Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 29

< August 28	August 30 >

August 29

File:Loubo gala.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Loubo presentation.jpg

Horribly doctored images (count the hands in the image in the first one). Clearly the person is cropped out and put on a new background in both, so it's almost assuredly a copyvio. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:41, 29 August 2012 (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:Tatata Bombing.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 ⚡ 03:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user has uploaded similar copyvio images before. The photo here is a famous copyrighted photo hanging in Peru's Museo de la Nación (Yuyanapaq exhibit). The uploader has simply taken a photograph of the copyrighted photograph and then claimed it as his own work. It should be deleted because he's not actually the author of the image of the bombing. 72.83.89.228 (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2012 (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:DEAS012.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--this isn't necessary for the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 29 August 2012 (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:ScullyFBITriangle.ogv

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. — ξ ^xplicit 02:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks way too excessive to have a long non-free OGV file in my opinion. Stefan2 (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can trim it down. The article recently passed FAR and no one said that the file should completely be deleted. Anyway, it helps illustrate a scene that was critically praised and hard to describe in words alone. Besides, plenty of our FAs have similarly length video files.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have trimmed the video to have its length, keeping the integral part in. It should be good to go now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is a brief, low-quality clip which is used for one straight-forward purpose: to illustrate the special effect. It seems like this would be difficult, if not impossible to do just with text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful video, very hard to describe itself, showing the special effect. Also, per the above. TBran dl ey 22:05, 30 August 2012 (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:PJHC Wiki Account, User Page, and Sandbox.pdf

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 F10 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission. Orphaned and out of scope. Stefan2 (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2012 (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:PJHC Overall Guidelines.pdf

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 F10 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and out of scope. Stefan2 (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2012 (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:1957 Starfire 98.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possibly copyrighted, see www.gmphotostore.com/1957-Oldsmobile-98-Holiday-Coupe/productinfo/53217746/ "Official GM Photograph from the General Motors Media Archives." and "©2012 General Motors, All Rights Reserved". Claim of no copyright notice requires evidence: uncropped original poster in sufficient resolution to inspect copyright notices; possibly including the rear of the original poster for any promotional notes. 84user (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BS-bob who uploaded the image was banned from WIkipedia a long time ago, so you aren't going to get anything from him. He has a long history of not respecting copyright so you might want to look at all the other images he uploaded. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is likely to be PD, but we can't tell for sure. —innotata 19:05, 29 August 2012 (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:Kwlogo.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kraftworks Logo.jpg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2012 (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:ARES 15.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, small, without description. Bulwersator (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons Now described. It's Ares 1 and Ares 5, it's size is usable. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons - There's a higher resolution version available on the NASA website. A description has since been added to the image.--Craigboy (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Bulwersator (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2012 (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:YesterdayandTodayalbumcover.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. — ξ ^xplicit 02:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive: there is already another cover. See File:The Beatles - Butcher Cover.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – An album cover is considered fair use for inclusion in an article about that album. The album cover image uniquely identifies the album. Its inclusion in the article significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, as per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Similarly for an alternate album cover, if it is significantly different from the main or primary album cover. The alternate album cover does not convey equivalent significant information, it conveys different significant information, and so is very helpful to the reader. Including such secondary album covers is a longstanding practice on Wikipedia, and definitely does not violate fair use. This particular album cover, used in the Yesterday and Today article, is very famous, and very different from the primary album cover. I would consider it a paradigm of this type of fair use. I'd be very interested in learning why all this is suddenly being questioned now. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the actual album cover--it is fair use per all other copyrighted covers. The alternate butcher one is also fair use by way of critical commentary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I nominated the file for deletion, the other one was listed as the main cover and this one was listed as an alternative cover. Anyway, I'm not sure why two covers are needed. The other cover has lots of critical commentary, so it can be kept, but I'm not sure why it wouldn't be enough with only the other cover. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response The actual album cover is justified by the same fair use policy as all album covers: they help identify the work in question. The unused butcher cover is historically significant and discussed at length with citations—actually displaying it is of critical importance to the article. Very few album articles can justify two covers, but this is one of them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, it seems that I didn't read the article enough. If the publisher did its best to prevent the distribution of the other cover, I agree that we need this cover. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two is excessive? The change from one cover to the other is of prime importance to the subject of the article and accounts for the bulk of the content in the article. Certainly images of the cover art are appropriate if not necessary for such a discussion. Piriczki (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to reviewing administrator: As you can see from the discussion, the editor who nominated the image for deletion now agrees that it should be kept, and so does everyone else who has commented, so far anyway. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:57, 30 August 2012 (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:Intercon stranportation.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo of fictional/extremely small company ("I, the copyright holder of this work") or it is a copyright violation Bulwersator (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2012 (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:Kraftworks Logo.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. — ξ ^xplicit 02:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unused. It's used in a user's personal sandbox (User:Jaspermaz/sandbox) and the user edited the page as recently as yesterday. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was uploaded yesterday, is PD, and is used, what's up with this? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2012 (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:Logo Reddito Minimo Garantito.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2012 (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:Underwurlde com.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of a Web page which seems to be a completely different site now and whose article here (Underwurlde.com) was deleted in 2006. Unlikely to have any encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2012 (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:Snippet.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused collage of photos with a watermark of a URL in the corner. Possibly a copyright violation too: it's tagged {{PD-self}}, but the source is given as [1], which says at the bottom, "Copyright © 2010 Face Painting Tips." —Bkell (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2012 (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:Leesa.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of Leesa Beales, whose article here has been repeatedly deleted for lack of notability. —Bkell (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2012 (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:Microsoft Office 2011 wordmark.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced in all uses by png version. Cloudbound (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2012 (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:Scarlettanager99 edit.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused crop of a deleted low resolution version of File:Piranga olivacea1.jpg. —innotata 20:11, 29 August 2012 (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:SCIENCE-CHANNEL-LOGO.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 under File:Science-Channel-Logo.jpg. — ξ ^xplicit 02:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused PD logo, which I have removed from the Science channel article along with a collection of former logos. Cloudbound (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons PDtextlogo, and we have an article on the subject, so a gallery can be built on commons. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2012 (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:Science channel hd.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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused PD logo, which I have removed from the Science channel article along with a collection of former logos. Cloudbound (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons PDtextlogo, and we have an article on the subject, so a gallery can be built on commons. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2012 (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:Melody Thomas Scott.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2012 (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.