Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 28

< February 27	March 1 >

February 28

File:Freedom for Libya Flag.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopædic value. It's just made up. bobrayner (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no encyclopedic value, per nom. Reh man 07:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Words fail me. Delete --B (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sophus Bie ^(talk) 17:09, 6 March 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:Wooroonden.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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OB dhurd (talk) 04:42, 28 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:Wooroondenss.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new file with same name uploaded dhurd (talk) 05:00, 28 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:OSOD.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 ⚡ 14:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable image (just a DS with a blank screen), unencyclopedic unsourced, dubious claim of an "orange screen of death" caused by the user intentionally removing a cartridge while the system is on, not in use on any pages. FluffyPug (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no foreseeable use. Please move to Commons, if kept. Reh man 07:29, 4 March 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:Ricardo Rossello.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 ⚡ 14:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait photograph, small size (web resolution), unlikely to be uploader's own work. Previously published on the subject's Facebook profile page [1]. Uploader claimed own work, was asked to send OTRS confirmation and failed to do so. Same uploader has also uploaded non-free screenshots as alleged own work (see File:R2.jpg, deleted at PUF, File:Mtennis2admDONE.jpg, speedied). File was restored by a fellow admin who felt a previous CSD#F11-speedy was invalid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all - see below): I see this is another one of those "self" tagged files with no other information that has been sent here because of an admin who repeatedly removes valid deletion tags from images because they either do not understand policy or choose to ignore it. In this case they appear to have gone one step further - actually restoring an image that was correctly deleted after a valid tag had been placed on the image. Per policy all material must have certain information provided - this includes a true source and a valid author. In case the policy is too difficult to understand there is a simple help page that explains it is easy to understand wording, particularly the Image summary section. Simply using a default "self" tag does not fulfill those requirements. It was correctly tagged with {{di-no permission}} and should have been deleted February 7. Beyond that looking at the uploaders history they only have contributed to the Ricky Rossello article and have uploaded images related to that. Is the uploader Ricky Rossello? Is it the photographer? It is another family member? Unless an OTRS is obtained delete these as well:

File:Ricardotalks.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:FamiliaRossello.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:FamiliaRossello.jpg is marked as a "Family photo" but gives zero indication of who the photographer is and how the uploader came to be in possession of the image. Same with File:Ricardotalks.jpg - this simply says "Talking again - intro pictures". Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:47, 28 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:SudbrookFlag.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, Unencyclopedic. (No sources found relating these images to Sudbrook Magnet Middle School... Invented here?) Buzz-tardis (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the second file, obviously. No comment on the first. Reh man 07:31, 4 March 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:File name.ext

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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DEDB (talk) 17:45, 28 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:Osmium.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. The uploader negates his own license in the description, making this into an unacceptable license, technically eligible for F3 speedy deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image. In addition to tagging it with an acceptable free license, the uploader also said, "This image is being uploaded for use in Wikipedia and for any personal uses. I would prefer that this not be used for commercial use without my prior approval." I suppose that it's debatable what the actual legal implications are of this "preference", but if the image is not in use, I think we should lean towards acceding to that preference and delete the image. B (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons I think that's acceptable. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
move to commons. Nergaal (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The I would prefer that this not be used for commercial use without my prior approval restriction is not allowed. Actually this could be speedied via CSD F3. And Wikimedia Commons is stricter than Wikipedia so moving the file there would not work. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has an incorrect licence, the creative commons licence doesn't expect end users to ask permission to use the file. Could try contacting the author to see if they would release the file under an appropriate licence but since the file is not in use I think this would be an uncontroversial deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment It says "prefer" and not "must" and that makes it ok. It could be moved to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're ignoring the first half of the statement, though. "... for use in Wikipedia and for any personal use." If he is only giving permission for it to be used in Wikipedia and personal uses, then that conflicts with the free license. --B (talk) 05:08, 7 March 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:Tonia Doupey.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused portrait photo of a named individual who apparently never had an article, apparently never used, uploaded by an editor with no other contributions. An IP who claims to be the subject pictured has been asking to get it deleted [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As an unused image with possible copyvio issues. Possibly taken from her facebook page at some point. (There is a Russian (?) mirror however Wikipedia has blocked the direct link - vkontakte[dot]ru/id14707913#/photos14707913.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused, and possible copyvio. Reh man 07:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Swarm ^X 16:15, 6 March 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:Isatk+-bedroom.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 ⚡ 02:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of what purports to be the production set of a TV series. No discernible function in the article, no meaningful rationale (should in fact have been speedied for lack of such), apparently purely decorative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the policy on non-free content. Obvious one is number 8 - Contextual significance. Currently being used as a decoration in the article. Also Number 10 - Image description page, both for the lack of any real FUR (Promotional, Identification?? Seriously?) and (This also ties into number 6 - Media-specific policy via the Wikipedia:Image use policy) because the source is listed as "Maria Gabriela de Faria made the picture with her Blackberry phone" and that is not really enough to verify as a correct, or legit, source. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 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.