Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 31

< August 30	September 1 >

August 31[edit]

File:Limitgraph.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned to File:Límite_01.svg Sven Manguard Wha? 00:20, 31 August 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:Freedome Soda Logo.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo, may or may not be official. If it is official, it's almost certainly non-free and orphaned, so gets deleted. If it isn't official, it's treated as a hoax, so gets deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: main article was deleted last year as non-notable/made up, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom Soda. jonkerz ♠ 02:53, 31 August 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:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information". We will likely have a PD US-GOV alternative soon now that he has been apprehended. Marcus Qwertyus 01:43, 31 August 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:Grant from West Point to Appomattox.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned version of File:Ulysses S. