Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 03:11, 10 February 2023

April 9

File:Culbertson Widow Home M2.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for deletion as part of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 22#Derivative works of historical markers, however, when the multiple individual nominations were consolidated into a mass-nom, this file was inadvertently omitted. Original nomination was: "Derivative works of copyrighted text. Historical markers such as these are not works of the US Federal Government, and there is no evidence that they have passed into the public domain on account of their age. The images fail fair use because it is not essential to see the marker to understand the subject of the marker's content." SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for same reason:

SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:26, 9 April 2011 (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:Laura Rees as Lavinia.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image used simply for decoration - the purpose of use makes this clear. Image does not significantly increase reader's understanding and fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 02:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't written the article yet; give me a chance for God sake. I uploaded the image to check positioning and whatnot. In the article, I'll specifically mention that image. Bertaut (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The image does fulfil the signficance criertion. The realism and blood-thirstiness of the stage appearance of Lavinia at this moment in the play is one of its most significant images--probably the image that most spectators/readers remember. That it has been represented in vivid realism, in contrast, say, to Peter Brook's symbolic treatment, is a signficant element of the information to be conveyed by the article. Visual representation of this is a vital and useful dimension of conveying that information. The caption makes the significance clear. Both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 satisfied and relevant. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur. This image of Lavinia, in many ways, is the play. An image like this is vital to an understanding of how the work is seen today. Wrad (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks for the support gents. To explain why I chose this specific image. In the Performances section, there's a lot of talk of realistic vs stylised productions. I picked this image and the one from the Ninagawa production to give an idea of exactly what these terms means. Both images depict Lavinia after the mutilation, but they couldn't be more different; Rees is an absolute mess, a good example of a realistic production. Manaka on the other hand clearly shows stylisation. My thinking was that talking about realism vs stylisation is all very well and good, but with these two images, it's clearer exactly what's being discussed. Bertaut (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2011 (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:Latin Music Legends Forever USPS Stamp 2011.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These two additional images are included in this nomination for the same reason.
File:Mendez vs. Westminster USPS Stamp.jpg and File:Merengue USPS Stamp.jpg
Delete: these post-1978 USPS copyright stamps fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8 - non-free stamp image being used in non-stamp articles. In each instance prose could or does provide enough information that the use of a non-free image in the articles will not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article. There are even inline links to some stamp. There is overuse of non-free images in Rafael López (illustrator and artist) which is unacceptable. One non-free image showing the artist's work should be enough, so even deleting all three stamps will still leave two non-free images. ww2censor (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilustrating the artist that made the stamps article (Rafael López (illustrator and artist)) is a valid NFCC use (in contrast to using to illustrate their subjects, "merengue" or "Tito Puente, Carmen Miranda, Selena, Carlos Gardel, and Celia Cruz") ^walk victor falk^talk 21:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there's an argument for having too many of them, they should not be all deleted. Which ones to keep is an editorial decision that should be discussed at Talk:Rafael López (illustrator and artist). ^walk victor falk^talk 21:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- So they also fail WP:NFCC#3a for non-free overuse in the article about the artist. One way or another the stamps should go, so choose one stamp to keep and get rid of all other non-free images to comply with NFCC. Besides which none of the stamps have any critical commentary about any of the stamps which is necessary to pass NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2011 (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:Sfs95.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Composite of four non-free screenshots from a video game. Used in an image gallery in the video game article. No explanation why these particular four screenshots are needed. Heavy image over-use, with these four plus five other standalone screenshots in the same article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 9 April 2011 (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:Sfs95team.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from a video game, used with the rationale that it shows the logos of certain football clubs. But the presence of "all the Italian club teams" is not something that's in need of visual illustration by means of their logos; can easily be covered by text alone; fails NFCC8. Uploader has been edit-warring removing semi-speedy tags four times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 9 April 2011 (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:Kb 1949 450.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Image was made after 1943 year, we can't use PD-Russia-2008 template. Dinamik (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2011 (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:A Turkish Cypriot political rally in London, 1950s.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free historical photograph of a not particularly notable event, merely decorative use, not the object of commentary in the article, not needed to understand article; fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Hi, did I upload this image incorrectly? This event was extremely important as it was the rise of Turkish Cypriot demonstrations in the UK against the Cypriot atrocities. To call this event a form of decoration is shameful. WPC2011 (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this particular demonstration was so important, why then is the article not telling us anything about it? Actually, neither the article nor the image page are currently telling us even as much as when exactly this demonstration was. If you don't even know the date, how can you claim it was an "extremely important" event? And even if the article did speak about it, the image doesn't seem to convey any particularly crucial piece of visual information that text couldn't also cover. If you simply want to inform the reader of the fact that this demonstration happened (or such demonstrations in general), you can do so easily with text alone; you don't need a non-free image for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The event occurred in 1958 when the first wave of armed conflict between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriot communities began. The demonstration was to bring to the British publics attention of the events and forceful movement of Turkish Cypriots to the enclaves. The reason why I never placed this information into the image page is because I did not know that I was meant to be so descriptive. WPC2011 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no matter how important the particular demonstration, the fact that Turks marched in London in 1958 can be clearly explained in the prose and does not need a non-free image for a reader to understand that fact, so clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2011 (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:Villagestreet.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: Kept and tagged for commons move

