Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 16

< February 15	February 17 >

February 16

File:1northwood07.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 ⚡ 02:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image is a collage of signs with no description and no good encyclopedic use -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:04, 16 February 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:La Braila.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 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned personal image with no encyclopedic value. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic and not useful for other purposes either. De728631 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 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:La Belle Winery.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 Derivatives are not self made photos, and this looks very much like a derivative, plus I can't see an encyclopedic use for it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image is heavily edited (maybe a logo?) with no notability. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a promotional poster. However, the summary says it was made by the uploader and it has a free license. So why shouldn't we store it at Commons? De728631 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 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:La Calera Ciudad.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 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality orphaned image is not a very good photo as it does not truly illustrate a specific subject -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does illustrate a specific subject, namely the town of La Calera, Chile. However, the watermark is annoying and the general quality is low. There are a lot of better images of La Calera, so delete this one. De728631 (talk) 19:50, 16 February 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:La Esperanza forests.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 No encyclopedic use for a random small picture of trees. Also do not understand how this can be used for illustration. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality Orphaned image is not encyclopedic -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This can very well be used for illustration. If thumbnailed, the quality doesn't matter anyway. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 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:LA Woman 1956.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; for now, but not eligible for commons. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

low quality orphaned image is a personal image that has no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and transfer to Commons. There is an encyclopedic use in illustrating 1950s fashion, hair styling, etc. De728631 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 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:Labour Douglas6.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 Derivative looking picture, raises copyvio concerns. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low Quality orphaned image is very low resolution and there are other, better images of Denzil Douglas on en.wikipedia -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and transfer to Commons. This may be used to illustrate political campaigns, note the title and the uniformed crowd in the background. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you would do a quick Google search you would see that it is just an image of Douglas super-imposed on an image of a crowd. There are many images of him that are done like this. I do not think this illustrates anything other than someone knows how to use photoshop. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:46, 17 February 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:Laceylacey2.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 With no objection to undeletion upon user request. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned low quality personal image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic personal photo. De728631 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 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:Laceylacey1.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 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned low quality personal image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic personal photo. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 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:Lackwitthumb.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 With no objection to undeletion upon user request. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned low quality personal image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP is not anyone's personal gallery or file server. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 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:LadyParasyteCloseUpRed.jpeg

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 Per De728631. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality orphaned image has no encyclopedic quality -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not low quality, that's a high-quality promotional shot with intentional blurriness. The subject is however not notable and I can't find anything about her music on Google. Delete. De728631 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to make a photo blurry intentionally? Just curious. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's art. People try to express something with different photographical techniques and sometimes a crisp image doesn't fit a specific mood or theme you'd like to portray. See also Commons:Category:Intentionally blurred images. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 17 February 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:Laeeqseaworld2004usa.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 No encyclopedic value. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned personal image has no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the advertising banner in the background would have been useful but I think you can't crop the image because the person covers a part of the flag. De728631 (talk) 20:10, 16 February 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:Anna-Wood.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 F9 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader is not the original photographer, making this a derivative work of a copyrighted work. Bidgee (talk) 07:46, 16 February 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:Yaghi2.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 ⚡ 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned low resolution image has no direct notability -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. Prof. Omar M. Yaghi may have WP articles one day. He seems to be quite active in molecular chemistry. De728631 (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page that you linked used the exact same image, just less cropped. This makes me think that the image is not under the right tag and could be not under free use. I personally would not make the move to commons as I could not verify the image, I think that is more reason to list it for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it turns out there is already an article Omar M. Yaghi with a suitably licensed image on Commons that was also made by Boasap. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this link here and click on the image to the left (the same as the one on the commons) it credits the image to: Reed Hutchinson/UCLA. I think we may (or may not) have an issue with all of Boasap's images as most of them are found on UCLA's websites. Also, upon some research of Boasap, I found who he really is, and he is a student of Yaghi's see here, so there may also be a COI in his article edits. What are your thoughts? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:25, 17 February 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:Yahya kamalipour.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality orphaned image has no notability -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is also a lower quality smaller duplicate of File:Yahya R. Kamalipour, 2005.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant and inferior to the hq image on Commons. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 16 February 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:YAM0003.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 ⚡ 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned personal photo with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator. De728631 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 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:Chesrilanka-ligature.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 ⚡ 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

original image was deleted on commons; the poster is likely copyrighted so this is a copyvio Liliana-60 (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's no freedom of panorama in Sri Lanka and even a hazed imaged like this is a derivative and must therefore go. De728631 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 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:Yamuna Vihar.svg

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 ⚡ 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned SVG image is broken. Since is hasn't been changed sins upload in 2007, I do not think it is needed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 20:18, 16 February 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:MeadorHomestead.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree photo of a house which still exists. Clearly replaceable. Besides, it is only used in a gallery-like situation which is usually a no-go for unfree images. Stefan2 (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This can be replaced by a free image. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is more complex than I first thought. See discussion at commons:COM:ON#2010071210046496. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 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:BentonHouse.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable (the house still exists). Stefan2 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is more complex than I first thought. See discussion at commons:COM:ON#2010071210046496. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 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:Building1071.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable (the house still exists). Stefan2 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is more complex than I first thought. See discussion at commons:COM:ON#2010071210046496. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 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:G B DantzlerHouse.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use (the house still exists). Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is more complex than I first thought. See discussion at commons:COM:ON#2010071210046496. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 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:Building6981.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use: the house still exists. Stefan2 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is more complex than I first thought. See discussion at commons:COM:ON#2010071210046496. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 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:EastSixthStreetUSO.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use: the house still exists. Stefan2 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is more complex than I first thought. See discussion at commons:COM:ON#2010071210046496. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 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:G A McHenryHouse.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use: the building still exists. Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is more complex than I first thought. See discussion at commons:COM:ON#2010071210046496. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 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.