Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 September 18

< September 17	September 19 >

September 18

File:JudgeSNelson.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned version of File:Samuel Nelson - Brady-Handy.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After looking at the 2 images, to me, it looks like the JudgeSNelson pic is a little clearer and cleaner than the other and ew might want to keep this one and delete the other. --Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 19 September 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:Hanging of Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni.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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a watermarked, non-free photograph from a news agency (ISNA) used to illustrate the article about the event pictured in the photo. This is the original market role of the photograph. Violates WP:NFCC#2. See also the seventh example of unacceptable use of non-free images, which says that a "photo from a press or photo agency" is unacceptable, "unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article"—but there is no commentary about the photo itself in the article. —Bkell (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates NFCC#2. nableezy - 00:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a picture of what happened, there's no other picture available. What's the issue here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.50.2 (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#2, because it belongs to a news agency, and that's that. The editors arguing for keeping may want to read WP:JUSTONE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the editors commenting below, I want to repeat my pointer to WP:JUSTONE. As much as I too don't like deleting images that add significantly to page content – and this one, I fully agree, does – if a file fails just one NFCC criterion, it has to be deleted, even if it passes others by a mile. If it can be shown that this use of the image "will not interfere with the copyright holder's ability to exploit its work", then I'll change my position, but the burden of proof is to show (not simply state) that this is the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The photos are a major part of the story -- an entire Washington Post article devoted to them, inter alia -- and are (now) referenced in the article. Commentary on the photo set that this is one of is now reflected in the article, addressing the initial concern of nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historical photo for which no replacement can possibly be obtained, similar to a Vietnam-era photo for which we also claim fair use: "FUC #2 - This image will not interfere with the copyright holder's ability to exploit its work and is not used in such a way that the reader might believe the above article is written or authorised by the copyright holder of the image." The photo, by the way, now is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, so some of those weighing in for "delete" above may now want to alter their stance. - Nunh-huh 19:10, 24 September 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:Nirojansakthivel.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. No encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 00:20, 18 September 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:Picture 345.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, Unencyclopedic GoingBatty (talk) 03:25, 18 September 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:Marie Leszcynska Painting in Versailles Palace-9-04.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:Marie Leszczyńska, reine de France, lisant la Bible by Jean-Marc Nattier, 002.jpg. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp - The other picture comes from the the Yorck Project. Pictures from the the Yorck Project are notoriously "miss-coloured", so is this one. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move to Commons. It's in the public domain, so no reason not to keep both files. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 24 September 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:Yaomtc3.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal logo. No encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 07:17, 18 September 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:Paint brooky.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused drawing of some houses on a street. Unlikely to be of encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 07:22, 18 September 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:George McDuffie.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned un-cleaned-up version of File:George-McDuffie.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 14:07, 18 September 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:George Bancroft 02618r.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned version of File:George Bancroft United States Secretary of Navy c. 1860.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 14:10, 18 September 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:MARCVREAM.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality file. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In spite of the poor quality, it's a unique image that contains both Maryland Area Regional Commuter and Virginia Railway Express rolling stock. The only reason I'm not fighting harder against deletion, is that there's no concrete evidence of the location, which I assume is near Union Station (Washington, D.C.). So If this is deleted(which I really shouldn't have any doubts about), I call for other Wiki-Railfans in the DC area to seek out a replacememt. ----DanTD (talk) 18:50, 18 September 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:Millis Gardner2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, superseded by File:Mills Gardner - Brady-Handy.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 18:28, 18 September 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:James Abram Garfield photo portrait seated mirror.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned version of File:James Abram Garfield, photo portrait seated.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 19:17, 18 September 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:RepWmMcKinley.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned version of File:Mckin.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 19:19, 18 September 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:Gregor Sohn in Manila.jpg.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: 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 ⚡ 21:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant content Roundhouse4 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 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:Chippewa Lake Park.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and doesn't provide any information that can't be conveyed by text (it's an image of text). Gyrobo (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks more like a logo than just text to me. It also can still be used in the article it was intended for(Chippewa Lake Park). ----DanTD (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chippewa Lake Park; 1950's logo.jpg is the logo for the park. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Some ugly text with some sloppy markup! Possibly created entirely in Microsoft Paint. Fleet Command (talk) 07:47, 19 September 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:Ashton-Kutcher-Two-And-A-Half-Men-new-intro.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not a screenshot. It's a still from the show. Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 23:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that alone a reason to delete the file? The uploader is just reflecting what the source for the file says. Your assertion isn't correct in any case, the new intro has been uploaded to YouTube (can't link to it as that would be a WP:LINKVIO) and that's definitely a scene from it. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a promotional picture and I've marked it as such. Therefore no reason to delete. --Beao 16:01, 19 September 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.