Orphaned, unidentified subject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the subject is apparently a village called Levkotopos, Greece [1]. Consider move to Commons, together with the rest from this uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to commons per Fut.Perf. The fruits ones are nice. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:37, 9 April 2011 (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:Ashu 1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, and as this appears to be a subject currently lacking notability, I see no reason to move this to Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:05, 9 April 2011 (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 11333.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Similar logo on Commons as File:Brooklyn Dodgers 1910-1913 logo.png, which sees two usages. I have no idea about the validity or historical use of this logo, but we're not using it. If it is actually a correct historic logo, let's move it to Commons with a better name. I was uncomfortable doing so without knowing any information behind it. If it's not an actual historic logo, let's get rid of it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:17, 9 April 2011 (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:600pxRAF roundel svg.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, obsolete. Replaced in practice by File:RAF type B roundel.svg. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deprecated orphan. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:07, 9 April 2011 (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:AHOlogo.pdf

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 - no longer orphaned - Peripitus (Talk) 11:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added it to Association of Holocaust Organizations CTJF83 01:43, 10 April 2011 (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:Fclvivlogo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant .jpg of File:Fclvivlogo.png ^walk victor falk^talk 21:22, 9 April 2011 (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:Fogbuildingdude.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality (low-res and out of focus). SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:24, 9 April 2011 (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:Hull Hornets.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: Kept - no longer orphaned - Peripitus (Talk) 11:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned sports team photo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & move to commons I have unorphaned it as I think it has a historical values as the Hull Hornets were founded in 2005 and this is a photo from 2006. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:15, 9 April 2011 (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:On the Floor (video).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 but only the first frame, second does not pass all of NFCC#1, 3a and 8 - Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC mandates minimal use of copyrighted images. Two frames jammed into one file is two separate images, not one, and cannot be described as "minimal use". Having video images at all is extremely questionable under NFCC, and having two isn't acceptable. —Kww(talk) 20:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The image in question portrays the concept of the video. One frame is not sufficient in this case. On top of that, the images are used in a way that will not replace the original recording. The use of this image in the song article is the best use of a screengrab I have ever seen; it describes how the image ties in to the commentary, something most screengrabs don't do. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might help your keep argument if you actually demonstrated how both images that have been sandwiched together individually meet all ten criteria of WP:NFCC.—Kww(talk) 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I used two frames because I felt it was significant to portray the concepts in the video. It is Lopez's first video in 3 years. It has a clear concept and/or story. I felt that after constructing the video section two images were required to portray scenes from the video. Per WP:NFCC I considered this minimal and fair usuage. The two frames used are the two most prominent scenes of the video... the upper attracted much mention from the media and critics hence I felt it was necessary to show exactly how Lopez was dressed. The second frame shows Lopez dancing, an important part of her career and the song overall. I trawled through various articles and found that in all cased of multiple image use it was always two frames sandwiched together not shown separately as separate images. A regards for how two images sandwiched together meet the criteria of WP:NFCC i don't think it makes a difference whether they were sandwiched together or not... IMO both frames together put forward a strong argument for existing in the article. I believe its been properly attributed as two frames and I don't see an issue with this. However if it is an issue... I'll happily upload both frames as separate images though I will still argue that they both have a place in the article. The guideline appears to be contradictory as on the one had its very existance encourages readers to upload screenshots from the video, whilst GA reviews nearly always ask for an image from the video. Yet there is a strong opposition to the uploading of images unless they depict something words can't. Alas I've simply done what I've always been told and shown is acceptable. Pages like WP:NFCC just go to show how sometimes wikipedia can't even makes its own mind up when its own policies are open to interpretation. If a music video has multiple scenes what constitutes minimum usuage for screenshots? Compare something like Speechless (Ciara song) with something like S&M (song). S&M has multiple different scenes whereas Speechless has similar scenes and few of them thus how can minimum usuage mean the same thing for the two songs? I am aware that I've picked two songs as examples but they are songs that spring to mind where the music videos are completely differnet in composition and style. I'm trying to demonstrate that WP:NFCC will apply differently according to the specific music video / scenario in question. