Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 2

< January 1	January 3 >

January 2

File:2008 Ducati 848 Showroom 250x254.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, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused scaled down duplicate of File:2008 Ducati 848 Showroom.jpg. Cloudbound (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete assuming there are no issues with the larger version. Mangoe (talk) 15:46, 2 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:My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.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 01:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cover looks too inappropriate to be used on Wikipedia. If someone could upload a blurred version, I would appreciate it. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's inappropriate in a drawing on a cover of an existing album? What is there to blur? Are we going to censor everything on Wikipedia? Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep as WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, the cover art is discussed in the article. Mangoe (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep That stays and I like it where it belongs! 22dragon22burn (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cover art is discussed in the article as being significant to the release, so there is a clear pass of the NFCC criteria (although I'd prefer it if this and the alternate cover were displayed closer to the section where they are discussed, this is not a reason to delete either). As for the blurring, Wikipedia is not censored and so there is no reason to. Using a derivative, blurred version would (by my understanding) invalidate the fair use rationale and thus be unusable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 7 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:Carson Daly Clock.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, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is used to depict "Carson's Countdown". It's no different from a standard clock shown on TV, so I believe it fails NFCC #8. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The section in the article which this illustrates seems to me to be belaboring the obvious. In any case I would agree that the exact appearance of the countdown clock is unremarkable and doesn't need illustration. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I say take it away because we have it on television already and after all, it is part of the program. 22dragon22burn (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the image is not presently used on any articles, and the word "clock" is not used at all in the article since user:ViperSnake151 removed the section with this edit on 5 January. Even if the section were restored, the clock could be adequately described by noting that "the current time is shown by a digital clock with white figures on a blue background which appears in the lower-right corner of the screen. The sponsor's logo appears below the clock." and even that is probably too much detail. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 7 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:Mancub.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, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file left over from Mancub, an article about a music project by solo artist Ben Hutson (who is presumably the subject of the photo), but who tragically died in a car accident some years ago. The copyright of the image is not in dispute, but as sad as it was, the article was deleted per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and failure to pass WP:NMUSIC, meaning the image has no use unless there is a realistic possibility that the article will be re-created and meet relevant policies - in which case I will happily move it to Commons as free images of the deceased can be very difficult to get hold of. I welcome second opinions. CT Cooper · talk 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete As unusable. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 3 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:Marijuana red eyes.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, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan/CV Etherealstains (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is an orphan image that is currently not used in any articles. Furthermore, though the submitter of this image, Uplink3r claims to be the author of this image, yet it was used without the subject's permission. I know this because I am the subject of the image. Plenty of people have plenty of embarrassing moments captured on film, but most of their friends do not go about uploading them to wikipedia for fun.

delete' I can find no evidence that this was ever used. Given the supposed subject's claim, even if it isn't true, I don't see a reason to keep this. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Unusued and I can see no reason to doubt the nominator's assertion that the uploader's claim of permission is not true. If an image is needed it should not be too difficult for a higher quality image to be produced/found as marijuana use is legal in some jurisdictions/circumstances. Thryduulf (talk)

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:Serendipity (sountrack).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, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is almost similar to the film's trailer poster. Free context makes this image unnecessary and redundant, as the cover has artists' names. Attempts to convince the person, who uploaded this image as non-free, into not objecting removal of this image is unsuccessful. Also, cover arts of film soundtracks are discussed in WT:NFC. In this case, this image has to go; even different covers of the non-notable soundtrack won't do justice. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete We have a standing policy of not keeping soundtrack covers when they are essentially the same as poster art. Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This image does not add anything to the understanding of the article when the film poster is already present in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll go with everyone on this! 22dragon22burn (talk) 14:45, 7 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.