Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 August 18

< August 17	August 19 >

August 18

File:VPpropsmaller.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 G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to upload it to Commons and had a trout moment instead I'ḏ ♥One 00:45, 18 August 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:Anthraxlogo111.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused logo; no source; no encyc use projected Skier Dude (talk 01:58, 18 August 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:Apwlogo.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused logo; no target article provided - no encyc use foreseen Skier Dude (talk 02:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was orphaned by the deletion of the All Premier Wrestling article on August 16, 2006 via a AFD deletion discussion. This one has been hanging out for a while. There is also no evidence the uploader is the creator of the logo - Andrew Jones. Seemingly the only contributions to Wikipedia was the All Premier Wrestling and this logo. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:57, 19 August 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:Arthes logo small.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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused logo; no target article provided - no encyc use foreseen Skier Dude (talk 02:04, 18 August 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:Article 12 in Scotland logo.jpeg

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 ⚡ 01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused logo; no target article provided - no encyc use foreseen Skier Dude (talk 02:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The logo is unused and most logos fall under non-free, with this one it's source seems to be user created. Perhaps someone could take a look at the deleted version, File:7-6CM.jpg, that was also nominated by Skier Dude in 2009 to compare. As an aside the "parent" article is (Article 12 in Scotland). Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:7-6CM.jpg was the same image. —Bkell (talk) 10:24, 19 August 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:Bagsbychillifanlogocz9.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 ⚡ 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

corporate logo - if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk 02:48, 18 August 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:1995Devils.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 ⚡ 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - no particular significance to the image itself. Pretty much like any other NHL team celebrating a Stanley Cup win. No need for the image to communicate that the Devils won the cup. We have words that can do that. Mosmof (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Mosmof. —Bkell (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Responses:

no particular significance to the image itself - other than it's the most significant event in the history of the team

No need for the image to communicate that the Devils won the cup. We have words that can do that. - If we only used words to discuss significant historical events and not pictures (in the context of the articles they're discussed in), this would not be a quality encyclopedia. Both are needed to have a high quality encyclopedia. To quote WP:NFR, "Wikipedia's policy embodies a compromise between [being free] and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia." Removing this picture significantly reduces the encyclopedic value of the article covering the team and event. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another point I'll make is that we're talking about a photo that was in the article when it passed through FAC review and was promoted to featured article. FA reviews include a meticulous review of the alt-text, resolution, FUR, and licenses of all non-free images included in an article. The article as a whole (including pictures, prose, tables, citations, etc.) was promoted to FA, the highest recognized quality bar for Wikipedia articles. Instead of reviewing a small piece of a featured article in isolation here, the proper venue for such a concern to be raised is in WP:FAR. Therefore, I move that this discussion be closed and if the nominator is still not satisified, they should open an WP:FAR request for the entire article rather than attempting to scrutinize this one piece while ignoring the affect that it has on the whole. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-free image being used to express information that can be fully understood using free text, NFCC#1. Jay32183 (talk) 08:11, 22 August 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:Brodeurbook.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 ⚡ 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - No discussion of the book cover image - no need for the image to discuss the book. Mosmof (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessary in an article about a hockey player to have the cover of his autobiography, especially when the cover is not even discussed. —Bkell (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NFCI #1 this is cover art. It is being used in the section where critical comentary of the autobiography is being discussed. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image does not significantly improve the readers' understanding. The book is mentioned, but there is no critical commentary on either the book or the cover. Jay32183 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

Image does not significantly improve the readers' understanding - actually it does. Since the book is not discussed anywhere else in the encyclopedia, showing the cover art here is helpful to the readers who would want to seek out the book to read more.

