Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20

File:TK--Cossack on Trooper--DATE-STAMPED--357x495.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on a articles for creation page denied for being not notible :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC} 03:19, 20 January 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:2 San Francisco Police Officers talking to a civilian.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, plenty of better images available :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC} 03:39, 20 January 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:2000VTpres.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, a better image is used instead:Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC} 04:15, 20 January 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:German Speed Limit Sign.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:Zeichen 393.svg (ineligible for F8 due to different file format) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:47, 20 January 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:Xplore G18.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free product photograph of a 2004 smartphone, replaceable with free alternatives. Di-replaceable was declined in 2007 on the argument that this model was never actually sold in the US; however, the article also states that it did become available elsewhere, in Hong Kong, so free alternatives are possible. Pictures in fact exist out on the web, e.g. [1], [2]. Nothing in the article makes it necessary to display specifically the North American version of the product rather than the existing Asian ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 20 January 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:Whiskeytown Adams Cary.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of two country singers who were part of a now defunct band in the 1990s. Di-replaceable was declined in 2007 on the argument that the band no longer exists. However, this is not a complete band lineup photograph anyway, but only shows two important members of it; as such, it fulfills essentially the function of just two separate individual portraits, and in this function it is replaceable. Both individuals have free photographs in their own separate articles already. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 20 January 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:USS Kentucky (BBG-1) concept artwork.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free painting of an uncompleted historic US battleship. Not used to support commentary on the artwork, but merely to illustrate "what the ship would have looked like" if it had been completed. In this function it is obviously replaceable with somebody else's artwork that might yet be created. Replaceability tag was declined in 2007 on the erroneous grounds that making such a replacement would be difficult because it would require artistic talent; however, according to longstanding policy and multiple precedents this is quite irrelevant. Replaceability does not require that it be easy or that anyone could do it, merely that it could be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So do it and then get back to us. In the mean time, keep on the aforementioned erroneous grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, that's not how it works. We delete non-free images as soon as we know that they could be replaced, not only when we know that they have been replaced. Like it or not, that's our policy here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic then all fair use images should be axed since anyone can recreate the images, yet we still accept non free fair use images here. In the case of this particular statement, I mean this as an observation of the process as a whole, not as a reason for why this image should be kept. Also, (and again I know that this is "not your problem", since no one here - and that includes me - ever bothers to go that extra mile) why is is that the people who always claim that a free version could be created never bother to do so before deleting the existing images? It can not be that hard to have the replacement up first before you axe the non free image currently displayed, can it? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on several counts. (1) No, not all fair-use images could be axed – the really good ones, i.e. those where the artistic work of the creator is itself the object of encyclopedic coverage, are irreplaceable by the very nature of their purpose. (2) I, personally, do sometimes go the extra mile (making this one was quite a bit of work, I can assure you), but I reserve the right to do that if and when I feel like it. (3) The policy on replaceability was very conciously designed the way it is – not least because if we had the luxury of waiting until a replacement existed, most editors would never realize the need for one, so the incentive to actually make one would be much lower. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the "can" question is a trick question - we "can" delete all the fair use images for the reasons I stated, so the question wasn't "can we", it was "will we", to which your reply outlines the reasons why we will not pursue such a course of action. As to the other point I raised: if you do in fact endevour to find a free alternative before deleting the non free varient then you are man among men, and for that I salute you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No free alternative exists, or can be expected by a reasonable person to exist at any time in the foresseable future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your criteria of what is reasonably possible are seriously out of line with this project's policy. It would take a lot less effort, training and talent to create an acceptable drawing of an Iowa-class battleship with some hypothetical extra rocket launchers, than it would take to, let's say, produce a decent performance of a Beethoven string quartet. But even in the case of the Beethoven string quartet, we wait for somebody willing to go to the trouble of donating a free recording, rather than going the lazy route and claiming fair use on a commercial one. In the case of this artwork, there isn't even a need for anything artistically as elaborate as the present item – any simple line drawing would do, and as for the shape of the hypothetical additions, our conjectures of what they might have looked like are just as good as those of this artist (who doesn't even count as a reliable source about the factual accuracy of such details). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considering that users have contributed images like File:Ise1944.png and even File:Yamato1945.png, its hard to argue that someone making that kind of drawing would be completely unrealistic.--Staberinde (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment those ships existed, while this ship was only a concept. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what? If that artist can figure out what it would have looked like, so can somebody else (as in: you or me). If you're gonna argue that you or me figuring out what it would have looked like would be original research, then I'll argue that this artist's figuring it out is not a reliable source, so it's the same issue. Basically, according to the original plans, it would have looked more or less exactly as its sister ships, and as for the hypothetical post-war conversions, no concrete plans were ever made and not even sketches of if survive, so it's pure speculation – and there is really no reason why we would want to have a picture of it in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - So now you're saying it isn't replaceable by us, because we aren't allowed to draw a replacement? Mangoe (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, what I'm saying is that the present image is of very low encyclopedic information value (presenting a piece of non-notable speculation from a non-reliable source) and therefore has only a very weak claim on passing NFCC#8, while any free replacement we could make would be of equally low encyclopedic information. Replacing something worthless with something equally worthless is still a legitimate replacement as far as NFCC#1 goes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm afraid I'm going to have to go along with the above arguments. Given that the original artist was able to make an image of a purely hypothetical ship, it's not unreasonable that one of us might do so in his stead. