Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 8

< April 7	April 9 >

April 8

File:David Barton.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a non-free image when a free image is available: File:David Barton America A Call to Greatness.jpg. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#1. -Nat Gertler (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, unless Glenn Beck has been showing a pretty darned good impersonator, he's still alive. --B (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I would not in general point to the Glen Beck program as a WP:RS, in this case the impression created is accurate. -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2013 (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:Pink rygmv.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 8 April 2013 (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:Chammak.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. No significance at all. The actor doesn't look any different than what he looks in many available free images of him. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:38, 8 April 2013 (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:Onome.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, no description, blocked user. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2013 (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:Azkals 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. Much of the discussion is hardly relevant to whether the image should be kept or deleted. In any case, removing content from the article without discussion, in an attempt to make (or at least, having an effect of making) the image fail WP:NFCC#8, does not help your case. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right.... yet HTD does the exact same thing but instead adds content to pass off his point as legit even though there's a clear dispute (even with his added material)!!! Bunch of bull!! Banana Fingers (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC criteria #8 and is also a fan made logo that doesn't belong! Banana Fingers (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no evidence presented that the logo is fan-made as claimed. The logo is present on the team's Facebook page and official page, so whether it is fan-made or not has become immaterial; it's widely used and widely recognised. This FFD was opened only four days after the previous discussion was closed as Keep. Here's links to the previous deletion discussions:
March 14, 2012 (closed March 22, 2012)
February 6, 2013 (closed March 8, 2013)
March 12, 2013 (closed April 4, 2013) -- Dianna (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems highly unlikely that https://www.facebook.com/PhilippineAzkals would be controlled by someone other than the team. The image is used there, so the logo doesn't seem to be fan-made, or at least it is used by the team itself. That said, the image suffers a lot from inappropriate JPG compression, but that is a completely different problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it's used there doesn't mean it isn't fan made. A Google image search with "azkals logo" brings up many fan made logos. This logo is one of them. This is the Philippines national team, not a club called "azkals football club". Banana Fingers (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A search for "azkals logo" brings up many logos. No idea how to tell whether any of them are fan-made or not. As this one appears to be used by the team, the question on whether it is fan-made or not is moot. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, this isn't "azkals football club". This is the Philippines national football team. It's also why the sport is called "association football". Especially in international play, you're representing your association, in this case, it's the Philippine Football Federation. Therefore, the only logo of the team is that of the federation. Banana Fingers (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue of compliance with NFCC #8, which the nominator has not raised before; this warrants discussion. There's already a logo in the info box; this is a second logo appearing further down in the article, where it is not the subject of commentary (other than in the caption). -- Dianna (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yes, that too. I didn't check how the image was used, only whether it seemed to be fake. Yes, the article seems to have one logo too much, so one of them should probably go away. As I don't know anything about this team, I don't know which logo we should keep, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly fails NFCC #8. It was raised by another editor (hallelujah for that!) in the previous discussion and Howard the duck, had nothing to counter it, and still doesn't. It should be deleted! If the fan made argument won't stick (even though it really is in the category of being fan made and therefore doesn't belong) fine, but it fails the said criteria and rightly so! DELETE! Banana Fingers (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Is this team operated by the government so that Commons:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov applies? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not operated by the government, nor is it directly operated by the Philippine Football Federation (which owns the logo at the infobox). It is operated by Dan Palami, who presumably owns this logo, who is sanctioned by the PFF to do whatever he wishes with the team, except for things such as who'd be the head coach, and probably what tournaments to enter. –H T D 19:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy close~~. For the love of everything that is good. This same guy has nominated this image thrice in a matter of 3 months. Let it rest for a while. –H T D 19:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. I believe I have dealt with the NFCC #8 problem conclusively. Keep, close, and move on. –H T D 03:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No you haven't! Those supposed "licensed" shirts aren't any more official than shirts you would be able to see by doing a Google image search for "azkals shirts" or "azkals t-shirts". Those are unbranded as well! Mind you, the official outfitter of this team is Puma, any official apparel would come from them! Banana Fingers (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - As said above, whether this is official or not is moot. What matters is that the logo per se has been aligned with what NFCC #8 says, which is context. –H T D 14:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still fails NFCC #8! Under a section for names, you try to include something about "official/licensed" apparel (even though they're really not as I've said above) just to legitimize the addition of a logo. As per the criteria, does it add any significance... no it doesn't! Also, you people say that it being official or not is moot... well, believe it or not, that's part of the argument here! The fact that you're claiming that this logo is on "official" apparel proves that and therefore whether it's official or not needs to be taken into account! However, it isn't official and doesn't add significance, therefore it should be deleted!! Banana Fingers (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If it makes a difference, I used the term "officially licensed", just as the UFL isn't really an "officially-run-by-the-PFF league" but just allowed by the PFF to run with their permission which they can revoke anytime they want. AFAIK, ABS-CBN News is WP:RS and can be used as a reliable source. I'd certainly pick whatever they say than your synthesis. –H T D 15:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, can you educate me on what NFCC #8 is? –H T D 15:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting too long to read. As I see, there are two issues:

