Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 September 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion

< September 13	September 15 >

September 14

File:Thesis (Uromanometer), Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistan, 1982-06-14jpg.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 ⚡ 06:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thesis (Uromanometer), Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistan, 1982-06-14jpg.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SwabiVal' (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, appears to be just a cover page of someone's thesis paper from college. Admrboltz (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self promotion. The uploader's personal school thesis doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Latebird (talk) 21:39, 14 September 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:Thesis (Uroflowmeter), Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistan, 1981-12-17jpg.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 ⚡ 06:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thesis (Uroflowmeter), Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistan, 1981-12-17jpg.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SwabiVal' (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic thesis paper scan. Admrboltz (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self promotion. The uploader's personal school thesis doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Latebird (talk) 21:39, 14 September 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:M45 DSS2 WikiSky.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 as invalid license (non commercial)

File:M45 DSS2 WikiSky.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Friendlystar (notify | contribs).

See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/All DSS2 Images from wikisky. howcheng {chat} 01:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can't you produce a deletion rationale for wikipedia? Many things that can't exist on commons do exist on wikipedia. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per the Commons discussion, there appears to be confusion on what is a SDSS image, and what they took from NASA. Is this a SDSS image? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:28, 15 September 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:Soniabirth.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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is not necessary to understand that subject gave birth. ÷seresin 04:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails criteria 8 of NFCC (ie doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Giving birth isn't a difficult concept to visualize. Cheers, I'^mperator 01:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing significant about the image. In fact, the title of the image is good enough for a replacement. We don't need the image to convey that she gave birth. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 21 September 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:Sonia&Naomi.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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonia&Naomi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gungadin (notify | contribs).

Image is not necessary to understand that the two subjects were in bed together. ÷seresin 04:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails criteria 8 of NFCC (ie doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Cheers, I'^mperator 01:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already replaced in text. Very weak purpose of use on the rationale anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 21 September 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:Etyork.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 No evidence of permission. -Nv8200p talk 21:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Etyork.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ACES-wikiman (notify | contribs).

This file does not show permission of the current license. I tried to speedy it, but was denied. More information to follow. Rockfang (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More info from nominator With this edit I tried to speedy the file as not having permission. It was denied. There are relevant discussions here and here. The file still does not show permission.--Rockfang (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still no evidence of permission, after a month. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 21 September 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:Monster Monster cover.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 ⚡ 06:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monster Monster cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GoDawgs (notify | contribs).

Nothing confirmed for album cover GoDawgs (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most importantly because it's not been published yet, thus blatantly fails WP:NFCC #4. Also orphaned. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 21 September 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:DataProcessingChart.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 ⚡ 06:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

An overly simplistic self-drawn diagram of dubious educational merit. - Altenmann >t 18:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't help the reader at all. Image is also an orphan (no surprises there...) Cheers, I'^mperator 01:13, 15 September 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:British coin 25p (1981) reverse.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: re-tag as fair use and keep Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:British coin 25p (1981) reverse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mc95 (notify | contribs).

Delete Not public domain. It is under Crown Copyright, see Commons:Currency#United_Kingdom Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does Crown Copyright apply to all UK coins? If followed, there would be no pictures of UK coins on Wikipedia! Note that the Commons link above is broken. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does. Unless the image is over 50 yrs old (or being used on a coin page as fair-use). I've fixed the link, it was missing a "Commons:" Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, retag as fair use, and remove from the articles other than British twenty-five pence coin. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay but File:British coin 25p (1981).jpg already exists in that article, depicting the same subject and is tagged as fair use. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's been considered acceptable to show both sides of a coin, but if not, then feel free to treat the above as a delete. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but retag as used under fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 21 September 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:Richgirl-02.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richgirl-02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Babylove04 (notify | contribs).

Promotional image of an active group, thus failing WP:NFCC#1 as a free alternative can be created. {{di-replaceable fair use}} template was continually removed. — Σxplicit 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant fail of WP:NFCC #1. In fact, the group is still on tour as I type. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 21 September 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:1117849840.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1117849840.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grcampbell (notify | contribs).

Image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Can easily be described in text alone. {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template was continually removed. — Σxplicit 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary to convey meaning. In fact, the text more clearly demonstrates why the video was banned than this still from the video. Further, this image which is on the article already would have caused it to be banned in most of the countries mentioned anyway. This image is superfluous. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 21 September 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_September_14&oldid=1089073248"