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question, Is this rendering an artifact of the actual navy guided missile battleship project? (and therefore historically irreplaceable) Or is it simply warship fan-art, which could be recreated by anyone who's good at painting ships? (If the latter, can its accuracy even be verified? If not, it has no encyclopedic value anyway.) APL (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the latter. Just some enthusiast who makes some money painting battleships [3]. As for accuracy, apparently there were quite a number of competing proposals for re-fitting either this ship or its sister ships, and it's not quite clear to me which of these the painting is meant to illustrate. The only other illustrations I've found are line drawings of some slightly later design proposals [4], but those seem to have been made when Kentucky was already scrapped and were targetted at other ships of the same class, as far as I understand. (I don't think the painting matches either of them.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unofficial, noncontemporaneous imagining of what the project might have looked like if a failed proposal had been implemented doesn't strike me as so helpful to a reader as to meet our NFCC criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The painting seems to have been based solely on guesswork by the artist. It seems that the painting doesn't provide more value to the encyclopædia than original research by some random Wikipedia contributor, so it can safely be replaced by that without losing any information (although it is better not to have any image if we can't represent the vessel in an accurate way). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 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:Traveler rick dyer promo picture.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a person showing an apparatus he has invented. Fails NFCC#8: the scene shown tells us nothing crucial either about the apparatus (an arcade machine) nor about the person. The machine is hardly discernible in the photo, and as a picture of the person it could obviously be replaced by a free portrait. Nothing in the article depends on seeing the precise gesture with which he is pointing to the machine, or his facial expression in doing so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 20 January 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:Korg OT-120 Orchestral tuner.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously replaceable non-free photograph of a commercial electronic device. Replaceability tag was declined in 2009 on the erroneous argument that the device is relatively rare, which is obviously bogus. It's a normal device that you can buy for about 70 USD at Walmart. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 20 January 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:Imii micro21.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a medical apparatus from the 1990s. Replaceability tag declined in 2008 on the mistaken argument that the company that produced these no longer exists. However, the machines do exist and are still in use. Photographs of surviving items abound on the net (e.g. [5], [6]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 20 January 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:City of Jenin and refugee camp.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free satellite photo of a town in the early 2000's, used to illustrate article about a battle that took place in the town. Replaceability tag removed in 2008 on the erroneous argument that the town changed as parts of the area shown were destroyed in the battle. Nevertheless, the same information could obviously be conveyed by a free, self-created map. The image is used merely for showing the overall geographic structure of the area; nothing in the article hinges on any specific photographic detail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 20 January 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:White-lipped keelback.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a snake. Obviously replaceable (used to illustrate article on an extant – albeit presumably rare – species); deletion was declined in 2007 on the erroneous argument that we have a "for-Wikipedia-only" permission for it, which is obviously irrelevant for assessing the replaceability issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 20 January 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:April 2006 Granville Reroute.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free map diagram displaying a temporary diversion scheme of urban bus lines during construction work. Obviously replaceable with a free map that could be created (and would actually be preferable, since to the non-local reader the present map hardly makes it clear how the lines were actually changed.) It might also be questioned whether the whole topic is notable enough for the article anyway; it's just a routine and temporary public transport measure. Replaceability tag was declined in 2007 for reasons that remain quite incomprehensible to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 20 January 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:Gnantlifecast.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a person sitting in a car with a camera and laptop, used to illustrate the concept of "lifecasting". Replaceability tag was declined on obviously false grounds in 2007, because at that time the person in question was still pursuing this activity, so a free photograph of her during it could still have been created at the time, even if none existed then. As of 2013, she has apparently stopped lifecasting, but there is still an obvious NFCC#8 failure here: we do not need to see a photograph of her in her car with a camera to understand the information that she carried cameras with her in her car. There is also no tangible argument why of all people who have ever done lifecasting, this particular person is in special need of having an illustration in the article. (There are other, free images illustrating lifecasts of other people.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 20 January 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:Jesse Ilao.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, personal artwork by uploader who only made a few edits in 2006; no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 20 January 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:Iracruise2.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very small, low quality picture of an unidentified person (probably Ira Mathur). Orphaned, likely copyright violation. Was originally uploaded with self-contradictory tags, describing it as both "own work" and "non-free". Uploader only made two edits in 2007. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 20 January 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:Mi-35p.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photographs of military helicopters in Sri Lanka, used in article about Sri Lankan airforce. Replaceability tag was declined in 2008 on the erroneous argument that photography in military areas is restricted; while this may be true, we have plenty of free images of the same type of helicopter elsewhere (see commons:Category:Mil Mi-35M), which could serve as illustrations just as well. It is not necessary to have an image specifically of helicopters owned by this force in order to understand the information that this force also owns some of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an essential part of the article and could be removed with any detriment. Also it could be replaced others have taken Mi-35 images in Sri Lanka (at least one on airliner.net) MilborneOne (talk) 23:57, 20 January 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:Marilyn Curzon at BCS YPG AGM,2005.