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:The normal rationale for having these images at all is identification, and that doesn't require two images, just one. Can you show that both images pass all ten criteria of WP:NFCC, and that both are necessary?—Kww(talk) 04:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why I think that both frames are required, I believe that's good enough. Like I demonstrated ... I believe there is rational for both images. I would now appreciate it Kev if you held fire and waited for others to comment. You've said your piece about why you think it should be deleted and I've commented why I think both frames should exist either as a single image or as two. I wouldn't have uploaded the image (frames) if I didn't think it passed WP:NFCC. I've put forward my comments as best I understand the policy. I've provided reasons why I believe both frames are necessary which is important in indentifying that the image increases user understanding of the subject matter at hand and conveys important information. I've nothing more to say on the matter tbh. If the image is deleted I won't argue. But I genuinly believe there is no infringment here. If its going to be massive issue I might concede that perhaps just the upper frame is more appropriate but judging by articles like Ride (Ciara song) there appears to be a disjointed approach to the application of WP:NFCC — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is fair given the context. However I'd prefer one frame, but like stated if the is enough coverage, which in this case there is - and still the text cannot illustrate the point alone.. then why not. I think the other user has explained in fair detail. Ignoring that point and restructuring the same question in a different way doesn't help, when you had your answer already.Rain the 1 ^BAM 17:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No offence, but it's only a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosherdude91 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We are debating WP:NFCC here. Please go through it once. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The image should be kept as is as it contributes a great deal to this section of the article in particular. It gives readers a visual representation of how the artist has grown and evolved since making her debut. Like others before me have said, it is an important concept that is portrayed in the music video. JayJ47 (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No its not. Quit making up things. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its his opinion. Respect it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – But only for the first frame. Reason, significantly different from normal portrayals of Lopez, and not replaceable by words. It helped me as a reader who didn't see the video at first to have a visual media of how Lopez was decked in those scenes. The second one is a clear-cut violation of WP:NFCC#3a. We have 1,000s of images of Lopez dancing in the same kinda scenario and even attire. It doesn't significantly, or in any way increase the reader's understanding. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:06, 20 April 2011 (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:Jesus washing disciple's feet sculpture in Beeville, TX IMG 0986.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, and most likely a derivative of a copyrighted statue. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:27, 9 April 2011 (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:Sparrow chick.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 to make space for yet another cute sparrow image of the same name on Commons (now shining through); latest version of this file now transferred to commons:File:Sparrow chick (2).jpg; older version now at commons:File:Sparrow chick (1).jpg. Licenses seem okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is no longer on flickr, no way to verify the license ({{flickrreview}}). Was overwritten some years back, which I've undone [2]. Image was claimed by later uploader to be of the wrong species. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file is on Commons with upload information etc., so I think it should be deleted and this discussion moved there if needed. (This file also has the same name as a different one on Commons.) The author is a Commons user, so I'll ask him for confirmation if possible. —innotata 15:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lower resolution image is also available at the photographer's website under a different license; I've asked the photographer for confirmation. —innotata 15:24, 10 April 2011 (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.