Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 28

< February 27	February 29 >

February 28

File:Helios 522.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file. Derivative of deleted file - original was deleted as " (del/undel) 18:55, 16 December 2007 Adambro (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Helios 522.gif" ‎ (Unused image with questionable copyright status) (view/restore)" Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:30, 28 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:We Are Aliens.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:We Are Aliens.png; discussion should occur there, not here, as ineligible for fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:37, 28 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:Cornerstone somewhere in america.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 G7 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an album cover and the image being used appears corrupted when I view it. A CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence would need more than the assurance of an anonymous account that they represent the copyright holders of the image. Fæ (talk) 12:15, 28 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:Stetten wappen.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, replaced by File:AUT Stetten COA.jpg. Different background colour, so F8 might not apply. Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 28 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:88px-Rennweg am Katschberg CoA.svg.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, File:Rennweg am Katschberg CoA.svg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 28 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:88px-Lurnfeld CoA.svg.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. File:Lurnfeld CoA.svg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 28 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:98px-Gmund in Karnten CoA svg.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. File:Gmünd in Kärnten CoA.svg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 28 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:99px-Flattach CoA svg.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. File:Flattach CoA.svg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 28 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:98px-Romanshorn.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. File:Wappen Romanshorn.svg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 28 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:Thundorf.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. File:Thundorf-coat of arms.svg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 28 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:98px-Aadorf.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. File:Wappen Aadorf.svg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 28 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:Wappen Brand Laaben.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. File:AUT Brand-Laaben COA.jpg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 28 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:Feistritz.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. File:AUT Feistritz am Wechsel COA.jpg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 28 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:Raach.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. File:AUT Raach am Hochgebirge COA.gif is better. Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 28 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:Epsilon Tauri b and Hyades.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken, orphaned file Bulwersator (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the thumbnail which is broken. The full resolution version works fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, purging is not working. Bulwersator (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, and I think that's a known bug. I've seen it being discussed elsewhere, possibly on Commons. Media:Epsilon Tauri b and Hyades.png works fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment aren't all of these exoplanet artist impressions WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH unless they are copies of published speculation by artists? (which would fail NFCC#2) ... either being a copy of a published artist's impression (NFCC#2 failure) or Wikipedia speculation (WP:OR failure) ... 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is from free software (so it is free), but it is a pure useless and random guessing (WP:OR - but unfortunately there are entire categories of similar files: Category:Artists' impressions of exoplanets and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Artist%27s_impressions_of_exoplanets )Bulwersator (talk) 06:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's on Commons, it doesn't matter, since Commons is used in places where it's fine to have WP:OR material. If it's on Wikipedia, it should either be moved to Commons and removed from Wikipedia articles, or just straight deleted. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does Commons have a tag that indicates a particular image is original research, and thus not eligible for use on Wikipedia articles? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OR images are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. Any previously unpublished photo by a user is such. It is articles that must not contain "original research". I do not think this image is on Commons and it could be usefully moved there. Artists' impressions can be extremely encyclopedic when based on reliable information. Thincat (talk) 09:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment any article using a user-created image should explain the nature of the image and, where appropriate, the information or situation upon which it is based. However, that is a matter for the article rather than the image. Thincat (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These images of exoplanets feature colors, most exoplanets have no research done that indicates the color of the planet, so that is highly unreliable information being featured as "data" in our articles. Most you get is albedo, so any artistic impressions of exoplanets that is created by users for Wikipedia's or non-RS use, cannot feature colors. This particular images features wispy white clouds, there is no way that you can extrapolate that from the research data. If you look at real images of Saturn and Jupiter, they are banded planets, while Uranus and Neptune are not; this planet is 7x the mass of Jupiter, so why is the artistic impression that of billiard ball Neptune/Uranus instead of banded Jupiter/Saturn? This is excessive speculation that should not be in the articles. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That makes a lot of sense to me. And ideally, if an artist's impression is based on some hard information, this should be in the image description as well as in any associated article. I still think FFD is not a good venue for deciding on things like this. I see the the astronomers have discussed the general matter[1][2] and a (somewhat moribund) review system set up.