whether the coat of arms is genuine or fake. If we don't have a valid source it is difficult to tell. I did leave a message on the uploader's talk page to ask where it came from. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's discuss why this image is still here despite meeting CSD. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
on 4 jan 2007 Valentinian tagged: "This media file is obsolete. It is advisable that you use the newer file, Coat of arms of Western Sahara.svg." (but this replacement file is gone too)
on 6 Jan 2007 Nakon deleted with: Image with unknown copyright status as of 29 December 2006
on 8 June 2009 Mabuhelwa recreated with an invalid FUR.
on 9 June 2009 Reiso tagged "no source, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of arms of Western Sahara.svg" but the commons file does not exist - this discussion would be relevent if it can be found.
On 17 June 2009 Drilnoth deleted with eleted because "F4: Lack of licensing information
on 22 June Reiso tagged with "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because WP:RECREATE. " However there was no XfD for this before, so recreation speedy delete does not apply.
On & July Reiso tagged with This image or media has no source information, which was correct, but backdated it to a date category that was already past, and so would never be deleted.
These concerns have been addressed by a FUR being added and the claimed source added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous debate at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of arms of Western Sahara.svg Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This file has no source. You're the one who added the "Owner" bit, yet you aren't the uploader. Did the uploader magically materialize this file from "Polisario Front" retroactively after you added that as the "Owner"?... or could it be it HAS NO SOURCE? :p ...or wait maybe you know where this image can be obtained from "Polisario Front"? Do tell. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a defunct organisation it cannot be obtained from them any more. But There are similar versions available for download on the internet elsewhere. There is still no valid source, but does it matter? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
eg [1] [2] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..."does it matter" if this file meets CSD? Is that a serious question? Are you actually an admin? (and no, the organization is not defunct) ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about contacting someone who speaks Arabic to ask for assistance in locating the image on the organization's official website? If there is general agreement that the image is authentic and that it is a legitimate exercise of fair use, I don't see any reason to delete it. There are plenty of images (think historic photos) where whoever created them as been lost to history and they were found on some random website, but we either know they are PD because of their age or to use them is a legitimate fair use regardless of what the actual chain of custody was. --B (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Knock yourself out. In the mean time: What about one of you clowns doing your job and deleting an image with no source? ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The reason that we require a source for the image is not just because there's a blank for it on form RS12/J.5(b). The reason we require a source is (1) to verify the copyright status and (2) to verify the authenticity. Since neither of those questions are in doubt, does it really matter what website someone downloaded it from? --B (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly has anyone verified the copyright status or authenticity? ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the authenticity of this coat of arms is in doubt, shouldn't we consider AFDing the (totally unreferenced) article on it? That would solve the image issue neatly. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the image would solve the image issue neatly; deleting the article and then the image for being an orphan on top of meeting CSD would solve the image issue à la Stalin. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my impression is that we don't really know whether this is even the right coat of arms. If we don't know what the coat of arms is, how can we have an article about it? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve makes a good point. Enigmamsg 03:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a good point, just not for this particular discussion. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will a tineye search help resolve this? Note: I think that that link will only last a few days, since I'm not registered there. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zzzZZZZZzzzz. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that an SVG version - File:Coat of arms of Western Sahara.svg has been uploaded to replace the PNG. If someone decides to do something here, it should be done to the svg version as well. I have also added {{subst:nsd}} - there is no reason to keep this IFD forever. It's been a month now - if nobody steps forward with a source in a week, we can delete both images and move on with life. --B (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because another week on top of two and a half weeks of nothing (on top of a month total of nothing) is going to produce a source. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no reason to believe it would, but it gives some finality. The IFD has been open for a month and this gives it a "it will be closed by this date" deadline. --B (talk) 02:43, 17 August 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.

File:Siem reap montage.jpg[edit]

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⚡ 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siem reap montage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Engsamnang (notify | contribs).
  • Same as last montage. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, same as this one (nominated in the wrong place, but don't think that it really matters in this case). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:57, 15 July 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.

File:Album Sch cover.jpg[edit]

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/Withdrawn as per batch nomination below. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Album Sch cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by StrindbergRex (notify | contribs).
Keep - The image used on a number of other pages in the public domain, taken from the official SCH non-profit web site. Additional explanatory metadata added to the Summary. WP:IG improved by implementing Template:Gallery. Sufficient rationale - compare with some previous cases: Iamx#Albums_2. NO reason to delete. srx 22:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrindbergRex (talk • contribs)
Keep - Edited to meet [WP:IG]] and WP:NFCC#6- images have encyclopedia value, particularly in their historical context documenting the former Yugoslavia and wartime cultural artifacts found already in the public domain. Items are now sufficiently captioned and relevant, and not repetitive - they are, rather, curated and have historical value. Stephkru 21:21, 15 July 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephkru ([[User talk:Stephkru|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.

File:ErLeerhsenWturn2.jpg[edit]

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⚡ 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ErLeerhsenWturn2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tripplerage (notify | contribs).
  • Obviously improper license from the FUR on the page. MBisanz talk 02:06, 15 July 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.