The book is mentioned - it is more than mentioned. A summary of what it covers is presented as well as discussion about who did the photography and which author partnered with the athlete to write it. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We provide the title and the author of the book, among other information, for readers who want to seek it out. We do not need to provide an image of the cover of the book. Consider the "References" and "Further reading" sections found in many Wikipedia articles—these are explicitly meant for readers who want to read more, but obviously we do not need to have an image of the cover of every book referenced in the article. The list at WP:NFCI is not an automatic green light for certain types of non-free content on Wikipedia; non-free content must still satisfy all of the criteria at WP:NFCC. In this case, showing the cover of the book does not provide any significant understanding about Martin Brodeur that is not and cannot be adequately explained by text, and so the use of this image in the Martin Brodeur article fails WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this is a perfect example of identification without critical commentary. Listing the photographer, author, and a brief summary is not critical commentary. That's why album covers are not shown on discographies, even though they can be used in the article about the album. Jay32183 (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I guess that depends on how you define critical commentary. I would say that the prose currently in the article which cover the book specifically are sufficient to qualify as critical commentary. Can they be expanded? Probably. Must they be expanded in order to meet your unspacified definition of critical commentary so that the photo can be kept? No. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another point I'll make is that we're talking about a photo that was in the article when it passed through FAC review and was promoted to featured article. FA reviews include a meticulous review of the alt-text, resolution, FUR, and licenses of all non-free images included in an article. The article as a whole (including pictures, prose, tables, citations, etc.) was promoted to FA, the highest recognized quality bar for Wikipedia articles. Instead of reviewing a small piece of a featured article in isolation here, the proper venue for such a concern to be raised is in WP:FAR. Therefore, I move that this discussion be closed and if the nominator is still not satisified, they should open an WP:FAR request for the entire article rather than attempting to scrutinize this one piece while ignoring the affect that it has on the whole. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:05, 25 August 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:Bleedingpinstripes.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - cover image not essential to discussing the book. Mosmof (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessary to show the cover of a book merely because it was written about the topic of the article. —Bkell (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NFCI #1 this is cover art. It is being used in an article where critical comentary of the book is being presented. --SkotyWA^T_C 18:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with SkotyWA's rationale. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though there's absolutely no discussion of the cover image, and there's zero attempt to discuss anything that couldn't be communicated through text? This seems like a pretty clear cut case of not meeting WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. Mosmof (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of WP:NFCI #1. Comentary of the cover art itself is not what's needed, just comentary of the work depicted by the cover art. In this case that's exactly what's provided in multiple places in the article. WP:NFCI is a list of clear examples that should have no trouble passing WP:NFCC. While other things can easily pass WP:NFCC that are not on the list, WP:NFCI provides some obvious, accepted examples, so that these types of pointless debates can be avoided. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no critical commentary of the book. A quote from the author does not count as critical commentary. The cover of the book is not essential to understanding the article. Free text gets the job done. Jay32183 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excluding the lead section, the book is specifically discussed in two different sections in the article, is referenced once, and appears to play a significant part in the subject matter covered by the article. I think it's pretty clear that this picture of the book significantly adds to the reader's understanding of the subject matter (specifically, identification of the book and author who "invented" the term Bleacher Creatures). Free text may get the job done in a sub-par encyclopedia, however Wikipedia aims higher and this picture clearly increases the encyclopedic value of the article. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:40, 25 August 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:JPwithKERTESZIMRE.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 ⚡ 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image. Not even sure photographer = uploader. MGA73 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say delete because it is a cropped version of File:Fenyowithkertesz.jpg. And I agree with the confusion over the uploader = photographer. Soundvisions1 (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:James M Langtry.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 ⚡ 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded as own work. The photo of the passport could be own work but who took the photo in the passport? We can not be sure author died more than 70 years ago. MGA73 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 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:Keri andrew.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 ⚡ 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and no good description. MGA73 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 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:File name.ext

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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:08, 18 August 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:Baranfarooqi.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 ⚡ 02:01, 26 August 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:Svpkwy.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 duplicate via CSD F1 by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin close by Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low res. Unused. Uploaded in 2007 by a persistent copyright scofflaw without reliable image sourcing. GrapedApe (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a dupe of File:SVP2.jpg so I have retagged it for a speedy.Soundvisions1 (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:SVP2.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 ⚡ 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low res. Unused. Uploaded in 2007 by a persistent copyright scofflaw (Conk 9 (talk · contribs) who is now blocked for a month because of failure to follow copyright policy) without reliable image sourcing. User was warned in January 2008 that this image's copyright status was suspicious. GrapedApe (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this user has ignored copyright so long that we have no reason to assume good faith anymore. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 22 August 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:Wisin Yandel–Irresistible 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic use 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 21:58, 18 August 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:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 August 26.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 ⚡ 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used to illustrate the Air New Zealand Flight 901 disaster. Fails WP:NFCC#1; it can be replaced by the public-domain photo File:Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg, which shows substantially the same information (wreckage from the airplane in the snow). —Bkell (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete, free equivalent available. XLerate (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the free equivalent distorts the depiction of the disaster - the non-free image is iconic to the disaster and cannot readily be replaced, and there is no free equivalent. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 04:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you please explain? In what way does the free equivalent "distort" the disaster? Can you provide sources to back up your claim that the non-free image is "iconic"? Bearing in mind that the free image is already included in the Air New Zealand Flight 901 article, in what way does the presence of the non-free image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and how would its omission be "detrimental to that understanding", as required by WP:NFCC#8? —Bkell (talk) 07:01, 19 August 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.