[3][4][5] Thincat (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The image is still unreferenced, and with no references provided to prove that the image is based on astronomical data, it looks like it was made from whole cloth, with no grounding in reality. The image fails WP:V, and there is no exception written into WP:OR that allows original research images. Indeed at WP:OI, it specifically prohibits the use of images that feature original thought (like the color of planets not evident from astronomical data). 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Thincat (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody here is missing the point. Extrasolar planet images are called "artists' conceptions" for a reason - they are largely interpretation and not grounded in research data. The common consensus is to accept them on articles as decorations, rather than as illustrators of properties of the planets, as long as they vaguely fit the data (e.g I'm not putting a gas giant picture for KOI-961 c). Wer900 (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it fails at WP:PERTINENCE, at any rate, it should not be used as a lead image, per PERTINENCE#LEAD#1. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:47, 5 March 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:Herzen gay.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, IMHO lower quality than http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Herzen_ge.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 14:42, 28 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:HC Sparta Praha.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, Czech Republic." is dubious, I think that this file may be deleted as F8 Bulwersator (talk) 14:43, 28 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:Humanism.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, useless derivative work of svg file Bulwersator (talk) 14:45, 28 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:IHnightpic.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified subject, possibly derivative of 3D art? Kelly ^hi! 17:01, 28 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:CollegeBoundGarfieldCloseup.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted here and reuploaded by editor. We hope (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think all the pictures should be combined into one collage. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it almost impossible to view the statues in order to comply with WP:NFCC#3 which requires a low pixel count. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are only nine pictures. It seems entirely feasible that they could be cropped, resized and placed in a low resolution collage. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they're non-free photos and that would seem to be a problem because of that. We hope (talk) 15:46, 29 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:CoolGarfieldCloseup.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 ⚡ 13:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted here and reuploaded by editor. We hope (talk) 17:15, 28 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:DoctorGarfieldCloseup.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted previously here and reuploaded by editor. We hope (talk) 17:19, 28 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:DufferGarfieldnonfree.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted here and reuploaded by editor. We hope (talk) 17:22, 28 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:GasWorkerGarfield.Garfield.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was deleted here and reuploaded by editor. We hope (talk) 17:29, 28 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:IceCreamEating Garfield.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File was deleted here and reuploaded by editor. We hope (talk) 17:32, 28 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:PopcornEaterGarfieldnonfree.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File was deleted here and reuploaded by editor. We hope (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too many Garfield statues in the article for WP:NFCC#3. Keep one and delete the rest. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted the lot - with no problem of one being restored/uploaded for the page; moving out of the gallery still leads to overuse of non-free images on that page. Skier Dude (talk) 03:38, 7 March 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:Henry.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader long gone, orphaned file. WP:NOTHOST Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:54, 28 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:Henry7.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file. Seems to be a photo of a photograph, possible copyright issues. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:56, 28 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:Her.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:09, 28 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:Here Come the Tickle Bugs.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unencyclopaedic, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:23, 28 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:Buhari with Bakare and el-Rufai.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this as "replaceable fair use" but a user disputed this, claiming that "This photo is not replaceable as it does not only identify the subject, but also depicts a particular time in his 2011 political campaign for the presidency of Nigeria, that is, also covered by this article. Moreover, the photo is explicitly distributed for publicity purposes, intended for reuse by the media; therefore, there is implicit license for its use in discussing the subject that is being promoted. Its reuse here on Wikipedia is to identify and illustrate that subject, and also to depict the electioneering period for which the subject was being publicised." This suggests that the image might not only fail WP:NFC#UUI #1 but also #7. Besides, I don't see any need to show a picture of him during the presidential campaign. On the contrary, I would say that this is a bad photo since it shows so many people. It is necessary to read the captions in the article in order to find out who he is. Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2, I have moved the photo from the info-box to the corresponding section of the article. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that it fails WP:NFCC#8. The campaign section is perfectly readable without the photo and it doesn't seem to add any understanding of the topic. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 29 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:Staff at work in the HQJOC Joint Control Centre at Bungendore.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: kept Skier Dude (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this as replaceable fair use. A user disputed this, claiming that "the image was taken within one of Australia’s most restricted defence facilities. No other public images of the Joint Operations Command Center exist." The article doesn't specifically seem to discuss the interior of the building (WP:NFCC#8) so I think that it would be replaceable by a photo of the exterior of the building which might be easier to obtain. Since it is a defence building, I am also wondering if there might be some kind of cooperation with the US military. In that case, there might be some {{PD-USGov}} images. Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the uploader of the image I will not !vote but I will comment.