File:Indian Ocean 1.jpg[edit]

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⚡ 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian Ocean 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Apblowe (notify | contribs).
  • Looks like a cover, used under fair use, but source is "self"... fair use and self don't go together. If it is self-made it needs to be freely licensed or public domain, if it is fair use then its source can't be the uploader. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user probably thinks the author question is about who took a picture of the poster. Delete as non-free and not necessary for article. Hekerui (talk) 17:59, 19 July 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.

SCH album covers[edit]

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 - Problems discussed were dealt with. Closing as nominator. The primary discussion below outlines the outcome of all files. Thanks, Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article on the subject added. Additional explanatory metadata added to the Summary. WP:IG improved by implementing Template:Gallery. Sufficient rationale - compare with some previous cases: Iamx#Albums_2. NO reason to delete. srx 22:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrindbergRex (talk • contribs)
Keep - Edited to meet [WP:IG]] and WP:NFCC#6- images have encyclopedia value, particularly in their historical context documenting the former Yugoslavia and wartime cultural artifacts found already in the public domain. Items are now sufficiently captioned and relevant, and not repetitive - they are, rather, curated and have historical value. Stephkru 21:21, 15 July 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephkru ([[User talk:Stephkru|talk]
Comment - Because of the large amount of discussions of images, which all follow the same rationale, I'll just respond here for all of the discussions below.
You misunderstand me when I said that there was no article on the subject. Take this image for example (though it applies for them all): The image is the album cover to an album called During Wartime, yet no article for the album exists. I'm sorry, I was unclear it that regard. But, what this means, is that how the image is being used is against policy in two regards: first, it is being used in a gallery, which clearly violates the last line of WP:IG: "Fair use images may never be included as part of a image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis)." That last part is the second violation. The images are not being used in a way that promotes "criticism or analysis", the reason that Wikipedia uses fair-use images in the first place. Adding the information to the image is really good (and if you upload images in the future, I suggest you upload the image with the information on the first place), but in this case, it does not help the image. Thanks, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After an edit conflict, I'll respond to user:Stephkru. The images may have encyclopedic value, but that does not stop them from failing WP:IG. Also, if you could clarify about how you edited them to fix the problems met with a gallery, that would be great, because as I see it, nothing has been done about this. Thanks. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Questions - I see and understand the fair use concerns, although what if we were to get permission from SCH directly for the appropriate Creative Commons designation (Share-Alike 3.0) and to add that tag to each image? Would that be appropriate? Also, if one were to add an article for each image, that would help? Also, I believe Strindbergrex was trying to show appropriate referencing by placing links to the sources of the images, already on the open web. This appears to be unsatisfactory - could you help by telling exactly what minimum metadata would be appropriate in this case- would Share-Alike 3.0 and distinct reference articles for each image satisfy requirements, or are there more? I have read through the documentation and just want to do things correctly as we work through this. stephkru 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.149.106 (talk) [reply]
If permission were granted to release the images under some license (Creative Commons, GFDL, etc) that would be fine. However, that is unlikely to happen as the album was, unless it's very unique, released by a company who makes money off the album sales (and thus the fair-use applies). However, if you can get permission, by all means do; it would clear up all the problems I see.
I suppose you could make an article for each and every image, however the articles would have assert the notability of each album through reliable sources.
If by metadata, you information that goes in the description, then the amount seen here is done. It's appropriate for the image. However, as I stated above, the description and information is not the problem. Thanks for the follow-up points, and if you're interested in policy and image related work, feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I can help you out in that regard, in a less formal environment as an FfD. The best, Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. @ Stephkru, assuming this is User:Stephkru (see this). Yes - assuming we did somehow get permission from SCH directly through the WP:OTRS process (as unlikely as it is), then the images could be used under the Creative Commons license (again, assuming that SCH would release the images - which, frankly, may still have commercial opportunities within them). And yes - if an article for each image were meticulously written before these can be deleted through the WP:FFD process, then this option just might be viable. However, considering the work that must be put in to just keep a few images whose usage is currently violating WP:NFC in gallery usage is not really worth the effort, not to mention that the images' omission from the article would not be detrimental to a reader's understanding (failing WP:NFCC#8). Now I'm not against someone putting in the effort to create the articles needed to keep the images but rather, I really don't think anyone is willing to (or has the time) to carry out such a behemoth task. Frankly, someone with the time and resources to do this should be setting their priorities on articles whose subject matter details more notable bands and their albums before moving on to things like this. In essence, these images essentially fail WP:IG/WP:NFC#Non-free image use in galleries/WP:NFCC#6 and WP:NFCC#8. Unless the problems posed by these images can be corrected in a feasible manner, I strongly suggest delete. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for this clarification. All this said: one thing I don't understand is why these strict standards were not enforced in the case of Iamx#Albums_2, where the album images fail this same criteria and the descriptions are minimal and hastily placed. Can you please explain why these images were allowed? If, as you say, so-called "reputation" of an artist is a deciding factor in your decision-making, then it defeats the purpose of guidelines and places retention of images *not* under WP guidelines, but then to the murky realm of decisions about the so-called importance of an artist. In cases such as this one, where we are concerned about the historical record regarding the artistic output of a small country that may not exist in years ahead, the question of reputation can never be raised as a strong argument because of the relativity of such claims. Creating a record - including a visual record- for future possible research is just as valid (and some would argue more so) than commercial viability, which I can state in this case is not part of the picture because we're dealing with a non-profit, "anti-commercial" artist. Additionally, why then provide the Image Gallery option if the standards for it are so high? Just something to think about. Many thanks again for your insight. Stephkru 07:51, 16 July 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.149.106 (talk)
Comment' - Also, regarding Iamx#Albums_2, I see there are links to album descriptive cases, but not for every image. Again, do more minimal standards exist for commercially-popular entities? Stephkru 08:02, 16 July 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.149.106 (talk)
Comment @-FASTILY re: "Frankly, someone with the time and resources to do this should be setting their priorities on articles whose subject matter details more notable bands and their albums before moving on to things like this." Frankness is often not a good argument, especially not in a discussion like this. Besides the flagrant inconsistency in the image criteria interpretation and implementation, what DO YOU KNOW about the encyclopedic notability of artists in the field of urban alternative music and culture?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrindbergRex (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That statement was not intended to start a discussion about article notability. We are here to discuss whether the images fail WP:NFCC/WP:NFC. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between this and IAMX#Albums 2 is that on IAMX there is an article for each album, meaning that the image is used properly. However, the non-free fair-use images are still used in a gallery-like format. I don't believe that this invalidates WP:IG, so I'll probably fix that to a more text based discography. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That statement was not intended to start a discussion about article notability. We are here to discuss whether the images fail WP:NFCC/WP:NFC. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your helpful comments. We are in the process of adding album pages for each image and will figure out the rights issues as well. This has been an interesting process, which we will continue for the long-term benefit of future readers. Stephkru 18:54, 16 July 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.133.254 (talk)
Keep All There is now an article for each album, so will this now allow the images to remain, or are there any additional steps? (Leo mentions in his last comment he believes this does not invalidate WP:IG)—Preceding unsigned comment added by StrindbergRex (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - Congrats, and much praise for the construction of all those articles. As User:Fastily said, it would be quite a task. Now, all that is left is to remove the images from SCH. Then, I will close all the discussions as keep. Thanks for your cooperation, Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks, Leo. It was quite a task, indeed, but SCH and humanity deserved it. :) And I learned a lot about the Wiki imaging voodoo. Though, I would still be happier if the covers'd stayed in the article (they would have looked descriptive and elegant). Can you suggest any alternative way of doing it (besides the IG). Was my pleasure to deal with, thanks again for all your help and guidance. srx 19:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
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:1953 copa.jpg[edit]