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality, non-free photograph of a speaker at a conference, used in article about the organization that hosts the conference. Replaceability tag was declined in 2007 on the mistaken grounds that it was taken at a "one-time event". While this particular speech was certainly held only once, that is not what the image is used to illustrate; it's just a generic image of some random speech by some random person in an event that happens every year. No case was brought forward that this particular speech, or even just this particular yearly conference, was particularly in need of illustration, let alone what unique information the image contributed towards understanding it. Thus an obvious NFC failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Just someone addressing a conference. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 20 January 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:Newspaper-ceasefire.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frontpage of a newspaper with a headline reporting on an historic event, used in article about that event. Not used to support commentary on the newspaper publication itself, hence obviously false use of {{Non-free newspaper image}}. Replaceability tag was declined in 2008, but it could of course be replaced with textual coverage (including a quotation of the headline), if needed. Purely decorative use; obvious NFCC#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Patent NFCC failure. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 27 January 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:Novomoskovsk, Russian Submarine, on duty.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a submarine. Replaceability tag was declined in 2008 on the grounds that a replacement might be "too difficult" to come by. However, we do have free images of exactly identical sister ships (see commons:Category:Delta-IV class submarines and Delta class submarine). No case was brought forward why (1) if free images of K114 are possible, free images of K407 are not; and (2) why the article can't be illustrated with an image of an identical sister ship anyway. We don't need to have images of every single ship of this class to understand what they look like, when they all look the same, so this one is a clear NFCC#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not in commons and the author has granted right to use on WP. Wouldn't it make more sense to follow up with the image's author if there are concerns?

No identical naval vessels are completely identical. A photo of my doppelganger is still a picture of someone else, not me. As long as there is no fully-free image, I support retention of the current image. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A license "for Wikipedia only" is of no relevance under WP:NFCC, especially not when it comes to NFCC#1 and #8. Of course, if somebody managed to talk the author into upgrading his license into a fully free one, that would be fine. As for the tiny details that might distinguish this vessel from its sister ships, they are not discussed in the article and not of relevance to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 21 January 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:Czech RM70 05.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a rocket-launching vehicle during a firing exercise. We have several higher-quality free images of the same type of vehicle. Replaceability tag was declined in 2008 on the grounds that (a) it shows a slightly different sub-type, and (b) it shows it in a situation (launching its rockets) where the public normally has no access. While both claims are true, we still have an NFCC#8 failure: (a) whatever differences exist between this subtype of the vehicle and the others in the free photographs, this provides us with no visual information about them, because the photo is far too small to show any details, and (b) we don't need an illustration of the firing in order to understand how it works (the only thing this image tells me is that when you fire it, some fire and smoke comes out, which is trivial.) The image caption says something about the speed of firing, but that is of course not something the image can convey, certainly not better than text can. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unnecessary considering presence of other, better images. It would be nice to have an image of the unit in use but it's hardly necessary. Mangoe (talk) 18:56, 20 January 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:Truda5.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a tram station, obviously replaceable. Deletion was declined in 2007 on the grounds that it allegedly showed an historical, non-recoverable state of the building. However, the change between then (early 2000s) and now is quite minor and entirely trivial – apparently an entrance sign in Russian has been replaced with an Ukrainian one. This is obviously easy to cover in words. Moreover, the historic change is not even the subject of the article at the point it is used. It's now in the infobox of the article about the station, an existing present-day structure, so a free photograph showing the present-day state would not only be acceptable, but actually far superior as a replacement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I would agree that a historical photograph isn't necessary and that a more current image could be obtained. Mangoe (talk) 18:58, 20 January 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:Fallon2.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: closed

revert to older version? Previous version [7] used a different version of this image which likely had different permissions. Mangoe (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they'd both obviously be non-free, and they are both currently orphaned. The article now has a duplicate of this file, uploaded by the same editor who made this nomination. Closing this FFD as lacking a deletion reason, deleting the recent revision as an unused duplicate, tagging the old revision as {{orfud}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 21 January 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:1969 Ford LTD Country Squire.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 ⚡ 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a car from 1969, obviously replaceable. Deletion was declined in 2007 on the grounds that surviving cars of this type would be "very hard to find" and that "one can't just walk into a random parking lot and have any chance of seeing one of these". However, this is far from the threshold of non-replaceability dictated by our policy. Replacements don't have to be trivially easy; they just have to be possible. A Google search proves that multiple items of this type still exist and can be photographed (there are at least a dozen on Flickr alone, though unfortunately none of them freely licensed at this point.) We also have free photographs of near-identical models from multiple other years (1967, 1968, 1973), so why would the 1969 ones be impossible to come by? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was one of a set of two very similar items which were kept by the same admin at the same time and on the same rationale. The other was immediately challenged and deleted at FFD, at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 June 25#Image:1972 Custom Cruiser.jpg, where even the admin himself spoke in favour of deletion. Don't know why this one slipped through at the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No showing that an image for this model year is essential for the section on this "generation" when a free image from another year is available. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 27 January 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.