Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 8

< July 7	July 9 >

July 8

File:Man.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File does not appear to have any value to the project. It seems to be a simple, amateurish drawing made by someone who isn't notable and who created it as a joke for a featured image discussion. It's also named with a very generic name... seems like it ought to be protected with that jpg that says "Please choose another file name". Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2010 (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:1980 Topps Roy Smalley.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being just used for illustrative purposes only Ricky81682 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2010 (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:Winnie Stamps.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 1998 Grenada non-free postage stamps being used in a non-stamp article fails WP:NFC#Images and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because its use is just to show that the stamps exist which cold easily be explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. The purpose claims it shows "Disney merchandising of Pooh characters showing how Disney thinks they should look" but there is no evidence that purpose is shown by the text nor supported by any WP:RS. The stamps cannot show what Disney thinks about these stamps. ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does everything have to be 100% relevant? It is not going to be a learned professor looking at the Winnie the Pooh site for some great thesis he is writing. It will probably be a young child who would delight in images of Winnie and friends, like those on the stamps. You forget that many young people look at the wiki too and want more than words. Most of the pictures on the site would be of no interest to them, including those un-Winnie images on the Russian stamp. If you are desperate to save 128 KB on a site of zillions of gigabytes, go delete it. I suppose you feel a need to live up to your alias.(Cyberia3 (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Cyberia3 when it is a non-free image it must be more than 100% relevant to the article, it must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria. If it were a freely licenced image there would be no real problem is decorating this article with some suitable images but it clearly fails the criteria even by your own reasoning of providing nice images for children to look at. It is not about space. ww2censor (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2010 (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:ICIO2.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 - things have changed and the file is no longer orphaned. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia, possible copyvio, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not orphaned, not really seeing how this is a copyright violation. — ξ ^xplicit 01:47, 17 July 2010 (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.