Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 14

< January 13	January 15 >

January 14

File:DesertKitfox.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, and correctly identify this critter prior to moving to Commons under better name. Does that about cover it? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claimed this is a photograph of a Kit Fox; an anonymous editor claimed instead that it is a coyote. A discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 December 28#Kit fox or coyote? didn't come to any solid conclusion, except that it should be removed from the Kit Fox article. There is no apparent problem with the copyright or licensing status of this photo, but if we can't get a positive identification of the species it seems unlikely to be useful in this encyclopedia. —Bkell (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep (and rename when moving to Commons) – only a single editor responded at the thread cited above, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the species can still be clarified if we ask the right people (I remember a similar case with File:Accipiter on fence.jpg, where Wikipedian expertise was impressive). Since it's otherwise quite a good photograph, it would be a shame to lose. (I don't know much about wild animals, but to my layman's eye it actually seems pretty clear it's not the fox, so unless there are yet other candidates I'd even say the alternative identification as a coyote seems safe enough.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted a pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs, so hopefully we can get some input from some knowledgeable people. —Bkell (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - keep But rename for coyote, since for me this is pretty clear case of a coyote -- Neozoon 23:43, 14 January 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:Stevespagnuolo.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 ⚡ 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute about the identification of the person in this photograph. The uploader claimed it is Steve Spagnuolo; two anonymous editors (possibly the same person) have claimed ([1], [2]) that it is actually Ken Flajole. Materialscientist agreed that it looks like Ken Flajole and removed it from the Steve Spagnuolo article. There is no apparent problem with the copyright or licensing status of this photo, but if we can't get a positive identification of the subject it seems unlikely to be useful in this encyclopedia. —Bkell (talk) 05:32, 14 January 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:Magic.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 ⚡ 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vague file name. Two other images which were linked can be found at The Sex Magicians and Magic (91.7FM). Duplicate of PD-100 image can be found at File:599v_apis.jpg. mechamind 9 0 05:37, 14 January 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:SA PBP back 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 ⚡ 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Di-replaceable was challenged; taking it here instead. Non-free photograph from a political demonstration attributed to a now defunct political party. No meaningful FUR, no embedding in the article through analytical commentary. Fails NFCC 1 (replaceable with text, if not with another image), and NFCC 8 (contextual significance). Nothing in this image is the object of actual discussion in the article: neither the photograph as such, nor the political slogans depicted on it, nor the event of that demonstration, nor the party leaflet in which the photograph was later printed; hence evidently no indispensible contribution to understanding the article. If the demonstration or the slogan were of actual interest, a simple sentence of text would be sufficient to replace it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 14 January 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:GCAlexander.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: moved to Commons. I personally don't think there's any reason to retain the unretouched version, but I have a feeling that I won't get a moment of peace from some folks if they don't get what they want, meaning that a picture with obvious problems has been moved to Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused version of File:GC Alexander retouched.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it's public domain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both files appear to be PD due to pre 1923. The retouched one is already on Commons. I can't think of a reason to keep the non-retouched one.--Rockfang (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's public domain, what's the issue? What if someone wants to see the "unretouched" version, or use it somewhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If someone wants to see or use unretouched version, they can go to the Library of Congress' website.--Rockfang (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see why that matters, for a public-domain item. However, the uploader was notified and hasn't commented, so I guess I don't need to argue his case for him. The photos are the same dimensions, and the only difference I can see is that the "retouched" version was darkened-down slightly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the lower section of the image, a a bunch of white marks were "removed". On the left side, it appears some scratches and dust marks were removed.--Rockfang (talk) 19:18, 18 January 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:Frederick-M-Sackett.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 ⚡ 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused version of File:Senator-Elect Frederick M. Sackett of Kentucky, December 11, 1924.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 19:12, 14 January 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:St. Charles Elementary School 6A 1969.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 ⚡ 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader not copyright holder of photo. Kelly ^hi! 19:35, 14 January 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:Unoriginal co uk logo.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned text logo. Kelly ^hi! 19:38, 14 January 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:Lingo cap1.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary screenshot. Content can be sufficiently explained without screenshot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screen shot replaced archaic table code (example). If the file is deleted, please don't add the table back. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, clear case of non-free image overuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can make a free image that just as suitably illustrates the Lingo card, so this fails WP:NFCC #1. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:35, 15 January 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:Lingo cap 3.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary screenshot. Content can be sufficiently explained without screenshot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screen shot replaced archaic table code (example). If the file is deleted, please don't add the table back. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, clear case of non-free image overuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can draw a free picture of the guessing a word portion of the game, so this is replaceable and fails WP:NFCC #1. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:36, 15 January 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:Lingo cap4.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary screenshot. Content can be sufficiently explained without screenshot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screen shot replaced archaic table code (example). If the file is deleted, please don't add the table back. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, clear case of non-free image overuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can draw a free picture to illustrate the initial pattern of the No Lingo bonus round, so this non-free image is replaceable and thus fails WP:NFCC #1. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:37, 15 January 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:Spencer Place.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 ⚡ 05:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is too distorted to be of any value. Small-town hero (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:37, 21 January 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.

Disagree. I shall reupload, we have no better alternative of this particular location. This rancourous deletion does not serve to improve the project, the image causes no harm to the site. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria amelie.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 ⚡ 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image of a non-notable living person. Damiens.rf 21:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not permissible, per nom. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:02, 15 January 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.