Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 9

< February 8	February 10 >

February 9[edit]

File:Wang Shizhen.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are reservations on the deletion here, so it may be appropriate to go through a standard deletion request. After the reservations were formulated, commons:User:Sgsg listed a Shanghai publication from 1925. As far as I can see, this entered the public domain in China in 1976 (i.e. after 50 years). It is unlikely that this would have been published with a copyright notice and even more unlikely that the US copyright would have been renewed, so I think that this is out of copyright in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2012 (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:Madonna-dont-tell-me-video-cap-0061.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image fails to comply with WP:NFCC criterion 3b on low resolutions and it is impossible to make it comply with that criterion because various IP addresses keep removing {{fair use reduce}} tags. I also think that the article using this image already has too many non-free images, so it probably also fails other WP:NFCC criteria. Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2012 (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:Donnelly by Gray.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned to higher quality File:Donal Donnelly 2 .jpg :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 01:59, 9 February 2012 (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:Junaid Iqbal3.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article this was in was put up for deletion A7. No forseeable use. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 9 February 2012 (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:Junaid Iqbal.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article this was in was put up for deletion A7. No foreseeable use. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 9 February 2012 (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:Junaid Iqbal1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article this was in was put up for deletion A7. No foreseeable use. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:44, 9 February 2012 (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:Junaid Iqbal2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article this was in was put up for deletion A7. No foreseeable use. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:44, 9 February 2012 (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:KenMcKenna3.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation 75.141.249.98 (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2012 (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:KenMcKenna4.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.249.98 (talk • 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:PPI protonation2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contains several errors: Enzime instead of Enzyme, indexes used for labelling sub- instead of superscripted. In addition, orphaned (replaced by File:Proton pump inhibitors mechanism.svg) and {{Bad JPEG}}. Leyo 06:32, 9 February 2012 (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:Saif Ali Khan and Preity Zinta in Kal Ho Na Ho.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot that does not add anything to the article (violation of NFCC #8). The main infobox image depicts the characters, rendering this unneeded. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfect fair use. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is worse off without it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate? What exactly cannot be achieved by prose that needs a non-free image to represent it? X.One ^SOS 07:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Non-free image, readers can understand the topic without it, and the poster in the infobox can support it, if at all needed. Clear violation of NFCC#8. X.One ^SOS 07:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant educational function which differentiates this from the other (non-free) images in the article, violation of NFCC#8. --He to Hecuba (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Text is sufficient in both articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2012 (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:KHNH23.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot that does not add anything to the article (violation of NFCC #8). The main infobox image depicts the characters, rendering this unneeded. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perfect fair use. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This scene is important in the film and is well explained in the rationale. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Copyrighted image which clearly violates NFCC#8. The poster provides sufficient help for visualizing the characters, and this does not add anything significant that cannot be explained in a simple manner through prose. The above arguments of the scene being important and perfect fair use are not sufficient to justify a copyrighted image's presence. The scene can be explained in the plot and the fair use refrains from saying what unique and relevant characteristics the screenshot exhibits which cannot be shown through the prose or the poster in the infobox. It can be considered as a flooding of non-free images. X.One ^SOS 07:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Replaceable by text combined with the unfree poster earlier in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per X.One, too many non-free images in this article. --He to Hecuba (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2012 (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:KHNHLS.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; no effort was made by the users who !voted keep to assert the file's compliance with WP:NFCC. This is a discussion, not a vote. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot that does not add anything to the article (violation of NFCC #8). The main infobox image depicts the characters, rendering this unneeded. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - it adds a lot in accordance with the rationale. And it was already discussed on the talk page and agreed upon. Additionally, the image is used on the article as a fair use image, and there's absolutely no problem with that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you haven't gone through WP:NFCC#8. How do you say its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic? X.One ^SOS 11:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(cough) Dear friend, I'm fully aware of WP:NFCC#8, and if I may say so, I've gone through it long before you became an editor on WP. Use of non-free images on BLP actors has been a controversial issue, no doubt, but in order to satisfy the aforementioned criterion, the rationale was made and agreed upon by many. And it's there to justify its use (it clearly says, "The image supports and illustrates discussion of the role in her article, as well as critical comments that are provided in relation to this performance. The image thus adds depth to the article by providing a visual representation that illustrates pertinent points in the article, in a clearer manner than could be achieved with prose alone."). And the image is also used on the film's article. Simple. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the two characters are sufficiently illustrated in the poster, and the only unique interpretations which can be made out of the copyrighted screenshot are the costumes, the background and the scene. If I am not mistaken, the importance of the costumes is not anything significant here and the other two can be clearly explained through prose. X.One ^SOS 07:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This image has a use for critical commentary which has been discussed at FAC and many other occasions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The image is important for the article Preity Zinta. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Nothing significant enough that readers cannot understand through the prose or the poster. As said above, violation of NFCC#8. X.One ^SOS 07:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NFCC#8 in both articles: replaceable by text. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2012 (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:Bsarojadevi.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of description makes this unencyclopedic. Acather96 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2012 (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:SLBoard1.gif[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free image of a texture of a board game. It does not sufficiently add to the understanding of the game to be included (NFCC 8). Additionally, per NFCC 3a, we should not have a dozen different texture tiles, one would do if we decided to keep one. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also being listed:

File:Slboard2.gif
File:SLBoard3.gif
File:Slboard4.gif
File:Slboard5.gif
File:Slboard6.gif
File:Slboard7.gif
File:Slboard8.gif
File:Slboard9.gif
File:Slboard10.gif
File:Slboard11.gif
File:Slboard12.gif
File:Slboard13.gif
File:Slboard14.gif
File:Slboard15.gif

Please note that all of the above are on the same article. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be explained in words. Sumanch (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't add anything. Besides, there are way too many of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2012 (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:ButtersStotchPicture.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Butters looks like in his school photo is not at all important. Not used for critical commentary, merely illustration, so violates WP:FUR. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unimportant occasion. Besides, violates WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2012 (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:Fresh Fruits Copybook.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning the validity of the fair use rationale because I think that it is replaceable. The article Copybooks is about "self-published and self-made work of fans or original fiction" so I don't see why anyone could create a free alternative. Since it is obviously not about a professional product, any Wikipedia user with artistic skills should be able to produce a free replacement. Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2012 (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:Ezerovo ring.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted photo of an ancient item. I don't see why anyone wouldn't be able to take an own photo of it, so I think it fails WP:NFCC as replaceable. Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does this have sufficient originality to qualify for copyright protection in the US? It is a reproduction of a public domain work... and the inscription is two dimensional. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Coins have a similar shape, so I assume that the coin rule applies here too. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2012 (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:Poopstar.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no constructive use for this file. Orphaned. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:13, 9 February 2012 (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:Harbaville.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted photo of PD-old-1000 item in Paris. Clearly replaceable. Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replaceable, and thus not fair use. --He to Hecuba (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2012 (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.