Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 21

< September 20	September 22 >

September 21

File:KRR Opening Day.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 ⚡ 12:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very low quality. Lots of streaking, black lines, poor contrast. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:15, 21 September 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:KRR Opening Day 2012 at Mid Valley.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 ⚡ 09:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to meet "non-free historic image". The store opened this year so anyone can easily get a free image of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:15, 21 September 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:HOTHcover.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not needed critically —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:24, 21 September 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:Gatefold 4th album from Led Zeppelin.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--while mentioned in the text, it is not necessary to reproduce this (and it is also half of the cover anyway.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 21 September 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:Hermit led zep 4.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--while mentioned in the text, it is not necessary to reproduce this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 21 September 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:Lzsleeve2.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--while mentioned in the text, it is not necessary to reproduce this (and it is also half of the cover anyway.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 21 September 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:Hoth2.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--while mentioned in the text, it is not necessary to reproduce this (and it is also half of the cover anyway.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 21 September 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:Physical Graffiti back cover at night.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not necessary to understand the subject and substantially similar to the front cover. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 21 September 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:Physical Graffiti Album 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not necessary to understand the subject and substantially similar to the front cover. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 21 September 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:Physical Graffiti Album 2.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not necessary to understand the subject and substantially similar to the front cover. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 21 September 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:Physical Graffiti Inner 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not necessary to understand the subject and substantially similar to the front cover. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 21 September 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:Physical Graffiti inner 2.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not necessary to understand the subject and substantially similar to the front cover. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 21 September 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:ITTODcover2front.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While one alternate cover is necessary critically, all six are not. I have not nominated the standard "woman in the corner" perspective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 21 September 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:ITTODcover3front.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While one alternate cover is necessary critically, all six are not. I have not nominated the standard "woman in the corner" perspective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 21 September 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:ITTODcover4front.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While one alternate cover is necessary critically, all six are not. I have not nominated the standard "woman in the corner" perspective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 21 September 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:ITTODcover5front.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While one alternate cover is necessary critically, all six are not. I have not nominated the standard "woman in the corner" perspective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 21 September 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:ITTODcover6front.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While one alternate cover is necessary critically, all six are not. I have not nominated the standard "woman in the corner" perspective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 21 September 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:Satan-jesus.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged {{PD-old-100}}, but there is no artist information, so there is no evidence that the author died over 100 years ago as claimed. —Bkell (talk) 06:48, 21 September 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:Woodduck and nail.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, apparently used to illustrate the uploader's original research. No clear encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the uploader probably means "snail"! Either way, the research is indeed original. Thincat (talk) 09:50, 21 September 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:SmithfieldFoods.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by SVG: File:Smithfield Foods logo.svg. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this deletion. Another (better) file was uploaded and is now used in the article where I wanted to use this image. I requested its deletion. Thanks, Kkirkham (talk) 13:11, 21 September 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:Mariners Landing Pier 1985 era.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a Ferris Wheel in the 1980s, ostensibly used to show what it looked like compared to its present state (after some refurbishments in 1999). The changes appear to be so minor I can't actually see any significant difference between the two images; thus, NFCC#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 21 September 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:Enrique Alvarez.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free (but very low-quality) photograph of an actor during his childhood. As a rule, we don't use non-free childhood photos simply to pretty up a person's biography section, unless the subject's appearance during childhood has some particular encyclopedic significance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that old photograph is free in United States. Anyway, you can delete it. But please tell me: are old black-and-white images free? This image probably depicts Enrique before more than 50 years.--Miha (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so easy. Whether something is public domain may depend on a combination of several factors, such as when it was created, when it was first published, what country it was first published in, how long its author lived after it was published, some formalities observed in its first publication, and so on. This was evidently taken some time in the 1940s, but since it's a private snapshot, of a person who, at that time, was not yet famous in any way, it's very likely that it was published only a lot later, and that makes public domain status rather unlikely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not discussed critically. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 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:Fools and Worthless Liars - Deluxe Edition album artwork.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 ⚡ 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous to File:Deaf Havana Fools And Worthless Liars Album Art.jpg and not critically discussed. Differences easily replaced by text. Fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 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:SongArt Productions RIZ Press Release.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed critically in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#3b, WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the current revision of the article. Read the Talk page, and you can see extensive discussion of the press release, the subject of the article's birth date, and the album the press release is for. K8 fan (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The critical discussion has to be in the article, not on the talk page. You can't use non-free files on talk pages anyway: this fails WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: whether in the article or on the talkpage, we don't use non-free images to establish a source for a claim of facts. For that purpose, textual citation to a reliable source is always the preferred and only method of choice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 23 September 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:Barrett crazy diamond version.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 ⚡ 13:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Not critically discussed. The article already has a different image. Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an important reissue, mentioned in the text. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 18:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this alternative cover is the Crazy Diamond version of Barrett. Crazy Diamond is a boxset which also includes The Madcap Laughs and Opel. The alternative covers of these two albums are also on wp: [1] [2]. - theFace 20:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. A better option would be to put all three alternative covers in a {{Gallery}} in the Crazy Diamond article. Cheers, theFace 20:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free images may not normally be put in a gallery, per WP:IG and WP:NFG. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it is irrelevant if the image is notable or not. Instead, you need to determine if there is an overuse of non-free images (WP:NFCC#3a) or if the removal of the image would be detrimental to the understanding of the article (WP:NFCC#8). In this case, the removal of the image wouldn't affect the understanding of the article at all since there already is a different cover image in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just like we don't upload an image depicting the cover of a new edition or reissue of a book, there's no need to upload an image of every reissue or alternate album cover, unless the new cover is subject to critical commentary from secondary reliable sources. — ξ ^xplicit 01:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I'm generally in favor of alternate covers (especially when used in different countries on initial release), it seems to me that this is merely a variant of the Crazy Diamond box set cover, which is already being used as a non-free image on Wiki. See its image. If not for that, I'd favor keeping it because of its distinctiveness . . . but the box set cover renders it superfluous. -- AyaK (talk) 05:46, 29 September 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.