Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 2

< May 1	May 3 >

May 2

File:PlayboyBunniesNumber3.jpg

Nonfree magazine cover decorating a list. Damiens.rf 04:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable among the list. Also orphaned, since I just axed the entire list, as it really wasn't that useful. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cover of the FIRST ever issue of the whole series. sp-mxs5md Wha? 04:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So why do the reader of Playboy Special Edition needs to see it? --Damiens.rf 23:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MiamiMetro.svg

This is going to be a massive pain, I know. The logo for the Metro has changed, and now the logo is no longer PD-textlogo fare. The SVG itself is wrong, the proper one is at File:MiamiDadeCountyLogo.svg, a simple redirect might be in order, however I didn't do that myself because the File:MiamiDadeCountyLogo.svg file is {{non-free logo}}, and most of the pages used by this file wouldn't meet the fair use criteria, so another option is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The logo appears to be two words (one of them inside a rectangle) and a rotated U made to look like a D. I'm not going to say "Keep", but I'm just noting this for the final decision. mechamind 9 0 02:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SJHS Logo Temporary.png

According to image description, this is an "Experimental logo of SJHS." That, to me, reads like "unofficial" or essentially "fan art," which as good as it looks, cannot be used to represent the institution. As such, this needs to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bat-canada.gif

This small thumbnail is available fullsize on Commons as File:020109-N-5732L-525 SAR Swimmer Training.jpg. The Commons crop is slightly wider on the left, and the file is jpeg format, but I don't think that matters given the small size. It's an exact scaled down duplicate of File:Canadian Sea King working with the USS Bataan.jpg also, apart from the file format. XLerate (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a .gif, burn it! Eh, if that's not enough, per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paradebang.JPG

Yet another unnecessary non-free screenshot for an article that already has about a dozen, several of which are also currently nominated for deletion. No significant contribution to understanding of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree - these pictures are to display points highlighted in the text - however, I'm not going to get into a ridiculous bun-fight over pictures on wikipedia - if you don't want them there, just delete them, instead of putting them forward for deletion. These 'discussion' pages are one-sided - just delete the picture!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieselgav (talk • contribs)
These discussions seem one sided because image policy is remarkabally clear, and most everyone who works in files knows those criteria very well and abides by them. Not holding a deletion discussion is, in most cases, a violation of protocol. As for the discussions themselves, there are plenty of cases where files are placed for deletion and the decision is to keep them. At issue is that Wikipedia is exceptionally careful about copyright and prioritizes the use of free images. Almost no article has more than two or three non-free images. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yes, and delete as orphaned non-free image. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:He That Believeth in Me BSG S4E01.jpg

It is simply pathetic to suggest that this non-free image is remotely compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Entirely replaceable (it's an EYE for Heaven's sake), it also adds nothing to the reader's understanding and isn't subject to any critical commentary in the article whatsoever. It's beyond me why the speedy-tag was removed. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 22:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the speedy because the nominator's rationale for deletion didn't have any policy-based argument: it said nothing more than "there's no way this can qualify for fair use". If you don't offer any other rationale for the disputed-fair-use tag, don't expect it to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been obvious to anyone with even the vaguest understanding of the non-free content criteria that the image was desperately lacking. If you did not have this understanding, you should not be processing image deletion tags. If you did have this understanding, you should have deleted the image. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 22:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly read this page, which is relevant to your response. If I don't understand your reason for disputing a fair use claim, I'm not going to delete the image based on your dispute. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a personal attack. I simply stated a fact: a close-up photograph of a random eye does not meet the non-free content criteria. If you are not sufficiently acquainted with the criteria to appreciate this fact then it is probably a bad idea for you to process image deletion tags. I know nothing about competition law, which is why I don't undertake to advise my friends on that topic. That's not a bad thing about me; my skills lie in other areas, as I'm sure do yours. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Tip-Off Spooks.png

The FUR in no way addresses NFCC 1 or 8. A miscellaneous person standing under a sprinkler can not only be summed up in words (hey, I just did!) but also adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the article, which anyway contains no critical commentary of this image. The speedy tag was removed because "we generally seem to permit the use of a nonfree screenshot for episode infoboxes," and it is extremely disturbing that an admin can be that unaware of important policies. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 22:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:AnywhereUSA-Loss.jpg

I'm running an AfD on top of a DI here, as this image has no source (the DI) and is clearly a non free image (despite the uploader's tag) which I believe fails NFCC#1 and NFCC8. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]