The Joint Control Center is main reason for the existance of HQJOC.
The Department of Defence released this photo to the media because no other public photos of the Joint Control Center exist. The image has been staged such that none of the personnel can be identified.
There are no {{PD-USGov}} images of HQJOC in the Defence.gov or service multimedia archives.
Under Australian law (section 82 of the Defence Act 1903) it is a criminal offence to make a sketch, drawing, photograph, picture or painting of any defence installation in Australia or even approach any defence installation in possession of any sketching, drawing, photographic or painting materials or apparatus.
Given the above, the chance that "a free image might reasonably be found or created" is close to zero.

ShipFan (Talk) 04:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty much for the reasons given by ShipFan above. I regularly check for new PD-US photos of the Australian military, and none have ever been taken of this facility (which is hardly surprising given that it's a command centre and most US government photos of the Australian military depict joint military exercises). The site of this command centre is isolated and highly secure, and there's no way that a free alternative that shows what conditions are like inside the centre could exist this is what the place looks like from as close as the public can get. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, the building is there because of what happens inside it - i.e. what happens inside is what's improtant, not the building itself. As mentioned/implied above, no photographic equipment is allowed inside the building in normal circumstances; the above image has been created under specially arranged and authorised circumstances. There is no way that anyone could take a photo, other than under such specially arranged and authorised circumstances. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above arguments, it sounds that it isn't easily replaceable, as the photographer would risk having to go to jail for espionage. I don't think that my original arguments on replaceability hold anymore, so it may be reasonable to keep the image if it passes WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 29 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:Hessian.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; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See [6] by the same user on the same day. It links to Hessian (social group) which was deleted, so I guess that it shows a person from that group who is not notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 28 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:Heya.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:41, 28 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:Heyhollywod.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, possible ad poster with the text topleft. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:44, 28 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:VMuse of the Missouri.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used only in a list article. Kelly ^hi! 23:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the license I used:

{{Non-free 3D art}}

Why doesn't this qualify??? The photo I took is a « reproduction for criticism, comment, teaching and scholarship constitutes fair use and does not infringe copyright ». Why is it any different than the image at the right??? ---- However, I just noticed that the Picasso sculpture image, posted at right, has been assigned a NEW, different license. I have tried, but cannot figure out how to add the license that is assigned to the Picasso sculpture photo, which reads:

« The two-dimensional reproduction of this artistic work located in the United States is not subject to United States copyright law because its subject was published in the United States before 1978 without a copyright notice, which puts the work in the public domain. -- It is the position of the Commons community that, barring unusual attempts by the author to disallow photography (or other attempts to reproduce the work) or a clear copyright notice, it was considered generally published as soon as it was placed in the public square, according to common law interpretation. For more information, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#United_States and the circular Towards a Functional Definition of Publication in Copyright Law. »

Please, just change the license to your « latest version » to the same as the Picasso image --- or, tell me what to do to change it on my Talk page. (I used the appropriate license at the time I posted it.) These threats and harassment by over zealous the « Wiki Police Force » is, again, ridiculous, and benefits no one. Charvex (talk) 05:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statues in the United States are a bit complex: you can only take a photo of them if the copyright has expired. To determine if the copyright has expired or not, do the following checks:

Was the statue installed before 1923?
Was the statue installed before 1978 but without a copyright notice ("Copyright 1963 Some Sculptor")?
Was the statue installed before 1964 but without a renewal of the copyright 28 years after the installation?

If the answer to any of the questions is "yes", then the statue is in the public domain, so taking a photo of it is fine. SIRIS mentions no copyright notice for this statue, so I would guess that it is fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I seriously doubt that the sculptor went through all of the formalities, including renewal. I can't find it in the catalog either.[7] Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The statue was installed in 1960 for the City of Kansas City of Missouri as a public artwork, which the city owns. --- Please answer my question: Please tell me what Wikipedia code is used for license on the image of the Picasso sculpture that is OK so I can use it on my images. Thank you. Charvex (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Picasso statue uses {{FoP-US-no notice}} but that is a Commons template, so it can't be used on English Wikipedia. I suppose that this photo should be moved over to Commons, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 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:HFB-MBat38.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:52, 28 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:HFL Band Photo 2008.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 ⚡ 05:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, WP:SPA, Unclear source "Taken by Garrett." Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:56, 28 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.