Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 12

< February 11	February 13 >

February 12

File:Zuckerberg-Eisenberg.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: speedy delete, use of this image had already been resoundingly rejected by consensus at the article talkpage, which was the basis for the previous deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it was noted here, the image has no encyclopedic value, fails the WP:NFCC rules in three points: 1, 3b and 8 (at least). I'm requesting its deletion to avoid further recreation. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 07:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator and for my comments on Zuckerberg page. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 07:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as uploader. Also explained on deleting admin's talk page.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Note that Wikiwatcher commented that "[I] clearly use a rapid-fire bot often". I don't understand what he tried to said but it is something false. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 08:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the WP:NFCC rules: 1, 3b and 8. Only 3b could be fixed. feydey (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2011 (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:Contestantsyds.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive fair use. The show needs no more identification than just a title card. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Show needs only a title card, nothing more" is a deletionist perspective, not a Wikipedia guideline, and certainly not a rationale for this image's deletion. This is the only image depicting gameplay on the article on which it is found, and is not "excessive fair use" by any stretch of the imagination. Robert K S (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Image is being used decoratively in the article and does not help further the reader's understanding of the subject; thus, it ought to be deleted per WP:NFCC. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no crucial contribution to understanding the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any reasonable article on a TV game show should include a description of the set and include a picture there-of. Not replaceable, meets all other parts of NFCC. Hobit (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor quality image that does not add to the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The text states Two contestants played on Monday and Tuesday of a particular week, while two more played on Wednesday and Thursday. That explains it very clearly, this frame grab is not need to show "Two contestants." Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2011 (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:Clay Duke Gunman.tiff

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 G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete. This image has been replaced with File:Clay Duke school board gunman.tiff. This is also my upload and I'm requesting it be taken down. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:46, 12 February 2011 (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:KarbonnKC555.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Image of exceedingly poor quality. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:05, 12 February 2011 (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:Will Dunnett 2010.jpeg

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Dunnett (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2011 (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:Will Dunnett 2010.jpeg

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphan Will Dunnett (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:delete2|image=File:Will Dunnett 2010.JPG|reason=not used on any pages - Will Dunnett (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

{subst:delete2|image=User_talk:Joanna_Szczepaniak|reason= this image is a orphan and was uploaded by myself and isnt used on any wiki pages}} Will Dunnett (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2011 (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:Charlotte Coleman Worzel Annual 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a book cover, used in a biographical article without critical commentary. In summary it is not used in accordance with WP:NFCC. feydey (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The informations says it all: Charlotte Coleman as Sue Peters from the 1981 Worzel Gummidge Annual - "Portion used: cropped, reduced". As a crop of a book/magazine cover *and* being used to illustrate something other than the magazine/book it fails the policy and needs to be deleted. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2011 (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:E111.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, probably copyrighted in European Union. Kelly ^hi! 17:36, 12 February 2011 (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:Keir Stahlsmith Service in DCU 2007.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan uploaded for a now-deleted article (see AFD). Photograph of non-notable member of U.S. armed forces. No encyclopedic value. postdlf (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Delete - Orphaned pic uploaded for vanity BLP deleted at WP:AFD per WP:SNOW. Subject lacks any notability, no other reason for retaining the file. Fladrif (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2011 (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:U8D.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to File:Beechcraft U-8D Seminole US Army in flight.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2011 (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:Netherlands flag small.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obsoleted by File:Netherlands_flag_small.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2011 (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:MRF Logo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obsoleted by File:Madras Rubber Factory Logo.svg; commons doesn't like gif logos anyway Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2011 (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:Huwara checkpoint.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, uploader himself clarified the licensing to {{GFDL-self}} ([1]), which makes it uproblematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unclear license - uploader seems to be specifying non-commercial or Wikipedia-only user. Kelly ^hi! 23:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is likely uploaded by someone who is not a native English speaker. The uploader said it "can be used freely on wikipedia and other free documents", which (maybe unintentionally) is the spirit of the GFDL and CC licenses. Seeing as how the image is already tagged under a free license, I see no reason to doubt the uploader's intentions. I've included the image on the article Huwara. I am not opposed to deletion if it can be shown that the uploader did not intend a "free as in libre" license. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:26, 12 February 2011 (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:Gnocchi.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, possibly non-free. Kelly ^hi! 23:29, 12 February 2011 (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:E 200 st007.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 23:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've found a use for it. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2011 (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:Jen.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:49, 12 February 2011 (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.