Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 26

< April 25	April 27 >

April 26

File:Kamikaze 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image with no purpose or encyclopedic value. Sourced to www.openrecord.co.za as well as uploader -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:02, 26 April 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:Super Jeopardy!.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely decorative; fails WP:NFCC #8. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:52, 26 April 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:Main01.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, image lacking description or context. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons looks like a portion of East Asian temple or major building edge of the roof -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without knowing which temple it is, the image is useless. Also, low resolution images like this are almost always copyright violations. See for example Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roman torres.jpg which is similar. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 3 May 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:Spank2.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not required to support the commentary against which it appears in the linked article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons can be used elsewhere in Wikimedia (such as Wikiversity) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFCC#8 only applies to unfree images, but this is listed as a free image.

The image is apparently from somewhere between 1700 and 1959. Not all images from that period are in the public ___domain. Without any information about the origin of the image, there is no way to tell whether it is free or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 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:SignupShield 1.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 by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of software that does not link to an article, No indication of free software license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 26 April 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:Juli Lynne Charlot Horse Racing Skirt.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a "unique historic photo" as claimed. Also, things like this have two copyrights: the copyright of the art on the skirt and the copyright of the photo. For the last part, we require a free licence. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 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:Juli Lynne Strelitzia Skirt.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a "unique historic photo" as claimed. Also, things like this have two copyrights: the copyright of the art on the skirt and the copyright of the photo. For the last part, we require a free licence. Also, no evidence that WP:NFCC#4 is satisfied. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 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:Evelyn Champagne King 82.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: Original file will be kept; new upload deleted. Dianna (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was overwritten by a completely different image. The first image has a too vague source, so I think that that image violates WP:NFCC#10a. The second image has no source at all, so that image clearly violates WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original image has been restored and complies with WP:NFCC. As for the WP:NFCC#10a concerns, I'm fairly certain that the image is from album art included on her Get Loose (album). Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 20:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, keeping the colour image should be fine, but the black & white image needs to go away. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've appended an {{orphaned non-free revisions}} tag to the file's page. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 21:35, 26 April 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:Image of Our Lady of Good Events in Procession at P'que.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is a government work as currently claimed.

I can't tell whether the underlying 3D artwork is free or not, but we want a free licence from the photographer in any case. Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 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:Georges Adda.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. I agree that in general we don't need to always go down the rabbit hole of affirmatively ruling out all commercial uses to satisfy NFCC 2. However, in this case, a quick Google Image search reveals that the image exists in a few other places at a higher resolution, so this is certainly not the original source of the image and we cannot identify the rightsholder. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to violate WP:NFC#UUI §10: non-historic photo of unknown origin. Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

immediate source provided, with a link. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 15:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One source is provided, but WP:NFC#UUI §10 seems to disallow images "with an unknown or unverifiable origin" and there is no evidence that this is the origin of the image. The image may have been taken from elsewhere, meaining "unknown or unverifiable origin". --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source is provided, making this compliant with WP:NFC#UUI §10. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFC#UUI §10 is about the origin, though. For example, you're not supposed to be able to fabricate a source by simply posting the image to some other website somewhere on the Internet. I believe that WP:NFC#UUI §10 is meant to address the issue that there is no way to tell whether the image satisfies WP:NFCC#2 or not if the origin of the image is known. See for example WP:NFCCE: "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." As the origin of the image is unknown, there is no evidence that WP:NFCC#2 is satisfied. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please assume good faith. There's no need to imply that other editors are fabricating sources when they clearly are not. The original image may very well come from this French site, which has a larger 640x480 rendering of the image. Regardless, the file has a valid non-free-use rationale, making it meet WP:NFCCE. Your interpretation of WP:NFC#UUI §10 (and what constitutes 'unknown or unverifiable origin') seems to go beyond the intent and scope of that guideline. Also WP:NFCC#10a clearly indicates that information about the publisher and copyright holder need only be provided where possible. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 22:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not saying that anyone is fabricating sources. I'm just saying that a fabricated source is just as useful as a secondary source where the image was posted without crediting the original source. Without knowing the original source, there is no way to tell whether the image satisfies WP:NFCC#2 or not, and WP:NFCCE seems to require that you can show that the image satisfies all ten criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 26 April 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:Nuestra Senora de Turumba Statue.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is a government work as currently claimed.

I can't tell whether the underlying 3D artwork is free or not, but we want a free licence from the photographer in any case. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 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:Riverdales 2006.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant extra cover. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 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:Phase Three 2008.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant extra cover. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 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:Tudor Crowns copy.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of own work is clearly false: no source for original images. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only says that the uploader created the montage, not that he made the original images. That doesn't solve the problem that the images are unsourced and have an unknown copyright status, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:29, 26 April 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:Sher 3.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lo quality, Organisational logo so skeptical about it being self as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:06, 26 April 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:House flag 001.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, Lo res. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyvio of http://help.strongholdkingdoms.com/index.php/File:House_flag_001.png --Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 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.