Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

February 20

File:174px-Wikipedia-word.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 as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, redundant to File:174px-Wikipedia-word1.png Acather96 (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-As uploader, I don't believe I have a use for the file.Smallman12q (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Thanks, I've tagged it under G7. Acather96 (talk) 17:34, 21 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:Wiesel15(3).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 -- Y not? 19:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Commons image File:Elie Wiesel age 15.jpg. I don't see any valid reason to keep a local copy with a different name, it just complicates housekeeping. Kelly ^hi! 18:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. We have a Template:NoCommons but for reasons I cannot fathom people act as if it didn't exist. "Housekeeping" is also not "complicated" in any way that I can discern. If you think Template:NoCommons should be deleted, then initiate the discussion there, or send it to TfD again, as you (unsuccessfully) did in 2008: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_12#Template:NoCommons Either way, please stop ignoring its existence or deleting it from images. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an image I obtained a release for and uploaded for an article that's now an FA. If people want to copy it to the Commons, that's great, but there's no reason to delete this one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayjg. I don't like the NoCommons template, and I wish that it weren't around, but it's always good to respect uploaders' wishes, and nominating an individual image isn't a good way to get rid of the NoCommons template process. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 14 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) 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion is being relisted because an editor (who should have known better) removed the FFD template four minutes after it was added, and no one realized that it had been removed. Thus this will be listed another week with proper notification on the description page that this discussion is underway being in place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schumin, this is a little disruptive. You're elsewhere proposing to have the tag deleted, so why not focus on that effort, rather than picking on individual images? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nyttend, though similarly I don't think this needs to be kept here now. —innotata 21:03, 21 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:Antony.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 ⚡ 02:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is non-descriptive of who the subject is, and it's not used in any articles. Its libre licensing cannot be vetted without subject information. — Fourthords | =/\= | 19:04, 20 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:CIMG3896.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 ⚡ 02:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified subject, probably related to an old article about a Aylesbury Warehouse Fire which was deleted by PROD for lack of notability; not useful in the absence of that article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 20 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.