Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 16

< March 15	March 17 >

March 16

File:Oneworld BA G-CIVP.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: Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#F8 decltype (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already uploaded the file into Commons, hence, it is alright to delete from en.wikipedia. Aviator006 (talk) 06:10, 16 March 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:Central Plaza at Hwa Chong Institution.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 ⚡ 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Central Plaza at Hwa Chong Institution.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Russianroulette2004 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 09:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:52, 16 March 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:Communism expansion.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As worded by an anon, "inaccurate image: Lybia, Iraq and others in pink were never communist. A file with this exact name has this image without these mistakes.". I have no opinion in the matter, this is a technical listing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: inaccurate and redundant. -- Big Dom 14:01, 23 March 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:DJK Germnaia Gladbecko.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As worded by Wiggy!, "redundant, incorrect file name". I have no opinion in the matter - this is a technical listing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant to File:DJK Germania Gladbeck.png. -- Big Dom 14:06, 23 March 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:Kailash Kher in 2007.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 ⚡ 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image is stated to be own work by the uploader from 2007, but The Hindu used the image in 2006: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2006/07/08/stories/2006070800940400.htm Hekerui (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be a copyright violation. -- Big Dom 14:10, 23 March 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:DIAC Logo.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan image (logo) masquerading as article Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: orphaned image, low encyclopedic value. -- Big Dom 14:10, 23 March 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:Whizzer-motorised-bike.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 ⚡ 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free image; violates WP:NFCC#1. It is used only in the Motorized bicycle article to illustrate the idea of a motorized bicycle; any other image of a motorized bicycle would do just as well. The uploader says, "The image is not presently replaceable, this conversion is rare, historic and no longer manufactured. Replacement would involve tracking down an example in a museum, it is not known if any such examples actually exist." Has there been any attempt made to see whether such examples exist? Anyway, I fail to see why it is so essential that we have a photograph of this particular conversion. —Bkell (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the caption in Motorized bicycle reads, "A Whizzer motorized bicycle, a popular after market conversion, here fitted to a Schwinn." If it really is (or was) a popular after-market conversion, there should be examples around somewhere. —Bkell (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now been emailed two suitable replacements licensed under Creative Commons, Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic: [1] and [2]. Anyone whose image template fu is stronger than mine (i.e. pretty much anyone) who can help do the needful, that would be much appreciated. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the "No Derivative Works" part of that license means that they are not free enough for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Guidelines. If you know the photographer, can you contact him or her and ask for the photos to be released under one of the licenses listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses#Creative Commons? —Bkell (talk) 23:49, 16 March 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:BBC World 2007.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Peter 10:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Can be removed from History of BBC television idents without impacting on the article. Cloudbound _{(the new name for Wikiwoohoo)} (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see why this has been nominated for deletion when most of the other idents haven't. This provides a good example of how the station's logo has changed over time. -- Big Dom 14:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the images within the article that is not crucial to illustrating the subject. I've selected the images that might be of lesser importance within the article. This image shows a presentation style in use for only around a year. Cloudbound (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The images in History of BBC television idents are the subject of the text; maybe whether they should be included in the article should depend on the level of coverage from reliable sources specifically referring to the images (unclear, as currently the article lacks citations). If they are deleted, they should be replaced with text before being removed from the article, as this edit, by a bot, made the article less accurate. snigbrook (talk) 21:09, 25 March 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:CBBCLogo2005.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. In this case (unlike my other close above) there is no evidence of critical commentary on the image, and therefore fails Wikipedia:FAIR_USE#Acceptable_use. Peter 10:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Can be removed from History of BBC television idents without impacting on the article. Cloudbound _{(the new name for Wikiwoohoo)} (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see why this has been nominated for deletion when most of the other idents haven't. This provides a good example of how the station's logo has changed over time. -- Big Dom 14:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the images within the article that is not crucial to illustrating the subject. I've selected the images that might be of lesser importance within the article. This image shows a presentation style in use for just under two years. Cloudbound (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment at the File:BBC World 2007.jpg discussion also applies to this image. snigbrook (talk) 21:10, 25 March 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:1st Baron Chelmsford.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PD Artwork image is corrupt - laterally transposed. Correct version exists on Commons as File:Lord Chelmsford Vanity Fair 5 February 1870.jpg Rcbutcher (talk) 23:23, 16 March 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.