Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 November 5

< November 4	November 6 >

November 5

File:Bola vermelha.gif

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 ⚡ 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bola vermelha.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Skenizo (notify | contribs).

Possibly unencyclopedic. Just a small red circle and orphaned. Zoo Fari 03:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, use not stated, orphaned. -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:07, 5 November 2009 (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:2006 10260004.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 ⚡ 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006 10260004.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fiscclipper1 (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low quality, limited encyclopedic use. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (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:2006 176.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 ⚡ 03:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006 176.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chrissipiss (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not low quality, not unencyclopedic (do you even look at these before nominating?), but no context to determine what the picture is. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (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:2006-02-20-1115-10.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 ⚡ 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006-02-20-1115-10.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ILovePlankton (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic Gigs (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (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:2006-12-21 024.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 ⚡ 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006-12-21 024.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wujianbj (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very poor quality. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (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:Auckland New Zealand.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 - will be moved to commonsPeripitus (Talk) 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060205Image0053.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Miss.inky.nz (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep moderate quality picture of Auckland NZ. Move to commons. Already tagged for rename. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The file was moved from File:20060205Image0053.JPG to File:Auckland New Zealand.jpg by Explicit (talk · contribs) at 23:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 6 November 2009 (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:20060301 13-21-26palmbeach.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 ⚡ 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060301 13-21-26palmbeach.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rrenner (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too small. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (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:20060309132305origami.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 ⚡ 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060309132305origami.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shaq774 (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too small. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (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:20060326-14-19-44michaelcoleman.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: - Deleted as the image is now on commons as File:Michael B. Coleman.jpg - Peripitus (Talk) 21:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060326-14-19-44michaelcoleman.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rrenner (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's small, but we didn't have a picture of him on his article, so I added this one to it. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This file is in use by the Michael Coleman article. If you want a higher-density version of it, just let me know.r3 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be nice to have. Gigs (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2009 (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:200603663.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:200603663.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sniperkerry (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too low quality to be of use. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wiki project Canada should probably see this before action is taken. Outback the koala (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2009 (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:Tire swing 2006-05-06.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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060506 0380.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ptcruzin (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found it an adequate home. We lacked an image of a tire swing in the appropriate article. This image does have significant artefacts but is of adequate quality. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:20060506 0380.JPG to File:Tire swing 2006-05-06.JPG by Peripitus (talk · contribs) at 01:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 November 2009 (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:Thors hammer hoodoo.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 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060616 0004.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cory Trego (notify | contribs).

Low quality, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep high quality picture of Thor's Hammer Hoodoo. Move to commons. Gigs (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:20060616 0004.JPG to File:Thors hammer hoodoo.jpg by Juliancolton (talk · contribs) at 02:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - low quality ? I think Fastily has gotten over enthused with pasting the same comment. Good quality image of a notable subject, obvious keep and move to commons - Peripitus (Talk) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (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:2006062800110929.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 ⚡ 03:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006062800110929.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bunter001 (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:04, 5 November 2009 (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:20060805(002).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 ⚡ 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060805(002).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jocasms (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blurry. Gigs (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no useful value. Outback the koala (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2009 (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:20060902(004).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 ⚡ 03:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060902(004).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mohammedtaher112 (notify | contribs).

Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:05, 5 November 2009 (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:20060827 122154 IMG 7236 Kremnica morovy stlp a zamok.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 ⚡ 03:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060827 122154 IMG 7236 Kremnica morovy stlp a zamok.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hlucho (notify | contribs).

Low quality, orphaned, use not stated. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has been superseded by a superior picture of the same subject matter. Gigs (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (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:Azis101.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 ⚡ 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azis101.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Boyandobrev (notify | contribs).

Probable copyvio. I don't believe this obvious promotional photo was created by the uploader. +An gr 09:27, 5 November 2009 (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:Mohanlal Angel John.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 ⚡ 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohanlal Angel John.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Saj2009 (notify | contribs).

Derivative work of copyrighted work, user has history of similar uploads that were deleted per Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_June_17#Multiple_files_from_Saj2009 Hekerui (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2009 (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:Mohanlal Janakan.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 ⚡ 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohanlal Janakan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Saj2009 (notify | contribs).

Derivative work of copyrighted work, user has history of similar uploads that were deleted per Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_June_17#Multiple_files_from_Saj2009 Hekerui (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2009 (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:Levi-Strauss1939.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 - could be replaced with a free image (fails WP:NFCC#1) - Peripitus (Talk) 01:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Levi-Strauss1939.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs).

Copyright unknown. This image was just grabbed from a blog/forum. Although this man died last Saturday, he has been photographed professionally and unprofessionally a thousand of times in life. There's no reason for using a non-free image. Let alone one randomly copied from the Internet. Damiens.rf 23:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no requirement that a free image must be used for non-living persons. Whether or not he has been photographed with possibly free images is not a deciding criteria, but anyone can provide a better free image if they can find one. In any case, the rationale for this Rfd is incorrectly based. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images can't be used on these cases. See this discussion on Jimbo Wales' page. --Damiens.rf 14:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the photo they were discussing, Jimbo stated that one of the reasons for his opinion was "The particular photo in question is not historically unique . . . " But this image is clearly historical and unique being an early-career photo in a Brazilian village. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't consider this historically unique. It's still a portrait. If it were a portrait of him working with a primitive tribe that no longer exists or something, then maybe. There were probably plenty of portraits of him from that era, and you might well get permission to use one of them. Gigs (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, the purpose of the picture is just to illustrate the subject of the biography. The extinct tribe would be unnecessary and such photo would also be replaceable (in its role to illustrate Mr. Strauss. --Damiens.rf 12:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: any free photo taken during his 100 years would be acceptable to identify the subject of the biography. There is nothing historical about this image that makes its use necessary in the article and there is no commentary about the specific image making any such claim either. ww2censor (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The historical nature of the photo is implied by its being a very early career photo of him at work in a foreign country. It is the only image in the article and provides a good lead photo, whose use does not require either "necessity" or commentary. As the lead image, the article is the commentary. In any case, as it's unlikely the photo had a copyright renewal, I'll be happy to research that and reload as PD if necessary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2009 (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.