Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 26

< June 25	June 27 >

June 26

File:Avallay.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 ⚡ 02:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in the US under the URAA, not eligible for fair use as an image of a living person. —innotata 02:14, 26 June 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:Descent (Star Trek The Next Generation) screenshot.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 ⚡ 02:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This screencap has nothing to do with the Star Trek TNG episode Descent. Its just a holographic program run by Data at the beginning of Descent Part I. The real show is about Borg ship rebel attacks on Federation outposts and then their rapid escape into mysterious vortexes in space. The Enterprise has to investigate the cause of these attacks. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image applies both to the beginning of the plot summary and to the second entry in the Notes section. -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 16:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its good that Stephen Hawking had an appearance in this Star Trek episode but the plot isn't about him. The image doesn't pass a contextual understanding of the specific episode right now. Perhaps someone can upload a more representative screencap. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since Wikipedia is not a plot dump, it doesn't really matter if the plot is about him or not, only if his appearance on the show is in some way notable or historically significant, and if it is, then the article should cover that, because we are not Memory Alpha. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose Hawking's appearance is historically significant since its the only appearance of the professor in a Star Trek plot. But, I don't think its contextually significant for an understanding of the episode's plot. It appears before any of the show's developments occur. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:19, 1 July 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:NAF NF.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 ⚡ 02:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Latvian_Naval_Forces_emblem.svg User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:28, 26 June 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:1936.01.14 Carr Layout.tiff

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 Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed speedy. Not at all clear what this image is adding to the article. The purpose is stated as "All of the subjects in the triptych and noted above under "Description" are mentioned in the article, and the triptych is used to reinforce the claim for notability for Carr, which is required for a WP article." However, merely being mentioned in an article does not mean that a non-free image is required to illustrate, and non-free images are not used to establish notability; reliable sources are. Non-free images should only be used when they add significantly to reader understanding of the topic (NFCC#8), and it is not clear that this one does. In addition, it is enormous, contrary to NFCC#3. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has this copyright expired? According to our page, if the (c) was not renewed in 1964 or earlier, it might have expired. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See the copyright renewals of periodicals from 1964. The list is supposed to be in alphabetic order and newspapers seem to appear in the "periodicals" section. There is no entry between "Look" and "Love Book Magazine". Doesn't this mean that all issues of Los Angeles Times from 1936 are in the public domain as {{PD-US-not renewed}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Los Angeles Times renewed periodicals starting from January 5, 1958.[1] Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:56, 4 July 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.