Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

February 3

File:Oryz sati Hbt.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 ⚡ 03:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, does not look very useful or unique, bad quality Quibik (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a very generic and quite replacable photo of grass. The uploader seems to have left wiki for 2-3 years now. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Luis Herrera, 1980.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 ⚡ 03:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use in COPEI is purely decorative, fails WP:NFCC#8 Mosmof (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Vikas khanna.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 ⚡ 03:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

low-res publicity photo: likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Irschenberg Wappen.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There would be many other images of this same image here. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jendojuliana.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 Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket does not confirm permission, it requests an email. Therefore an F11. MBisanz ^talk 05:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This uploader has placed at least 2 other images with fake OTRS tickets already from his talkpage warnings. He cannot be trusted on this image...since no Admin added the OTRS ticket. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a false OTRS is evidence of a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hopewell Furnace.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: kept - Peripitus (Talk) 21:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image is unused and of low resolution. I doubt it can be used for educational purpose. MGA73 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The image could be used in an educational manner as a winter scene, I suppose but its resolution is very low and the image is fairly generic. But to ask that an image be deleted since it is unused is somewhat misleading if it was uploaded by the copyright owner himself. There must be thousands of other orphaned images here with perfectly secure copyright. Just because they are not used is not a good argument for deletion. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument to delete was low quality and that I doubt it will ever be used. I mentioned "unused" because it would worth keeping if it was used. And yes there is probably a lot of orphaned images and if they are not usable then I think that they can be deleted to. But we have to do it case by case. --MGA73 (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot. If the scope is just "winter" then we have commons:Category:Winter with a lot of images in higher resolution. --MGA73 (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This image was used for several years to illustrate the article on the location where the photo was taken, so the argument that it could never be used simply isn't true. Though, if there is some serious issue about an unused image taking up disk space or something like that, feel free to get rid of it. MikeParker (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space is not an issue because file will not be deleted but just hidden in some database. You say that it WAS used. Perhaps the reason why it is not used anymore is because it is replaced by something better (higher resolution). In that case I doubt it is likely that the new image will be replaced by the old one. --MGA73 (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is good that the uploader is open to deletion if necessary but not necessarily deletion. This is a judgment call for the closing Admin as I have no strong views here and I understand MGA73's statement--that DRs should be done on a case by case basis. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it shows a part of Hopewell Furnace NHS that's not available in any other free image. A transfer to Commons would make perfect sense. Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:3DGlassesDocotorWho.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 ⚡ 03:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replaceable non-free images. Used to illustrate a section mentioning the glasses. Could be adequately replaced with a free image of what is an object that can be found/purchased. Fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternative. Having them worn by Dr Who seems unnecessary for significant reader understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 10:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) - we now have an adequate replacement, File:Anaglyph glasses.png. Thank you Ilmari - Peripitus (Talk) 10:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you think you can do better. I searched Wiki for another image of 3-d glasses and it redirected to Stereoscopic with no image of what people typically think of as 3-D glasses. Upload another image if you want. Andy5421 (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now unless a free image can be found on Wikimedia Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about File:Anaglyph glasses.png? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. and yes the image accurately represents "3-D glasses". Andy5421 (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

case closed Andy5421 (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:PsychicPaper.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image that fails to significantly increase reader's understanding and so fails WP:NFCC#8. It's simply an image of a piece of paper and part of a hand - nothing significant about this at all Peripitus (Talk) 10:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fine I'll upload a better picture Andy5421 (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Well to you it maybe a blank piece of paper :) Anyway. It is a visual aid in understanding what psychic paper looks like. It goes along with the article. Since this is a Doctor Who first for this item(this item has never appeared prior to the 2005 series). I believe a visual representation is necessary for those who have never seen the show before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy5421 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary and failing WP:NFCC#8. The accompanying text should say it's a blank piece of paper, which is easy enough to comprehend. Also, the newer version is even worse, as it isn't even focused on its supposed subject. — Bility (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Vortex Manipulator.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

decorative screen shot used in a list-of article. Image adds nothing significant to reader's understanding and so fails WP:NFCC#8. Peripitus (Talk) 11:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unless you have watched Doctor Who(2005 series) you would have no idea of what a Vortex Manipulator looks like. A Visual image to go along with the article. Andy5421 (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be kept because as a reference so anyone can see what a Vortex Manipulator looks like plus it not a big image Sfxprefects (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to see what this item looks like ? How does it's inclusion in a list article signficantly add to reader's understanding ? - Peripitus (Talk) 01:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peripitus. As a made up object, knowing what it looks like doesn't help you understand it. — Bility (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Michael Jackson June 23, 2009.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we don't have to see the what a person looked like in the last days before his death to understand an article about his death. It may be truth in some circumstances (like some illness conditions) that the look of the dying person may be relevant, but in this case, there's nothing on this image that is elucidating for the discussion about the death. Damiens.rf 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, someone notify the uploader. My firewall believes "SlimVirgin" is pr0n. --Damiens.rf 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Peripitus (Talk) 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this individual is well-known for his constantly changing appearance, and an image of his just prior to his bears relevance on that progression. It appears that MJJ was quite ill by this time, with severe pain and was probably on pain killers. Further, he is dressed in an iconic outfit, similar to his Smooth Criminal costume. An image such as this is able to encapsulate these facts more than mere words. --Blargh29 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see no signs of severe pains or evidence of use of pain killers on this image. But I'm no longer allowed to give medical advice in my country, anyway. In any case, the article about his death does not discus his look prior to his death... and I completely miss the point of having him dressed with the Smooth Criminal costume in the article about the fuss around his death. --Damiens.rf 03:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding of the article about his death. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:NJ the movie.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 ⚡ 03:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by a better version Sjcherno (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, claims to be copyrighted and it's not likely that the uploader has the right to license this freely. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Pedestrian Safety Stop Arm.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 - insufficient source information to verify the licence. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reason given to believe "this image was not copyrighted". Source being a Wikipedian's "personal collection" makes all information about this photo unverifiable. Damiens.rf 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it have been copyrighted? If it's taken during the production of something for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, it would be a work of the US federal government. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without verifiable source information we can't really test these hypothesis. --Damiens.rf 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Good Humor Salesmans Handbook.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary book cover for a book that's not mentioned on the article. Damiens.rf 19:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails nonfree content criteria. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was the author and the work was never copyrighted. Further, the book is mentioned in the article.(GRUBBXDN (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE (how is this handbook notable?) and WP:NFCC#8 (not mentioned in article). — Bility (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ccccd.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: keep. File licensed with {{Non-free logo}}. — ξ ^xplicit 19:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file is of poor quality and will be made obsolete shortly. There is also conflicting and inaccurate licensing information for this image. Collin College will replace the image with a higher quality, properly licensed version of the logo. Rajeshmichael (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.