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 The JPS (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1953 copa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puebla82 (notify | contribs).
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:Pueblacopa88.JPG[edit]

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⚡ 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pueblacopa88.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puebla82 (notify | contribs).
  • Not enough source info (image as copied from a blog). Not clear why the article needs this. Damiens.rf 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've tagged the image with {{Di-no license}}.--Rockfang (talk) 20:29, 16 July 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.

File:Puebla1982.JPG[edit]

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⚡ 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puebla1982.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puebla82 (notify | contribs).
  • Image copied from a blog, no clear reason to use it on the article. Damiens.rf 03:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Tagged with no license.--Rockfang (talk) 20:31, 16 July 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.

File:AC SineadO'Connor .jpg[edit]

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: Speedy delete, but cannot delete at the moment due to maintenance. Will return later to do it. Enigmamsg 01:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AC SineadO'Connor .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Richard James OHEU (notify | contribs).
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:Palinproject.jpg[edit]

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: speedy deleted per WP:CSD#F8. Jamie☆S93 Only You Can Prevent Drama 21:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palinproject.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Simon Dodd (notify | contribs).
  • Image is far, far too small for really any real content to be taken from it. To be honest, from the 35x35 image, one can't tell if that is Palin or Tiny Fey. Requesting deletion. NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As far as I can tell, the image is small for a reason. It's used in Template:SarahPalinSegmentsUnderInfoBox at that size, as a small thumbnail. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source it is cropped from is given and makes the identity clear. Hekerui (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As user:Hekerui notes, the sourcing information says precisely where the image came from, and as user:Leonard^Bloom notes, it is small by design, having been created and uploaded for the specific purpose of display at 35x35 in a template (see Template:SarahPalinSegmentsUnderInfoBox). All of this information is and was included in the file information. So, why the nomination? Well it should not escape notice that the nominating editor has a COI, having recently been subject to a wikiquette complaint by the person who uploaded the file, i.e. me. (see WP:WQA#Two issues about consistent application of WP policy).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rationale is that a thumbnail image is a thumbnail image? Sorry -- that is not a reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 13:44, 16 July 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.

File:Atomium atnight.JPG[edit]

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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atomium atnight.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Materialscientist (notify | contribs).
Comment - could you elaborate upon the potential copyvio? I'm not seeing it. Thanks. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess per Talk:Atomium#copyright and note of "No FOP in Belgium." in the text above. Hekerui (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look at the talk page, I'm sorry. Thanks for the clarification. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:22, 15 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_15&oldid=1141916064"