Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 22

< August 21	August 23 >

August 22[edit]

File:11 Open.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no description as to what/where it is. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:26, 22 August 2011 (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:WTF (TV channel) logo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a image which is an orphan and not used anywhere on wikipedia. I recommend its removal. No use keeping it if its not used. Ruth-2013 (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2011 (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:GalinaEspinoza.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over photoshopped version of File:Galinaespinoza.png. Orphan file, little use. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:12, 22 August 2011 (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:GeoPFisher.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given source has no authorship information. In any event, there are several known free alternatives here. Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 22 August 2011 (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:Sunmakers.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC criteria #8, removing it does not detriment the article Sven Manguard Wha? 05:40, 22 August 2011 (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:STS-41-G-patch.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Higher quality .png version available on Commons as File:STS-41-G patch.png Sven Manguard Wha? 05:43, 22 August 2011 (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:Dr. Ishantha Siribaddana.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contains promotional text. -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2011 (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:I AM EQUAL photo - participant1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph exemplifying a large series of portrait photographs that are part of a large photo project, I Am Equal (photo documentary). Problematic under NFCC#8. The photographs in this series are presumably as different as the people shown in them are different (there are thousands), so it seems unclear why any one example photograph is needed to explain the concept in the first place. FUR claims it's needed for "supporting reference to Lion King cast participation in the campaign", but the fact that individuals from that cast took part is easy enough to understand without visual illustration too, and the FUR also doesn't match the actual use in the article, where it's put in the infobox well away from the coverage of the Lion King participation. Seems purely decorative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, putting any example file in the infobox is a logical way to visually represent the article (as evidenced on most other articles on the site). It doesn't matter which photo from the documentary project is used there, they would all have to fall under Non-Free and Fair Use criteria. So Fut.Perf.'s specific opposition to this (and all the) images uploaded for the article, and supporting references, seems to be more personal than practical (as they have systematically removed all references of the I Am Equal documentary from associated articles). This, and any file from the documentary project can only fall under Fair Use because it is impossible to recreate the image or generate a FREE version of it. When this project is referenced on any article, use of these images is relevant as supportive to fact that the individual, group, or organization participated.

Furthermore, The fact of the matter remains, the cast of the Lion King did participate in the project and a supporting photo is appropriate. Mayor Kevin Johnson, Oscar Goodman, & Ralph Becker also participated in the campaign as part of their charitable outreach and thus, it's noteworthy in their articles (though Fut.Perf. unilaterally removed these references). Chelsea Handler, The Jabbawokeez, and Steve Mesler participated in the project and their photos, facebook references, and continued support of the project prove that this is a significant part of their charity conversation, and thus noteworthy in their associated articles (even if Fut.Perf. has removed these references). In accordance with the use and purpose of this site, I have, in good faith built an article about a significant cultural project, created appropriate references to said project, and tried to upload reasonable visual support for the additions to the main article and associated articles (that Fut.Perf. has personally removed without discussion, review, or conversation). Fut.Perf. has systematically removed all such references to the project in spite of the fact that all additions are accurate, supported, and relevant to the individual articles. I call for Fut.Perf. to restore references to the I Am Equal photo documentary immediately.

I also hold that that the Non-free Fair Use Rational is appropriate and justified for using these I Am Equal images in the associated article references to active participants in the project. Steinway1701 (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The logo that is on the person's hand, all over the official website, ect. is the proper thing to use as the main infobox image. Since it's made up only of plain text, it would qualify as {{PD-textlogo}}, free to use as far as Wikipedia is concerned, meaning that there is no justification for using this non-free image. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the issue of refernces, most of them should be reused. References need to be reliable third party sources. Over half of the items in the reference list are not third party sources. That, however, is not the focus of this FfD, so it can be dealt with elsewhere.

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:DSC02618.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user image, no EV Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:48, 22 August 2011 (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:DSC02619.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user image, no EV Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:49, 22 August 2011 (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:DSC02647.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user image Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:53, 22 August 2011 (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:American Reunion Logo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used (other than in an userspace indiscriminate listing of uploads). damiens.rf 18:52, 22 August 2011 (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:Mem U Zin-2.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover of a modern edition of a 17th-century book. Since this is only one out of many modern shapes under which this book has been re-published, and the edition as such is not particularly notable, this cover has no particular identificatory value for the article, which is about the 17th-century classic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep not a reason for deletion, image in strict compliance with NFCC. Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:NFCC#1. Delete. --damiens.rf 16:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also fails WP:NFCC#8 in that the cover of one of the many available modern printings is not that much of relevant information about the 17th century text. It's not even useful as identification. --damiens.rf 16:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment meets #1 no free image available at google image, or flickr; if you want to produce a first edition book cover, please do; keep until then. not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Free book covers

meets #8, the image certainly does add to my understanding of what the book looks like. Slowking4: 7@1|x 17:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is replaceable because it is likely that there is a PD version of this classic book floating around somewhere (just has to be pre-1923, not a first edition). It also fails to significantly increase readers' understanding - it's just a random reprint, not anything indelibly linked to the book itself. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2011 (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:J.B. Drumming.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, unknown person. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:40, 22 August 2011 (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:Kamath.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, unknown subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:25, 22 August 2011 (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:IwoJimaMemArlington-2.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of a modern copyrightable sculpture located in the US. Was first used in the article on the sculpture itself along with many other images, now only in an overview article on American sculpture (with a FUR recently added that was previously missing). We currently have at least a dozen different photos of this sculpture (see gallery [1]) with wildly different copyright declarations: most uploads are simply declared free with no consideration of the sculpture's copyright whatsoever, at least one on Commons was uploaded with a claim that the statue is PD for lack of copyright renewal; this one here, along with another that is now being used in the infobox, was declared non-free. However, if it's non-free, then the minimality NFCC kicks in and we must reduce our coverage to a single image, not a whole bunch of near-identical ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:42, 22 August 2011 (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:Ice Cream Sandwich Logo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've orphaned this, since it fails NFCC #8. Before you argue, it's a copyrighted modification Android's free use logo, so we can actually use the original green logo, meaning that it becomes incredibly easy to describe "an ice cream sandwich in the shape of the Android logo (above)". Sven Manguard Wha? 00:00, 23 August 2011 (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.