Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 25

< January 24	January 26 >

January 25

File:Murals-Norway.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 ⚡ 03:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown copyright status. Image was copied from some copyright violating personal website. Damiens.rf 14:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It illustrates artwork that no longer exists. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:03, 25 January 2011 (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:Norway-machines.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 ⚡ 03:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown copyright status. Image was copied from some copyright violating personal website. Image is also most likely unnecessary. Damiens.rf 14:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It illustrates a space that no longer exists. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you just ignoring what our policy says about images without copyright information or you're also inviting us to do the same? --Damiens.rf 14:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm just ignoring your personal opinions about the website from which this image came, given their irrelevance. The image meets WP:NFCC criteria. Information about the original author and copyright holder is only supplement, where possible. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable information about the copyright status is not optional. Knowing the original author and copyright holder is usually the best way to infer the copyright status, but if you can to without it, please do. But we can't keep an image without reliable information about the copyright status. --Damiens.rf 19:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:03, 25 January 2011 (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:Norwayraoulwind.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 ⚡ 03:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown copyright status. Image was copied from some copyright violating personal website. Damiens.rf 14:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It illustrates a space that no longer exists. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:03, 25 January 2011 (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:Norway-CI.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 ⚡ 03:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown copyright status. Image was copied from some copyright violating personal website. Damiens.rf 14:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It illustrates a space that no longer exists. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:03, 25 January 2011 (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:Journaux-1.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 ⚡ 03:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free scan of a newspaper cover used apparently just to make the point that this specific event was covered by the news. We don't need this image to convey this information. Damiens.rf 14:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It illustrates the launch of the liner. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:05, 25 January 2011 (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:EIIR-Kennedy.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 ⚡ 03:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus licensing info. No reason to believe it's PD. Damiens.rf 14:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was created in 1951 and is thus fair use now. Change licencing info. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete until clear evidence for PD status can be found. The keep vote above is confused about copyright rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:It might be public domain in its source country (Canada). For photos taken after 1949, photographs in Canada are public domain 50 years after the death of the creator. Where the photo was created for a corporation (other than a corporation majority-owned by the photographer), or the photo was created by/for the federal government (Crown copyright), the copyright expires 50 years after creation. Where the photographer is anonymous, the copyright expires the earlier of 50 years after publication or 75 years after creation. To be able to say with some certainty that this is public domain, we would need some proof that the photographer died more than 50 years ago, that the photograph was taken for a corporation or the federal government or that it was published more than 50 years ago. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the source indicated attributes the image to the Canadian Hockey Hall of Fame and indicates it was taken in 1951. The image is also found, in a lower resolution, on the Hockey Hall of Fame website, but without more details we should err on the side of caution and delete it. ww2censor (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2011 (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:Mr Arian Pic.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 ⚡ 08:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only purpose is now-deleted/protected autobiography/self-promotional piece. No current or future encyclopedic value. Kinu ^t/_c 04:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: image is dependent on this deleted article. ww2censor (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2011 (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:Girls Bravo1.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. Also fails WP:NFCC#8, which precludes closing this discussion as keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3 as multiple files are being used when one would suffice. This alternate cover is not subject to sourced critical commentary, also failing WP:NFCC#8. — ξ ^xplicit 07:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These do not appear to be alternate covers; the image presented in the infobox is of the television/anime version, whereas this cover is for the book/manga on which it is based. They are for different media and do not seem particularly similar, which does not seem to violate the spirit of WP:NFCC#3. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:13, 25 January 2011 (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:JamesDignan.