One user claims that the logo violates WP:NFCC#8 because it is fan-made, but the user hasn't provided any evidence that the logo is fan made. The logo appears to be used by the team itself and appears on the team's website. As long as the team uses the logo, I don't see why it would matter whether the logo is fan-made or not.

- Evidence? The only evidence that's needed is that this isn't an effing football club!!! This is a national team!! As I've already stated, it's also why the sport is called "association football". Especially when it comes to international play, national teams, such as this one, not only represent their country but they represent their association. Therefore, the only logo of the team is that of the association, in this it's the one of the Philippine Football Federation. Take a look at the source that HTD has provided in the article. It says that the broadcaster obtained a license to make and sell "official merchandise" that has an azkals logo on it. How can it be official, when those are unbranded and from where was this supposed license obtained from? Like I said, this isn't azkals football club where an azkals logo is THE logo of the team therefore a license needed to be obtained. It's not!! Any of those merchandise isn't anymore official than other merchandise that has a different azkals logo on it which you could search on Google Images. It's all fan made and has no significance!! What I'm also saying is that there are legitimacy issues here as well as to what HTD put in the article using the source he put to make it seem valid. Banana Fingers (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains two logos and there is no critical discussion about any of the logos. Per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, I think that this should be reduced to just one logo. As I don't know anything about the team, I don't know which logo to keep. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On your second point. You are right: There are 2 logos. The logo on the infobox is the one that appears on the kits as the badge, and is the official logo of the FA. The other one, on the "Names" section, is the one that is used on several TV broadcasts, and on apparel, "officially licensed" or not (there are still other logos used, but the image in the discussion is the one currently being used by the team). The logo on the "Names section" is critically discussed. The logo on the infobox isn't; with that said, most national football teams articles do not critically discuss the logo on the infobox. For example, Scotland national football team, an FA, does not discuss the two badges found on the text. –H T D 17:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, it may have been fan-made (I don't think I haven't disputed this), but it has been adopted by the team. Just like the "Azkals" nickname which was also "fan-made", which the nominator has also tried to remove from the article (see the talk page). –H T D 17:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On NFCC #3, this is not a case of one logo too many. As stated earlier, the logo on the infobox normally isn't discussed critically even on FAs. That mean it stays whether there is critical discussion of it or not. That leaves us now on the second logo (the one under discussion). As per NFCC #3, there had been instances of multiple different logos about one subject on one article that are allowed. For example, if there are two completely different logos used by an organization for a long time, they can be used on the article without violating NFCC #3; this is the case here. NFCC #3 ultimately prohibits the use of an identical logo repeatedly on one article (such as the same logo repeatedly on a "list of seasons" articles), or multiple different logos about multiple subjects (such as a gallery of logos of teams in a sports league). –H T D 17:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- It has been adopted by the team? lol!! For umpteenth time, this isn't azkals football club. Claiming that it's an official logo because you think it's been adopted by the team or it's been used on "official merchandise" is just dumb to say the least! This logo isn't anymore official or significant than any other azkals logo you'd find on the web and therefore doesn't belong! Banana Fingers (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess this Phil Younghusband pic would be convincing enough? Unless someone comes up with an Azkal with a T-shirt with another logo... –H T D 03:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal on closing admin/user. Once this is closed, and the file is kept, can an admin please protect the file page for like 3 months? This has been the third FFD in a month, and this actually started four days after the third FFD closed, which started 4 days after the second one ended. Banana Fingers, WP:AGF aside, would again nominate this file for deletion anew once this is kept. Of course if it's deleted protecting is moot. –H T D 17:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP - Taking quite a while really. Way too many issues here and should be deleted asap!! Banana Fingers (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are wondering why it takes so long time until the request is closed, this is probably because of WP:INVOLVED. An administrator who is involved (for example by commenting on or closing one of the four deletion discussions) is often not allowed to close the discussion. There are not that many administrators working in the file area, and most FFD nominations seem to be closed by either B (talk · contribs) or Diannaa (talk · contribs) who have already added comments to one or more of the discussions about this file. If there is no uninvolved administrator around, then there is no administrator who can close the discussion. Also please don't vote several times – you have already posted a delete vote above. