Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

January 29

File:Royal Bhutan Army FC.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: Kept: The fair use rationale was wrong and so was the file usage, but this has now been corrected. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the uploader I incorrectly linked it to the wrong football team. It is now linked as the primary logo in the infobox of Royal Bhutan Army F.C. as per thousands of other football club logos. I have updated the FUR to reflect this. As an additional comment, it is very difficult to assume good faith with nominations that state a violation, but do not even begin to explain how such a violation occurred. You must see how such a nomination whether correct or not inherently begs the question and that expanding on your opinion with a logical arguement can only benefit the community? Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 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:Hanselisohot.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 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:Pitchperfectost.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, the soundtrack now has a stand-alone article. — ξ ^xplicit 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the guidelines articulated at MOS:FILM#Soundtrack; the film poster is sufficient. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The soundtrack is notable enough that it was split off from the film and now the image now passes WP:NFCC at Pitch Perfect (soundtrack). Aspects (talk) 04:33, 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.

File:Pitchperfectostpink.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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the guidelines articulated at MOS:FILM#Soundtrack; the film poster is sufficient. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though the soundtrack has now been split off into its new article at Pitch Perfect (soundtrack), this fails WP:NFCC#3a since it just has a different color background from the other album cover. Aspects (talk) 04:34, 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.

File:Perksostlogan.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 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:Perksscorelogan.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 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:Easyaostcover.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 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:La Motte Piquet Argyll Abraham Lincoln Persian Gulf 5.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of three warships transiting the Strait of Hormuz in January 2012. Unfortunately not PD-USGov (author is French navy.) Non-free use claimed because no free alternative of this specific encounter was found; however, it's still an NFCC#8 failure, as the scene can easily be understood adequately without it. We have free photographs of each of the three ships individually; readers don't need this specific photograph to process the information that the three sailed together on a specific day. Moreover, no case was made why, out of all ship movements in the context of the 2011–12 Strait of Hormuz dispute, this specific maneuvre is in particular need of being illustrated. There are, of course, plenty of free US navy photographs covering the activities of USS Abraham Lincoln and other units in the Persian Gulf during those weeks.

Also blatantly false boilerplate FUR ("For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 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:QRLogoSmall.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: keep and tag with {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Australia}}. — ξ ^xplicit 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actual and intended use of this non-free image fails WP:NFCC#8. The omission of this image would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of a railway station. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that it is non-free. It would probably pass as {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Australia}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have written permission from Queensland Rail to use the logo freely on Wikipedia. TravellerQLD ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I have a real feeling either way as to whether this is simple enough to be PD, but if it isn't, then we would need more than just permission to use the image on Wikipedia -- it would need to be released under a free license following the steps outlined at WP:CONSENT. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, I don't think Queensland Rail really cares one way or the other if their logo is used on Wikipedia. It's not doing anything bad to their company; it's hardly doing anything at all. It's a really tiny little logo made of some lines. I'd say it'd pass for PD. TravellerQLD ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:52, 2 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.

File:Debut.Cov.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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates the footnote to WP:NFCI §1. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The media template has been updated, and in any case, reading the said footnote, the image appears to meet the inclusion criteria (critical commentary on work illustrated by image). Refusecollection (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, in exactly which way is this a cover illustration which is not in use in the article about the author? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do beg your pardon, I've just re-read the footnote. The misunderstanding is entirely my own, it looks like there is no possible justification for keeping the image. Unless someone can advise otherwise.Refusecollection (talk) 23:15, 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:Letter.Accoyer.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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates the footnote to WP:NFCI §1. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The media template has been updated, and in any case, reading the said footnote, the image appears to meet the inclusion criteria (critical commentary on work illustrated by image). Refusecollection (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, in exactly which way is this a cover illustration which is not in use in the article about the author? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is exactly the type of usage that the guideline is meant to prevent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Stefan2 and Fut.Perf, as per my message above (re:Debut.cov.) I do believe I misread the said footnote. Please excuse me for my previous message. It seems there is no justification for inclusion of this image unless someone can advise otherwise.Refusecollection (talk) 23:18, 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:Harry Caray Monument2.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. I don't see why removal of this image would affect the understanding of the article. Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 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:Pokkuveyil.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random picture of three people. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a screenshot from a 1981 movie. No posters or CD covers available now to be used in the infobox. --Sreejith K (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So then the infobox shouldn't contain any image at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One free image is permitted if it can help the understanding of the article. This image meets WP:NFCC#8 by all means. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; screenshots need to be individually justified and motivated on the basis of analytical discussion in the article; this one isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The uploader's rationale that "No posters or CD covers available for this old film" seems legitimate. The photo depicts the main characters of the film (and in the film) and not just random people. -- Tinu Cherian - 03:14, 3 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.

File:1999 Armenian parliament shooting.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. As it has been pointed out, WP:NFCC#8 requires non-free content to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The keep arguments did not adequately address this concern. — ξ ^xplicit 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even see what's going on on the photo. In which way is this supposed to increase the understanding of the subject of the article, as required by WP:NFCC#8? Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can clearly see the 3 men with rifles and all parliament members lying on the floor. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, I can't see that at all, certainly not clearly. And even if I could, it would be doubtful if the image would offer me significantly more information than a well-crafted verbal description of the event could. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at it now. I think it is now bright enough to see what's going on. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no difference. Those dark spots in the aisle could be bags or coats left lying around; or they could be dead bodies or injured people or merely people ducking for cover. The guy behind the desk could be holding a broomstick for all I know. You can understand what's going on if you already know what's going on. To the reader who is new to the topic, it doesn't aid understanding in any way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your subjective opinion. It doesn't matter what you or I see or don't see there. That shooting is a major historical event and I don't think it's my or your job to judge the quality of the image.--Երևանցի ^talk 23:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with anything? I'm judging neither the quality of the image nor the importance of the event, but the degree to which the image helps me, as a reader, to understand the event, and that is exactly our job here hat FFD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining what kind of image can not be possibly replaced by text? Except art works. Why don't you just delete all the free-rational images from here? And, for instance, how does this image help the reader "to understand the event"? --Երևանցի ^talk 23:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the image is of high significance and shows (to some level) what was going on there --Երևանցի ^talk 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete "for visual identification of subject of article" doesn't seem like a good rationale to me in this case. If there were something iconic about this frame I could see fair-use, but it seems to have been picked simply because you can see a gunman. Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image depicts a major historical event in action. This event was tragic in consequence since many ministers and high ranking members of the Armenian government were killed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter for WP:NFCC#8 how important the historical event was. The only thing that matters is how much the image contributes to understanding it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - you might wanna nominate this one as well --Երևանցի ^talk 23:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - And? I'm still waiting... --Երևանցի ^talk 04:26, 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.

File:Rain bearing clouds.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 ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:53, 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:Rain Car.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value, no longer at the source given, the source given doesn't seem to indicate any CC licensing Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Along with the copyright issues there is no clue as to what this might have been for. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Copyright violation of http://dsandler.org/wp/archives/2005/07/08/rain-2 --Sreejith K (talk) 21:32, 5 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.

File:Rahuleaswar.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 ⚡ 00:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dubious own work (web-resolution publicity-type shot) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy vio from http://www.rahuleaswar.com/ --Sreejith K (talk) 20:59, 4 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.

File:Rahuleswar black.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 ⚡ 00:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dubious own work (web-resolution publicity-type shot) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same image as File:Rahuleaswar.JPG. The shirt color modified trivially by some image editor. --Sreejith K (talk) 21:00, 4 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.