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 ⚡ 17:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused old version of Grutness' user picture; the most recent one has been moved to commons. Without objection from the user, we should probably just delete this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Messy, messy, messy. Magog, you replaced a GFDL picture with one which is not free. The painted portrait is GFDL, the photograph is not - it is the reason why the photograph was replaced by the painting in the first place. I do not have licence control for the photo, since I did not take it, so it doesn't belong either on wiki[pedia or on commons. If it is the painted version which has been taken to commons, then I have no objection - but that is certainly the only version which should anywhere in Wikimedia. Grutness...wha? 21:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is File:Grutness user self-portrait.jpg the one that is free? That is the version that was moved to Commons and deleted locally. Kelly ^hi! 21:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the free one - sorry if I misunderstood what was going on - I was concerned that the photo which was displaying at File:JamesDignan.jpg was the one which had been transferred. No objections to deletion on the en.wikipedia site. (speediable, in fact, since I was the original uploader :) Grutness...wha? 22:03, 25 January 2011 (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:Family Guy season 9 staircase.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 ⚡ 21:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two alternative file versions of the same non-free TV screenshot, to be used in the infobox of the overview article of a season of the TV series. Indescript, apparently random scene, not mentioned anywhere in the surrounding text. Incomprehensible FUR and caption: "Change from generic characters to recurring characters"; I can find nothing in the article that corresponds to this. Fails NFCC#8. – Independently of this, if one were to be kept, the other needs to be deleted as orphaned; currently editors seem to disagree which one they prefer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is of the intro to the show, and how it looks different in this season, which although wasn't fully explained, is still relevant to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.72.95 (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its noting that is previous seasons, the other characters in the opening sequence is random, whereas season 9 has recurring characters. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Sephiroth storm: this might be a basis for a decent NFC case, if only the article was talking about it. The article currently consists purely of a list of plot summaries and some basic information about production data. There is no analytical commentary about the creative choices regarding anything in the actual work at all. As long as that is the case, the question of justifying a picture is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 25 January 2011 (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:OnateStatueAlcaldeNM.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 ⚡ 17:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for artwork in United States. Although there's no description, these appear to be photos of the Oñate statue installed in 1991 at the Oñate Monument Visitors Center near Española, New Mexico. 75.211.163.115 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2011 (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:00MillardFillmore.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 Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnecessary unused local image where a better quality image is already available on the commons as commons:File:Millard fillmore stamp.JPG. ww2censor (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons it doesn't have the chaff that the commons image has, arguably making it a better photo. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and don't move to Commons. Commons has a higher resolution image. Reh man 08:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - commons image available and this image is of poor quality. --Addi hockey 10 ^e-mail 13:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons different from the Commons file (without a margin), and usable, so no real reason to delete. —innotata 22:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file is unused. If someone wants a version without the border they can just make a new crop of the file on Commons. That way we will have a better image. --MGA73 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2011 (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:Hudders Staly Pylon Thumb.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 ⚡ 17:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Low res. This does not look like a historical file so I suggest we delete it. MGA73 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2011 (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:Mount Kinabalu from old Ranau Airport Field.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 G7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality and unencyclopedic. Uploader of this picture wants this privately taken picture to be deleted from Wikipedia due to personal reasons Godopon (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2011 (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:Somalia map states regions districts.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The map is woefully inaccurate and completely original research. WP:OI specifies that "original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy", but this map does just that. For one thing, the entire country is officially known as the "Republic of Somalia" [1], not just where the Transitional Federal Government/TFG of Somalia currently controls. The official name in Somalia for the Somaliland region is "Somaliland", not the "Republic of Somaliland"; the latter is just what the secessionist administration calls it ("the area in the North West, which calls itself the Republic of Somaliland" [2]). Further, the TFG holds over half of Mogadishu [3], a lot more than the limited area indicated herein. The Puntland region is also not only unaligned; it is autonomous and has its own administration, unlike the indicated "Islamic Caliphate of Somalia", which does not exist (hence, why an article on the topic was recently deleted). These are some of the issues that I have pointed out in even greater detail on the image's talk page [4], in the process requesting that the image be updated according to sourced, accurate information. However, there has been very little cooperation and the discussion has bogged down into irrelevant talk on the politics of secession. Middayexpress (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I heavily suggest that anyone interested in this case view this detailed conversation on the talk page.--

AM666999 talk 22:30, 25 January 2011 (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.