Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

January 17[edit]

File:Address-marker.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned low resolution file. Superseded by PNG and SVG files in Commons. Sreejith K (talk) 05:54, 17 January 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:Qzxad-216.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: deleted without prejudice to future recreation or undeletion if contested. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This frankly just has an egregious spelling error and it's never been bothered to be fixed for a year now. —Ryulong (竜龙) 11:31, 17 January 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:Zimbabwe triumphant on Test return.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a sports team celebrating after an important win. FUR claims the event was of historic significance, which may be true but is irrelevant. As so often, the question is not how important the event was, but how important the image is to help us understand the event. As so often, it isn't. The visual details of how these men are laughing and holding their champagne bottles provides no significant information helping us understand the nature of the event at all. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 17 January 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:Cricket World Cup 1999.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-free photograph of a sports team celebrating. Same argument applies as in the case above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 17 January 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:1996 Cricket World Cup.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-free photograph of a sports team celebrating. Same argument applies as with the cases above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 17 January 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:1992 Cricket World Cup.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-free photograph of an athlete celebrating. Same arguments apply as for the cases above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 17 January 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:Img 9177.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image was used to illustrate an article which was deleted as non-notable. It's now not used and unlikely to be useful. (Also, bad name, uncertain copyright status) – Quadell ^(talk) 15:26, 17 January 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:Soil9.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FFD: highly-compressed JPEG no longer in use in articles (was in Southern Illinois) and could easily be re-created as SVG later; also, determination of counties is not sourced Closeapple (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Determination of counties" — do you refer to the fact that we have no sources for the inclusion of some counties and the exclusion of others? Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 23 January 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:Jiz-Lee Karma-Pervs-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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the uploader is the author or has permission to grant license. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:00, 17 January 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:STA70642.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry, orphan, bad name, not useful – Quadell ^(talk) 16:02, 17 January 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:STA70161.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark photo, orphan, not useful, bad name, no description – Quadell ^(talk) 16:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. File:Berbie.jpg, uploaded by the same photographer and apparently showing the same car, is better. Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 23 January 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:Awbtrawlofcorkdone.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 as G6 by John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan and corresponds to older version of awb. Better images are available. Magioladitis (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine to have this deleted, its job is done. --John (talk) 16:59, 17 January 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:Seal of West Bengal.svg[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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD poor quality replacement of File:Seal of West Bengal.gif. Cloudbound (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - This is not the official seal of West Bengal. The Government of WB still uses the Indian Emblem as its seal. WB doesnot have its own seal. The image was just an artistic impression of the name of the wb govt portal, ie BanglarMukh, literally the face of Bengal. The image depicts a woman in traditional sari with a bindi. Delete immediately. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 18:06, 23 January 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:John kolovos.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Impossible to tell if the person is notable or not. Uploader has uploaded a lot of images with strange licensing terms, so it is also possible that this image might have a wrong licence and that it might be unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 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:Megolf.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a picture of the uploader. It is unused and I suppose that the person isn't notable, so unlikely in scope on Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 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:Paris S Denis Fleur de Lys window 1986 crypt 1353 a a.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. This image simply does not qualify as fair use, and will never qualify as fair use, per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#1 (a stained glass window in the US from before 1978 is {{PD-US-no notice}}). There is 1 keep !vote (from Amandajm) which seems to completely misunderstand Wikipedia's fair use policies (per Stefan2). The other keep !vote is based on a contingency that hasn't occurred, which the author himself admits is unlikely to occur. The balance of policy and opinions stated here clearly points toward deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about this image. The file information page suggests that something is from 1986, but it looks much older. Saint-Denis is a very old church, so it is very possible that the copyright tag and the 1986 date are wrong and that the window in fact is in the public domain. If so, it can be moved to Commons and tagged with {{rotate|resetexif}} to get the orientation right. If unfree, it is probably replaceable by some other window, so it unlikely fits with the fair use criteria. If kept as fair use, it needs to be rotated using exiftool or a similar program to reset the EXIF orientation. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Fair use

The window dates from 1986. It can't be replaced by another image that I know of.
It is a superb and most unusual combination of ancient technique and modern design in an ancient style in singularly significant setting.
It has been labelled as Copyright and Fair use simply because I don't know what its status is, in France.
If it was in England, as part of a structure freely open and accessible to the public, it would not be subject to copyright.
In practice, across Europe, stained glass windows are photographed and reproduced all the time, sometimes because they are part of an ancient building, and sometimes for themselves. People are generally blissfully ignorant of the dates and upload it quite freely.
What happens, in practice, on Wikimedia Commons, is that when people upload a photograph of a piece of stained glass, they put their own name as the creator of the image (well, they took the photo, didn't they?). Had I followed common Wiki practice, then there would be no question about its remaining.
Basically, if you are going to get too nit-picking about this, then you will have to delete every single photograph of every single building that has been restored (modern work) or has a single fitting that might be of modern design in it.
This is in line with the recent ridiculous suggestion that an image of a Michelangelo fresco should be deleted because the two-dimensional painted surface surrounded a window, which wasn't technically two-dimensional. We are getting too nitpicking here!
I put it to you that this image has been in use for 6 years, on the stained glass page, as one of the most elite examples of modern design in the ancient manner. It is in one of the world's best known Gothic buildings. There hasn't been any complaint about its use by its author in all the years since it was uploaded.
I took the photo.
In terms of stained glass design, it is too valuable an image to delete.

Amandajm (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a window in France which can only be used freely if old enough. A modern or old window in Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany or some other country, or an old window in France or Italy, could be used instead. Thus replaceable.
If an old picture is surrounded by a three-dimensional frame (or any similar three-dimensional object), the image could be cut so that the frame is removed. If no three-dimensional objects remain, the old picture can be used freely. Of course, if the photographer is known and the picture is licensed under a free licence, the uncut version can also be used.
See commons:COM:PRP.
For its status in France, see commons:COM:FOP#France. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, as legitimate fair use, under the condition that more sourced commentary about its unique stylistic value and status is added. The article is discussing it specifically as an example of a modern work adapting the old style and technique, which makes it potentially legitimate; however, it is currently used only in a gallery (not good for non-free items), the commentary is not very specific ("skilful adaptation of ancient tradition") and above all unsourced, and it is not clear what's so special about this particular work – why, for example, could other modern works of comparable style not be used just as well, from countries where they would be covered by F.o.P.? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is about stained glass and I think that it should be possible to illustrate how stained glasses looks using free photos. If it is important to illustrate new works why not find a photo from a country with Freedom of Panorama or ask an artist for a permission? --MGA73 (talk) 22:52, 19 January 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:White Dragon of Mercia.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image should be deleted per discussion: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 16 Entry: File:White Dragon of Mercia.png -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:03, 17 January 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:Pentagon video security1 crop.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image is so small and low quality that it is very difficult to understand the subject. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:10, 17 January 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.