Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 October 12

< October 11	October 13 >

October 12

File:Darelogo.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 as F8 by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to Wikimedia Commons, where it has been replaced by a free (public domain) equivalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

What country is the logo from? It is certainly permitted on Commons if it is from the United States, but definitely not if it is from the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Abuse Resistance Education is an American project but with a national chapter in the UK. Still, this logo should be ok for free use on Commons. De728631 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant to File:Drug Abuse Resistance Education DARE Logo.png on Commons. jonkerz ♠talk 01:51, 14 October 2012 (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:Lapdcrash jpg w300h265.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 ⚡ 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to Wikimedia Commons, where it has been replaced by a free (public domain) equivalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This can't be deleted as F8 because File:Los Angeles Police Department Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums Arm Patch.png is in a different file format. Is the file permitted on Commons, or is there something copyrightable in it? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that it is not simply a two-dimensional logo but a 3D shoulderpatch which in itself is a derivative of the logo, and additionally it has been photographed before by someone else than the uploader. I guess it should be deleted at Commons. De728631 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The textile product should be {{PD-CAGov}}. The question is whether the photo is copyrightable. If the photo is copyrightable, then the image should additionally be deleted from Wikipedia per WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, PD-CAGov applies only to works by the State of California, not to municipal works like those of LAPD. But you're right, the image as such is replaceable. De728631 (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, PD-CAGov also refers to municipal works. It says that it applies to works by "any state or local agency", and I would guess that a local police office is a "local agency". --Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. In that case PD-CAGov would allow for derivative works of this patch. Now we just need someone to upload one under a free license. De728631 (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2012 (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:Lapdmetro jpg w300h231.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 ⚡ 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to Wikimedia Commons, where it has been replaced by a free (public domain) equivalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

See above: not eligible for F8 since File:LAPD Metropolitan Division Arm Patch.png is in a different file format, and possibly ineligible for Commons since there might be copyrightable elements in it. Also: sign your posts and add them at the bottom of the page, not at the top. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2012 (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:Regal.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Low quality. Old overwritten revision is a dupe of File:MasterRegal.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2012 (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:Deftones - Minerva 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not critical for understanding —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 12 October 2012 (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:Keyshia Cole Woman to Woman Deluxe.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, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous to File:Keyshiacole womantowoman.png, see WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although similar to File:Keyshiacole womantowoman.png, it is in fact the deluxe edition artwork which is used to describe the difference between the two. Manuel Mexico (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2012 (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:Mike & Ophelia Lazaridis Quantum-Nano Centre, Institute for Quantum Computing, Feb 2012.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, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photograph of a building, not concept art, and thus is inherently replaceable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This building is already being constructed so a freely licensed image can be made. De728631 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2012 (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:Walter Cunningham.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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, too small to be useful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. This was taken from File:Astronaut Group Three - GPN-2000-001476.jpg, a NASA image in the public domain. I've now uploaded a high-res crop. De728631 (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This file is of virtually no illustrative value to the wikimedia. It is simply a crop of an already uploaded, large group photo, not an actual portrait shot of Cunningham. There are far better instances of these already uploaded, e.g. File:Walter Cunningham.jpg. The uploader, BeasttoBeast (talk), is a relatively new editor of questionable competence, who seems to like to just upload photos and indiscriminately replace existing ones. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2012 (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:James Lovell in 1969.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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very low quality. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. This was taken from File:The Original Apollo 13 Prime Crew - GPN-2000-001166.jpg, a NASA image in the public domain. I've now uploaded a high-res crop. De728631 (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons (or keep). Not "very low quality" at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons I think "low quality" should be removed as a reason on FFD, since it seems to mean anything less than 16MP, from what I've seen over the years, so any image whatsoever is tagged with it (even things that are 1600x1200). -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (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:Unsinkable38.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, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR: not discussed critically. Might be PD for some reason, but impossible to tell without more information. Stefan2 (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2012 (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:Midamerica Council blazer emblem.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC 8: there is no contextual significance as there is no associated content. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:18, 12 October 2012 (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:BornToDieParadise.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 as G4 by De728631 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously deleted following Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 25#File:BornToDieParadise.png. Tagged as G4, tag removed by User:Ryulong claiming that "FFD is not subject to g4". As far as I know, G4 applies to any kind of deletion discussion, including FFD. Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The general criteria for deletion, re G4, apply to all namespaces including files. De728631 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2012 (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:Bruno Mars Marry You 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there was an edit war going on at Marry You about an allegedly fan made cover of the single record. This debated cover was previously available at File:Bruno Mars Marry You cover.jpg with a reference to Hitparade.ch. When I checked that website yesterday the cover image portrayed there was however completely different, i.e. the current yellow cover with a sort of diamond ring. I have therefore updated the file with this new version.

Seemingly though there are still doubts about the reliability of the source and the image has again been removed from the article so it is now orphaned. Hitparade.ch and other sites by Hung Medien are in fact reliable sources though. And other reliabe sources like Media Control depict the same yellow cover: [1]. So I don't see a reason to not include this image in the article. We're not in the position to question the content that has been reported by reliable sources. The question is now whether to keep this image and include it in Marry You. De728631 (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2012 (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:Linkin Park - Castle of Glass.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 ⚡ 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not discussed critically. Stefan2 (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may have been a bit fast here. With this edit a critical commentary was added to the article, if only in the image caption. De728631 (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The diff shows that someone added an {{underconstruction}} template. The image caption supports the image, but it should be the other way around: the image should support the text. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, wrong diff. And I still think that the image is supportive of the text by depicting and explaining the methods used for filming the clip. De728631 (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2012 (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:ModdyMankus.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 F1 by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant duplicate image of File:Modestasmankus.png Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:18, 12 October 2012 (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.