Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 30

< January 29	January 31 >

January 30

File:Goines HSC Poster 255x396.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, no description so can't see use :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 00:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Use is easily seen in uploader's contributions immedeatly after uploading (diff), or by searching Wikipedia for "Hillside Club". How free the image is, that's a different question. The creator was David Goines, and it has only been 67 years since his death. However, it was a commission, and I am not sure how copyright works in those cases, especially since we don't know the exact year. At the very least this would qualify as fair use. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:57, 6 February 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:Golovkin.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned lower quality duplicate of File:Nikitin golovkin.jpg :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 00:47, 30 January 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:Gopher tortoise and hole.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 00:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be deleted, I made a mistake when I uploaded it; it is a photo of a county park photo, which does not engender a new copyright. Bastique (talk) 01:19, 30 January 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:GorgesArmsMediaevalShield.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned to higher quality File:Heraldic gurges (whirlpool) Gorges.svg :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:55, 31 January 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:Gorgokhotany.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, can't see use :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 01:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You cannot see a use for Storm of Gorgokhotany Heights by Aleksey Kivshenko (1851-95). Should we delete all free works of art if their creators do not currently have articles on English Wikipedia? Maybe there is a better version somewhere, but it isn't in Commons:Category:Aleksey Kivshenko, and that wasn't the rationale for deletion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:01, 6 February 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:ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 February 2.
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: speedy deleted per WP:CSD#F7b, as a commercial news agency image not itself the object of commentary (i.e. in its role as a creative work of photography). Sorry folks, but F7b is mandatory and cannot be overridden by keep votes here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image created by a commercial agency, for which there is no imperative need to use in Wikipedia. I believe that textual accounting of this event, as provided already in the image descriptions and accompanied by at most a free image of the Guy Fawkes mask, if available, is more than enough to introduce this event. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 06:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The message conveyed in this image is important for the section criticism (public parliamentary action by a larger group) of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and can hardly be conveyed by words alone. I remove the image 1/2 days ago from the Guy Fawkes mask page, as there was no rationale for that, but here I think fair use is defendable (and that's all we need). L.tak (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the purpose of the image is to show the "unique parliamentary protests" in Poland. Replacing it with a free image of the Guy Fawkes mask is not appropriate because a Guy Fawkes mask does not say anything about the Polish parliamentary response. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my proposal, I suggested that the image of the mask can be combined with textual description to the same effect. Do we really need the picture of the Polish MPs specifically, as opposed to simply saying that "the Polish MPs wore Guy Fawkes mask to parliament", with an image simply to show the readers what said masks look like? I reject this use of a commercial non-free image as in keeping with Wikipedia's principle on non-free image. Recall the simple test on need to use non-free content: Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all? In this case, my answer is an adamant yes.

Furthermore, non-free images are supposed to show something where the image has significance; a logo, a screenshot, or an album cover, for example. In this case, I doubt that there is anything the image adds to the article; all that the reader see is a bunch of people in suits wearing Guy Fawkes masks. There is simply nothing I learned by looking at the image, given that I already know that the Polish MPs decided to protest the ACTA by wearing Guy Fawkes masks and what these masks look like. Does this really satisfy the criterion that Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? I sincerely doubt it. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A picture is worth a thousand words. The textual representation would be nowhere near as strong in conveying the actual act by the Polish MPs. Sarah (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the significance of images, the Wikipedia guidelines on non-free content is tantamount and must be wholly and unambiguously satisfied to demonstrate a pressing need to utilize non-free images in articles. We have a commitment to be free whenever doing so does not significantly impede the encyclopedic quality, and this image does not appear to be consistent with that commitment. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 22:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article needs images of some of the protests, but it should be possible to find free images of some of the other protests, so there is no need to use an image for this protest. If it is relevant for the article readers to know what a Guy Fawkes mask looks like, it would be better to have an image which only shows the mask and nothing else as it makes it easier to see the mask. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Random imagery of public demonstrations cannot adequately illustrate that which is contained in this photograph. — C M B J 23:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Parliamentary members wearing an iconic mask associated with non-establishment activities (i.e. Anonymous) is a sufficiently unique and of historical interest to satisfy NFCC#1. An image of a Guy Fawkes mask or people wearing Guy Fawkes masks in another setting would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. henrik•talk 21:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all? I believe the answer is yes, and I would like to hear why that is not the case. Furthermore, there is still NFCC#8 violation. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 22:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 is intended to address problems with contextual significance. You're suggesting that this image lacks contextual significance at Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement? — C M B J 23:56, 31 January 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:Mzi eolcwcpe 170x170-75.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 F5 by Orphaned image deletion bot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image might be hoax: "File talk:Mzi eolcwcpe 170x170-75.jpg" Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 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:Govindamamba Sameta Sri Verabrahmendra Swamy 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, no description so can't see use :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 14:30, 30 January 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:Grammarkk.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, no description so can't see use :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 14:38, 30 January 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:GrandeArmeeStandard.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 14:45, 30 January 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:Granovsky.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned to higher quality File:ZakharovPZ PtTGranovskogoGTG.jpg :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 14:50, 30 January 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:Mayann Francis GG.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0. The Flickr image may have been freely licensed at the time it was uploaded, but it is not freely licensed now. If this had been the Commons, a Flickrreview bot would have confirmed the license at the time of upload; unfortunately, that did not occur here, so we have no evidence of its status at the time of upload. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 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:About six.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've messed this up, but I uploaded this image a long time ago and then forgot about it. Not only is it unencyclopedic, turns out, it's not even of the person it claims to be (my bad). I've had perfectly legit images deleted in a heartbeat when some fanatic caught a whiff of copyright violation, so I'm hoping some kind Wikipedian will help me get rid of this picture that I shouldn't have uploaded in the first place. (BTW: the deletion instructions are confusing for an average user such as myself.)--OldCommentator (talk) 15:13, 30 January 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:Ted Williams and Stan Musial SI.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sports illustrated covers were renewed, orphaned Secret ^account 19:03, 30 January 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:Samuels United Home Shirt.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Can't see any use for it. Not sure if the licence is correct. Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 30 January 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:SamuelsHomeShirt.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Can't see any use for it. Not sure if the licence is correct. Stefan2 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 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:Samuels United Home Shirt.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Can't see any use for it. Not sure if the licence is correct. Very similar to previous image. Stefan2 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 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:FTS Samuels United Home Shirt.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Can't see any use for it. Not sure if the licence is correct. Very similar to previous image. Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 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:FTS Samuels United Home Shirt.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Can't see any use for it. Not sure if the licence is correct. Very similar to previous image. Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 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:SamuelsAwayShirt.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Can't see any use for it. Not sure if the licence is correct. Very similar to previous image. Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 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:FTS Samuels United 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Can't see any use for it. Looks like a logo for a fake sports team. Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 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:FTS Samuels United Logo.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Can't see any use for it. Looks like a logo for a fake sports team. Very similar to previous image. Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 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:-Sssh - someone might hear.-.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete - duplicate of an original. should have added to original page as an update. Dymogeek (talk) 20:58, 30 January 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.