Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 27

< January 26	January 28 >

January 27

File:Stephanie.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 ⚡ 03:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File isn't low resolution (although could be adjusted), however the low res (and older) File:Stephanie 1.jpg adequately depicts the subject. Fails WP:NFCC minimal use requirement. kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC in that there is a similar quality and lower resolution image available. Aspects (talk) 07:47, 29 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:Bess-Armstrong-in-HOUSE-OF-LIES-Episode-2 01-Stochasticity.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 ⚡ 03:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary unfree (and not especially low-res) image of a fairly non-notable character from the show House of Lies. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 08:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also fails WP:NFCC#8. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 04:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An image of one character on the show's article fails WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 07:49, 29 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:Accel World anime BD volume 1 cover.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 ⚡ 03:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear in which way a scan of a BD cover is supposed to increase the understanding of a list of episodes. This seems to fail WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8 that does not increase understanding of the article especially since according to the rationale this cover only covers three of the twenty-two episodes. Aspects (talk) 07:52, 29 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:Fox International Channels Logo.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 ⚡ 03:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is already have File:New FIC logo.png and this file is no longer needed. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC#1 since there is a commons version. Aspects (talk) 07:53, 29 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:LCA, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.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 F9 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to freely released by its creator Google! Google image search used as source points to here, a copyrighted blog, and the photo shows a clear copyright watermark - no evidence that the photo actually has been released under a free licence by the actual creator or copyright owner Nigel Ish (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image has a copyright watermark and no indication from the copyright releasing it into the public domain. Also the Google image result states "Image may be subject to copyright." Aspects (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I usually treat images mistagged as "author=Google" and "{pd-author|Google}" as automatic copyvio speedy candidates. Google is never the author of an image, and never places anything into the public domain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 29 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:MS LUDWIG XV 13.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 ⚡ 03:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A much higher-resolution version of this smae image now exists on the commons at commons:file:Getty Ms. Ludwig XV 13 28v - Fiore dei Liberi - Combat with Sword - Google Art Project (6897665).jpg, and the only article to use this file (Fiore dei Liberi) has been edited accordingly. Michael Chidester (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as superseded. Mangoe (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFCC#1 since there is a commons version. Aspects (talk) 07:56, 29 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:Shooting Gallery 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 as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very low quality. Too small to read anything other than the title. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete away, or better still, do something actually constructive and upload a slightly higher resolution image if your only complaint is that it's too small. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted under G7, since The Rambling Man voted in favor of deletion. Someone please upload a higher-resolution image; the low-resolution requirement isn't meant to require that images be so small that they're useless. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 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:Prince Michael of Kent at LSBF Ceremony.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 F11 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some unclear reason, a user is apparently changing all {{subst:npd}} images into unfree images. This image has no chance of passing WP:NFCC#8 and it is not a "unique historical image" as currently stated. Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should have been tagged with {{orfud}}, which would have gotten it deleted for a different but equally-valid reason. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete {{orfud}} Is really inappropriate given the "orphan to delete" edit that removed it, but I would agree that image is unnecessary. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that this image was in use somewhere when I nominated it for deletion and that this was why I didn't just tag it with {{subst:orfud}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone else orphaned it giving NFCC#8 as a justification. Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be nice to keep images in articles during deletion discussions since it is otherwise harder to check where the image is used and thus harder to determine whether it qualifies for fair use or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fair use image of a living person is not needed since the event is not significant and there is already a commons image for identification. Aspects (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've returned the tagging to the original (claimed free by original uploader, permission lacking, will be speedied tomorrow in the absence of OTRS.) The non-free use claim is obviously bogus and would also still leave the file liable to speedy deletion (no FUR; obviously false non-free tag, orphaned). I really can't imagine why SFan Img, who is normally a decently competent image tagger, has gone rogue during the last few days in this way. Will speedy-close this FFD once the speedy has run its course; there's really no need to discuss this as a serious NFC candidate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 29 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:Edith Hatcher Harcum.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 ⚡ 03:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some unclear reason, a user is apparently changing all {{subst:npd}} images into unfree images. This image has no chance of passing WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's marginally helpful, but nowhere near enough to justify a fair use claim. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
on the fence All this is going to depend on whether it is held helpful to have a picture of the foundress and sometime president of Harcum College included in the college's article. Since she is not independently notable there's no chance of her having her own article where a NFCC#8 rationale would certainly stick. I also wish the nominator would give something like a reason for his nominations instead of expressing his opinion of the likely outcome of the discussion. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (conditionally, unless PD status or some other free status can be substantiated). In an unfathomable move, Sfan00 IMG first re-tagged this file (which had been claimed as free by its original uploader) as non-free, adding a FUR, but then just an hour later orphaned it as an NFCC#8 violation. That means he must himself have felt the FUR was wrong – but why then did he not remove it again? This just makes no sense, no matter from which side you look at it. – Agree with others above that an NFCC#8 case is impossible to make as long as the subject is not the topic of substantial biographical coverage in her own right (be it in an article of her own or at least as a subtopic of the other article.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 29 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:Poster from Outrage the movie (2009).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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree A better reason than NFCC#8 (which I disagree with as the article it was used on is a bio page about the main subject of the documentary - so clearly relevant to that individual's article) - is that it is a duplicate of File:Outrage documentary poster.jpg --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 21:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the duplicate issue. It would help if the nominator were to clarify how it fails NFCC#8 (what was done at File:Accel World anime BD volume 1 cover.jpg would be helpful here) instead of leaving us to guess what's meant. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of being a duplicate image. Aspects (talk) 08:05, 29 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:Webster collegiate 11.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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has no chances of passing WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like a logo, this image helps the reader to identify the subject of the text (in this case, a section of Webster's Dictionary discussing Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary), and because this is the latest edition of the book, it will aid identification in a way that no previous edition (whether PD or not) would be able to do. The image doesn't have a non-free rationale, so I don't particularly understand why this was nominated. This nomination can't result in deletion before the time it would have been deleted with {{orfud}}, but if we keep it, it will be immune from speedy deletion (see the top of WP:CSD) despite its lack of a rationale. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I've made updates, like adding rationale. --George Ho (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Need an actual deletion rationale here rather than waving "NFCC#8" like a word of power. And surely the cover of the most commonly seen modern edition of a book still in print is something that should be in that book's article! Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above. I was thinking that simply adding a rationale would've fixed it, which is why I posted it in Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review rather than calling WP:CSD#F9. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be minded to keep, with a suitable non-free rationale. Webster's Collegiate dictionary is a significant cultural touchstone, and this is the place in the encyclopedia that we cover it. If we gave the book an article of its own, nobody would think twice about the article having an image. In this case, it makes sense to treat Webster's Collegiate in the same place as the original Webster's. But it seems to me the rationale that would apply if it was in its own article -- namely that showing how the book is presented and promoted adds to reader understanding of it -- is similarly relevant here. Webster's Collegiate is a significant subject in its own right, and therefore I think this image does indeed possess the required contextual significance. Jheald (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (As previously posted WP:NFCR discussion Jheald (talk) 19:04, 1 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.