Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 October 28

< October 27	October 29 >

October 28

File:Tnd900's Dog.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 -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 02:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that this is a photo of the uploader, but it is blurry and doesn't look useful. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 29 October 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:Toasted sandwich.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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned food picture. Kelly ^hi! 02:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per F8 as this is quite a good photograph so I've moved it to Wikimedia Commons! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Acather96: Please move files to Commons using CommonsHelper so that other people don't have to spend as much time on cleaning up bad moves. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Stefan2: Hi Stefan2: I'm familiar with the Move to Commons script and frequently use it, but it wouldn't work on this file, hence I moved it manually. I haven't moved files to Commons manually for a while, so this explain the discrepancies on the file page. Sorry! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:15, 11 December 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:VirtualAcorn 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 -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 11:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file that does not fulfill WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Article already has File:Emu running emu.jpg, a screenshot. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (uploader, but not article creator) Fair enough. I'd missed the guidelines about software cover art - sorry. Now replaced with File:VirtualAcorn logo.png, which has a different source and is cleaner than cropping the cover file currently up for deletion. -- Trevj (talk) 13:28, 30 October 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:Tongs1.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: Speedy delete per CSD#F8. I've restored the higher resolution version and copied that across to Commons. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 03:28, 28 October 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:Topheadnew2.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: Speedy delete as a derivative work incorporating copyright violations, per CSD#F9. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo. Kelly ^hi! 03:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:51, 9 December 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:Tortillasbay2breakers2007.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: Speedy delete per CSD#F8. I've copied this across to Commons, as I believe is has potential value as a rather unusual image. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unencyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 03:45, 28 October 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:Skullgirls screenshot.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. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--this screenshot isn't discussed critically and conveys nothing that can't be conveyed with free text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep - It is permissible to add one gameplay screenshot to demonstrate aspects of the game - such as gameplay elements and art style - that could not be described. One screenshot in video game articles is very standard, though this image needs to be reduced by about 40-50% to better comply with FUR guidelines. --Teancum (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful for illustrating the gameplay. — Mr. V (t – c) 06:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The screenshot is showing gameplay that is allowed in a sourced section about the gameplay. Aspects (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In that case, how is File:Skullgirls screenshot 2.png also justified for use within Skullgirls? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this or File:Skullgirls screenshot 2.png, but not both - Per Teancu,, one screenshot is the standard and no exception seems to apply to this article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:08, 6 January 2014 (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:Hush Puppies and Fish.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 -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 16:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I took this photo back in 2006 with a crappy pre-smartphone camera phone. If no other public domain image is available, I'll make a new one. -- Big Brother 1984 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 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:Hype energy line.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: Speedy delete, per CSD#F9. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned product image. Kelly ^hi! 16:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least one third seems to be a copyright violation.[1] --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 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:Hüß.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unencyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless this depicts a famous guitarist (the summary text seems to refer to a guitarist) - unlikely, I know! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:12, 19 December 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:Icy-Drink.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 -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned product image. Kelly ^hi! 16:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, possible copyright concerns as well? Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:52, 9 December 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:"SPaliwal.jpg".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 per nom, also previous promotional content at User:Santosh Paliwal (SPaliwal). -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 11:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo - WP:NOTWEBHOST. Acather96 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 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:Tampa Snow.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image is replaceable, despite rarity of snow in Florida. There are other suitable images, like File:Snowballing.jpg or File:Jacksonville Snow 2.jpg. George Ho (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may be free images of other snow events in Florida, but there is no known free images of the Tampa event as far as I am aware and this is used in the Tampa article.--Jorfer (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this {{PD-FLGov}}? If unfree, then it violates WP:NFCC#10c. The FUR doesn't contain all necessary components and it is not clear which single article it refers to as four different articles are listed. As explained in WP:NFCC#10c, a FUR can't apply to more than one article. I also suspect that it is replaceable as it is probably possible to dig up some government photo ({{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-FLGov}}). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think their are two questions here. On whether it is replaceable or not, User:Zeng8r obviously thinks it is not so I would like to see him weigh in. On whether it needs to have non fair use explanations on it, I think we would all say yes, but that is easily fixed if we can answer the first question. Everyone is in agreement that we have no indication that it is not copyrighted.--Jorfer (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment It's been quite difficult to find a replacement for this photo, it's used in exactly three very relevant articles (Snow in Florida, Climate of the Tampa Bay area, and the weather section of Tampa, Florida), and it probably falls under {{PD-FLGov}}, making it a free photo. But who cares about using Wikipedia guidelines and common sense? Once the Anti-Fair Use Deletion Brigade is on the case, valid reasons to keep it are rendered moot, and the photo in question will be deleted. Have fun ripping up the icy carcass, eager AFUDBs. Zeng8r (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't seem to be a PD image.[2] Even though it's not snowed in Tampa since 1977, the rationale isn't for an article titled Snow in Tampa - and if it were to be used there, it's arguable that an alternative existing photo could at some point be released by the photographer for such use. I agree that File:Jacksonville Snow 2.jpg can be used as appropriate without worry of flouting NFCC. -- Trevj (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image from Climate of the Tampa Bay area and Tampa, Florida, per NFCC#3b. This doesn't mean I think use within Snow in Florida is OK, just that I think we need consensus on it because it seems to be the least unjustified case and is in a prominent position in the lead there. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So having a photo of a historical snowfall in Tampa isn't justified in an article about the climate of Tampa? In the winter section, no less? Wikipedia's articles for deletion page - always good for a chuckle. Zeng8r (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a moot point; what is more obvious is that there's little justification for using the image in more than one article. I see the image as being of more encyclopedic value (on a page which is apparently viewed more than the Tampa one) to depict a specific case of snow in Florida with reference to the Tampa case. However, yes this could be accomplished by including the image within the Tampa article and simply mentioning it in the text for the Florida one. Please go ahead and do this, if you feel strongly about it. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and per Trevj. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may be free images of other snow events in Florida, but there is no known free images of the Tampa snow and this is used in the Tampa article. And it isn't a bad picture. Varför inte? Hafspajen (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, surprise! Let's recap: The nominator assumed that this photo was only used on Snow in Florida and thus said that it's replaceable. As pointed out, it was also used in Climate of the Tampa Bay area and thus is not very replaceable at all, rendering that reasoning invalid. Several users pointed this out, and also mentioned that it might be not under anybody's copyright due to Florida law. Nobody argued with these reasonable reasons to keep.

So, it should be left alone, right? WRONG! The Anti-Fair Use Deletion Brigade waited a few respectful weeks and then deleted it anyway for no reason whatsoever. Color me shocked and surprised. Zeng8r (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2014 (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.