Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 4

< June 3	June 5 >

June 4

File:35px-Us flag large.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to dozens of other images of the American flag. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:29, 4 June 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:Meandkay.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo. Unencyclopedic. Uploader has only one edit that is not related to her userpage, and has not edited for several years. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnecessary, unencyclopedic, orphaned. Seegoon (talk) 17:27, 5 June 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:Pictures 500.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo. Unencyclopedic. Uploader has only one edit that is not related to her userpage, and has not edited for several years. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnecessary, unencyclopedic, quasi-orphaned. Seegoon (talk) 17:27, 5 June 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:Crazy2.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo. Unencyclopedic. Uploader has only one edit that is not related to her userpage, and has not edited for several years. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnecessary, unencyclopedic, orphaned. Seegoon (talk) 17:26, 5 June 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:Edwin.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo. Unencyclopedic. Uploader has only one edit that is not related to her userpage, and has not edited for several years. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnecessary, unencyclopedic, quasi-orphaned. Seegoon (talk) 17:25, 5 June 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:Pictures 355.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self portrait masquerading as encyclopedic content, used only on an article currently being PRODed. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:18, 4 June 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:Anchoragegfsza.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 as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

google earth image used to show something you can do with google earth in an article about another subject. Adds little to reader's understanding of the topic it is used to illustrate and can be adequately replaced with free content if needed (text, user created image etc...). Peripitus (Talk) 11:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image adds tremendously to the reader's understanding of the Gun Free School Zones in the article about them. It is not possible to visualize these zones without a visual aid. Google Screenshots are used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I feel that their limited use in this article is fair. It is not easily replaceable with completely free content; I've been trying for six months. I personally spent many hours creating these images (using Google Earth) and the substance of these images (the zones) are my own work, aided by Google Earth. Please let it stay up. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously replaceable with a self-made free map. However, beware of WP:OR if such a map were to be used implicitly to promote a POV position not supported by reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 4 June 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:Dallasgfsza2.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 as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

google earth image used to show something you can do with google earth in articles about other subjects. Adds little to reader's understanding of the topic it is used to illustrate and can be adequately replaced with free content if needed (text, user created image etc...). Peripitus (Talk) 11:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image adds tremendously to the reader's understanding of the Gun Free School Zones in the article about them. It is not possible to visualize these zones without a visual aid. Google Screenshots are used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I feel that their limited use in this article is fair. It is not easily replaceable with completely free content; I've been trying for six months. I personally spent many hours creating these images (using Google Earth) and the substance of these images (the zones) are my own work, aided by Google Earth. Please let it stay up. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 4 June 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:RNoAF F-16 takeoff.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 ⚡ 05:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clearly replaceable fair use image - A free image could be created of a Norwegian Armed forces aircraft taking off - perhaps even this one Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 4 June 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:Totalsynthesis aflatoxin.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned chem image. Kelly ^hi! 16:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy to Wikimedia Commons - could be useful. Acather96 (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copy I second Acather96. §§§§ Alquerytalk 04:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There's a much nicer version at File:Aflatoxin B2 total synthesis.svg. If someone really really wants to move it to Commons, nobody is stopping you, but I don't see any reason to waste the time doing it. --B (talk) 03:12, 14 June 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:Summer-01.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned LQ version of File:GoldenMeadows.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 19:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted, unused nonfree file and a hoax to boot: Picture created by Pete Von Sholly as a fake cover for "Classics Illustrated." No encyclopedic value. "At the Mountains of Madness" is properly illustrated well enough by the authentic cover from Astounding Science Fiction. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:41, 6 June 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:At the Mountains of Madness -image002.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 as F5 by Ihcoyc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phony image. Although presented in the article as an actual book cover, this is in fact a spoof cover for a nonexistent "Classics Illustrated" edition of the work. Uploader was banned long ago for adding images with deceptive/false NFCC rationales, but this one somehow survived. The artist whose work is used also sells prints of work like this, compounding the violation although I didn't see this piece being marketed currently. Be nice if this could be speedied. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:31, 4 June 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Colour Out of Space.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phony image. Although identifide as the cover of an edition for the Lovecraft collection The Colour out of Space, it does not match the cover of any edition I can turn up, nor can I find any versions of this image suggesting it is a book cover of any kind (w/title etc). Artist unidentified. Uploader blocked long ago for misbehavior regarding image uploads, but this slipped by. Can this be speedied? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:48, 4 June 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.