Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 22

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22

File:Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus agrees to merge the soundtrack. Therefore, this image becomes redundant to the film poster. George Ho (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fair use image is no longer justified under the WP:NFCC minimal usage policy. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2013 (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 ⚡ 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

72.177.45.245 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2013 (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:Dinofelis Walking with Beasts.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot of a copyrighted television program, used to illustrate the article about the extinct animal Dinofelis. Fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1, as this image is potentially replaceable by a freely licensed illustration of the animal or a photograph of a fossil. —Bkell (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2013 (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:Didelphodon.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot of a copyrighted television program, used to illustrate the article about the extinct animal Didelphodon. Fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1, as this image is potentially replaceable by a freely licensed illustration of the animal or a photograph of a fossil. —Bkell (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2013 (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:Roast beef with yorkshire puddings and vegtable.gif

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low resolution. We have better ones on Commons. Kelly ^hi! 18:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - It's a mediocre quality image, but it's a legitimate image that's as good as a million other mediocre images here and on Commons. If you really want to do something useful and want to delete useless unused images, how about culling some of the ever growing number of penis shots, or maybe getting rid of a few of Slut Jennifer Ann and maybe we really don't need insect porn. Folks, let's try to get our priorities straightened out to some semblance of common sense. – JBarta (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...or, instead of nominating for deletion, if it's properly licensed and movable to Commons, spend your effort moving it rather than trying to get it deleted. Build instead of tearing down... or something like that. – JBarta (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is stopping you from moving it to Commons if you want it to. But this image is really horrible quality, I can't imagine a use for it, and I don't see a reason to waste time moving it. --B (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file shouldn't be moved to Commons while it's going through a deletion request. Once this deletion request is concluded, I think the person who originally marked it for deletion should move it to Commons and we should all be in less of a hurry to delete stuff that's perfectly legitimate... even if it is mediocre quality. An exception might be the exact same image of a higher quality in a different file format, then delete the lesser of the two. – JBarta (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Commons policies say that you can't upload a file to Commons if it is nominated for deletion here – but it may be seen as disruptive if you do that, if everyone else agrees that it should be deleted. In this case, I agree that the image quality is awful. It should be possible to find a better image. We are not really talking about particularly uncommon food. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:MTC: "...if a file is currently up for deletion, don't transfer it. Some deletion discussions resolve to "Move to Commons", however while the red notification template is being displayed, the file should stay put." Once this DR is over it can and should be moved to Commons. There's nothing disruptive about it. – JBarta (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy - it's just a how-to page. If an image is at IFD because of copyright issues or questions over its accuracy, then yes, transferring it is disruptive. But when it's something like this where it's just a question of usefulness, you are welcome to move it. Personally, I don't see any use whatsoever for this image - it's horrible quality. But if you really think it's going to be useful, have at it. The issue I have with the "move to commons" !votes is that you are asking someone else to take their time to do something you aren't interested in doing yourself. If you want an image on Commons, take your time to move it there - don't ask someone else to. --B (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Commons. This file can be deleted. – JBarta (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want an image on Commons, take your time to move it there - don't ask someone else to." Fair enough. However, let's just be a little less quick to hit that oh-so-easy-to-delete link and more quick to move files to Commons instead where they can live happily. If you don't want to move it, fine... but don't nominate it for deletion either. – JBarta (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2013 (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:Rotkl.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, likely non-free. Kelly ^hi! 18:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm pretty sure Robert Jacobson, whoever he is, didn't have anything to do with The Return of the King. Enencyclopedic as well as a copyvio photomanip. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2013 (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:Unseldbasketball.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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly simple portrait, and it would need a stronger fair use rationale to remain on Wikipedia. Unseld is still alive, and a free replacement could probably be found, with a little bit of effort. In addition, it's unlikely that the tumblr page is the original source of the image. Zagalejo^^^ 19:20, 22 March 2013 (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:Cincinnati Mall Kid Area.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not the user's own image, taken without permission from http://www.cincinnati-mall.com/ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:22, 22 March 2013 (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:Kid Area inside the Cincinnati Mall.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad licensing. Clearly taken without permission from http://www.cincinnati-mall.com/ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:22, 22 March 2013 (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:Ride On 2009 logo.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. File:Ride On logo.svg is better. Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stefan2. (Though would say "superceded" rather than unused. Unused is not a reason alone for deletion where as superceded can be.) – JBarta (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2013 (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.