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone can ask one of the admin noticeboards for a resolution. –H T D 03:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notice: I've notified WP:ANI about this already. –H T D 19:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So apparently, Banana Fingers has removed the part that presents why the logo is in the article. I thought it was an honest mistake on his part when he edited edits from an anon (as stated on his edit summary since even I screw up on reversions), but it did turn out that the subject of the edit was the removal of a well-cited passage no less, designed to delete the image (since, no passage = violation of NFCC #8). This is downright unacceptable and common courtesy would have him at least keep the passage until this discussion has been resolved. –H T D 19:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: Banana Fingers has reverted my restoration of the explanation why the image is there. If any decision would be citing NFCC #8, it has to be noted that the initiator of this discussion has edit warred to keep the explanation from being included in the article, hence the lack of contextual significance would be have to be decided as if the passage explaining why the logo has to be there is present when it currently isn't. –H T D 19:51, 27 April 2013 (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:SterlingRuby Painting SP181.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence given that uploader is copyright holder. Artiquities (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2013 (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:SterlingRubyCry.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence given that uploader is copyright holder. Artiquities (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2013 (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:SterlingRuby PublicArtwork.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence given that uploader is copyright holder. Artiquities (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2013 (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:Mortar-Fan's Mission 09.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence given that uploader is copyright holder. Artiquities (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2013 (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:Sterlingrubyactskkdethz.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence given that uploader is copyright holder. Artiquities (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2013 (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:Turbo Pascal 5.5 with Objects advertising poster.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If non-free, then this violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did email wikipedia after I received permission from the original owners - Embarcadero. What more must I do? Ggeldenhuys (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user marked the image as a fair use image, but the image doesn't meet the non-free content criteria. The e-mail you quoted doesn't mention any specific licence and the person who wrote the e-mail also questions whether he is authorised to grant any permission whatsoever. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The permission shown on the image description page is not sufficient. Except for images that comply with the fair use policy, the license must be a free content license like the GFDL or an acceptable Creative Commons license. The email pasted on the image description page is merely an acknowledgement of the existence of fair use. Unless this poster substantially increases the reader's understanding of the topic and lack of the poster is detrimental to that understanding, it would have to be deleted. --B (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand the million and one various licenses out there. The Embarcadero representative, Marco Cantù (Delphi Product Manager, Embarcadero Technologies) asked the legal department and they have the OK. He stated that as long as it used as "'fair use' of proprietary material". Now what specific license, in Wikipedia terms, that translates to, is beyond my skill level. I would appreciate it in you can recommend a Wikipedia approved license that fulfills the criteria Marco suggested. If you can't do that, then I give up and you can delete the image for all I care. Ggeldenhuys (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically Stefan2 is saying that unless Borland releases it as a free image, it cannot be used in the article. Currently it is a non-free image and he's arguing that as such it's not allowed in the article because it's an unnecessary image (debatable). So at this point, your best hope of using the image is to get Borland to follow through on that OTRS email. Plus look at the bright side... once that's done, you can use the full resolution image instead of that crappy scaled down version. – JBarta (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2013 (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:Acumen International.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo B (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2013 (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:N506477130 32228 6408.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, quality is too poor to be of use B (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2013 (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:N509593736 94888 7732.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, too blurry to be of encyclopedic use B (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2013 (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:Samkasman.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, poor quality photo of someone playing a guitar B (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2013 (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:N516743935 88489 515.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low-quality photo of someone playing a guitar. Filename indicates it came from Facebook, so license is questionable. B (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2013 (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:N6676D.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a funny (I guess?) publicity stunt wherein a car was lugged around New York by a helicopter. None of the three articles that use this photo even mention the incident in prose that I can tell and I can't fathom how this photo helps the reader understand Aviation in the New York metropolitan area, Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight, or New York Airways. B (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not contributing meaningfully to any of the three articles Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

