Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 5

< March 4	March 6 >

March 5

File:MClifford Author Pic.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 ⚡ 05:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger than the freaking moon, used in now deleted article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:29, 5 March 2010 (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:Cover page.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 Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission. Too high res. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:36, 5 March 2010 (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:THE BOOK cover image.png

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission. Too high res. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its probably a fair use image. --Artene50 (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant copyvio of book cover.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2010 (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:Half Plus Seven Graph 2.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 ⚡ 05:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, Unencyclopaedic (joke image) Uncle Dick (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been replaced by an SVG, and so could be deleted on that grounds, but it is NOT a "joke image" (see talk at Talk:Age disparity in sexual relationships). AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "meme" is a better word to use than joke. At any rate, it is not encyclopaedic content unless a reliable source can be found to support it. I don't think an Internet comic strip counts. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- if after due discussion it's determined that the "meme" is unencylopedic, then the content will not be included in the article. However, I really don't see how this creates any immediate urgent pressing need to delete the image right now (aside from routine housecleaning because there's an SVG). AnonMoos (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2010 (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:Marvin Heemeyer.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: Nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image purportedly of Marvin Heemeyer, but the only source given, NNDB, is a dubious tertiary source that gives no provenance for how they acquired the image. Unless someone can obtain proper sourcing to establish that this is indeed Heemeyer, it doesn't belong on that article, and it has no other possible use. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the delete if none of the following sources hold any weight:

I was unaware of the lack of weight of the provided source. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for more sources. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuPQcjuHsq4 and although youtube is not really generally a reliable source, is a copy of a show from the history channel, and 23 seconds in it shows the identical portrait. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do regard this as sufficient sourcing, so thank you for finding it. I'll withdraw this. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2010 (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:Self-injury.svg

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 after being fixed by Bkell. PhilKnight (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken placement of text in SVG. If someone can fix this (I can't), it can replace File:Self-injury.png in self-harm. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be more precise, the text is fine; it's Wikipedia's SVG renderer that's broken.

I don't really know what was wrong with the text, but I converted all the text nodes to paths and now it renders fine. The problem is that now the text isn't stored as text, but if the text needs to be edited we can edit one of the versions of the SVG that still has text nodes and then do the same text-to-paths trick. By the way, is there a reason we have a URL for another site in the image? See Wikipedia:WATERMARK. —Bkell (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2010 (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.