Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < February 6 | February 8 > |
|---|
February 7
[edit]
- 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Trend of KSE-100 index.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nomi887 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused graph of no real encyclopedic use Sreejith K (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/replace This was clearly created to go in either Karachi Stock Exchange or more particularly KSE 100 Index; I don't know why it was never added. There is no similar image in either article now. The one real issue I see is that it is rather dated: the last data point on it is over five years old. Given the article text it could be argued that the graph is misleading. I'm inclined to add it to the article in lieu of having no chart at all, but I'm open to other suggestions. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 01:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see the value of a chart this old for this topic. It's an auto-generated chart, obviously, so no one who wanted to make a new one would need the old one. Chick Bowen 20:49, 21 February 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.
- 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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Padamanabhapuram Palace king painting.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rrjanbiah (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Derivative work of a 2D artistic work. Is the original painting old enough to be in Public Domain? In that case this can be kept. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar image nominated for deletion at Commons. Discussion here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:03, 7 February 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.
- 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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sunil and Kuljeet in his old days.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Sunil and Kuljeet in his old days.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).
OR Amitpandey21 (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unused personal image. We aren't facebook. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:24, 7 February 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.
- 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 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Headless Chickens Body Blow 1993 album cover.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Robyn2000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since there already is a different cover there. Stefan2 (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Reasoning: Re 3a: Minimal usage - In the Infobox album template, in regards to how section 3 applies when adding an extra album cover, it notes that "An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion [for inclusion]." As far as I can tell, the image easily meets that requirement. Re 8: Contextual significance - There were two very different versions of the Body Blow album. The 1993 version (created for an Australian release) had a different track listing, new songs and had a totally new cover design to the 1991 version. By including the two different versions of the album cover, this helps demonstrate the differences between the two versions of the album. For an example of an almost identical situation on another page, please see the page for The Vines album Highly Evolved. It includes both the original album cover design and the one used on the American release. -- Robyn2000 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is not significantly different, but substantially similar to the other cover. Both covers show the same red hand, and the differences can easily be described in text. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The hand is a different shape and a different colour in each cover. 1991 is a blurry red and yellow hand, while 1993 is a sharp orange and yellow hand. The two album covers have a similar theme, but they are two quite different designs. Also, the 1993 album cover is rather abstract so a text description would not work as well as the photo. As an example of album page where two similarly themed (but not identical) album covers are included, please see Lady Gaga's Fame Monster. Surely the two Body Blow covers are more different from each other than the two Fame Monster covers. Robyn2000 (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Fame Monster looks like WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST to me. Compare with Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 25#File:BornToDieParadise.png / Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 12. That case is maybe not 100% identical, though, since there is a similar cover in a different article on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. It looks pretty different to me. Different cover, giving a different dominant image for the album in a different key market. That looks like a pretty prototypical case of when we do include an alternate cover. Therefore, keep. Jheald (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Alternative cover images that are significantly different from the original and are widely distributed pass WP:NFCC#3. Aspects (talk) 18:34, 12 February 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.
- 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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Sanja Stijačić (2004).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrija.b (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2013+February+7%23File%3ASanja+Stija%C4%8Di%C4%87+%282004%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
Apparent duplicate of File:Sanja Stijacic (2004).jpg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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.
- 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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pallu brhamani temple.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shemaroo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
What is it? Too blurry to be encyclopedic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as too low quality to be useful. Mangoe (talk) 18:14, 7 February 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.
- 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Swedish 20 Krona Obverse.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by P. S. Burton (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Used as a current 20 kr note, but it is not a current note. It is an older version which can't be used since the end of 2005. You can see an example of the old one here and the new one here. Apart from that, the image violates WP:NFCC#3a since it duplicates File:Collage SEK.png (which contains a new 20 kr note). Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment where did the collage come from? Wouldn't that one need to be deleted, since it is a collage of multiple fair-use images? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It says that the image comes from the central bank, although I can't find it there. If it does come from there, then I would assume that it was created with permission from the copyright holders (the individual artists) and then presumably count as a single image with regard to WP:NFCC#3a. Compare with the group photo suggestion at WP:NFLISTS. However, the problem is that I can't find it there, so I can't verify that it really does come from there. Anyway, this image needs to go away in either case, since it doesn't show what it is claimed to show (a current issue 20 kr note). --Stefan2 (talk) 09:37, 8 February 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.