This photograph is depicting a historically significant defunct airline and historically significant aircraft type.
New York Airways was the first Scheduled Air Service in the United States using helicopters.
The Boeing Vertol 107-II is a the original design that the CH-46 was derived from. The aircraft depicted is serial number 6 and Tab Number 8 off the Vertol construction line.
Aircraft N6676D was lost on October 14, 1983. ^[1] 76D's sister ships N6674D & 75D continue to fly as the highest flight time helicopters in the world exceeding 70,000 Hrs each.
Photo is depicting a historically significant civilian model of helicopter that only 8 were produced while thousands of the military variants (CH-46) are well recognized.
This photo is used to illustrate three articles not just one. Trashbag (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for multiple reasons:
- The image likely violates WP:NFCC#1 as you can probably find other copies of the same aircraft at museums or other places.
- The image violates WP:NFCC#8 as there is no critical discussion about the image in any of the articles.
- The image violates WP:NFCC#10a as it doesn't say where the image comes from. There is a footnote with a ^{[dead link‍]} but it seems that this footnote only is meant to be used as evidence for one of the claims on the file information page. It is unclear if the image comes from there or not.
- The image violates WP:NFCC#10c in all articles in which it was used. No article has its own unique FUR as mandated by WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2013 (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:N681675480 1070646 357.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, extremely blurry photo of some guy's girlfriend and Irwin Sparkes, which redirects to an article on the band he is a member of. This photo is of such incredibly poor quality that I can't imagine wanting to use it for Irwin Sparkes, even if we did have an article on him. B (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2013 (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:N768315692 1374145 1876.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2013 (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:Origin of the universe.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was used to illustrate Theory of supreme relativity, an article that was speedy deleted by criterion G1 (patent nonsense). It would not be useful in any legitimate article on cosmology. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the deletion is under review, so a decision on this file should be delayed until the review is done. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once the DRV has closed for the same reasons that the article was deleted: hopeless original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and note that the DRV is closed "Lets just say "G1 overturned and deleted as non-notable" based on a clear consensus at DRV and what there was of the AFD.". Those reasons apply here. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2013 (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:ViewMol3D Snapshot.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, only appears on advertisement article RememberThisAccountName (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2013 (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:Most-Often-Needed Series best known Supreme publication.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 if unfree. No idea if it might qualify for {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2013 (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:Supreme Publications AD in a Magazine.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2013 (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:Excerpt from Most-Often-Needed Radio Servicing 1926-38.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 if unfree. No idea if it might qualify for {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2013 (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:Excerpt from Practical Radio Math by Supreme Publications.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 if unfree. No idea if it might qualify for {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2013 (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:FromTelevision How It Works 1948 by John F. Rider.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not discussed critically. Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2013 (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.

^ SEA83FA009

[1] SEA83FA009

[1]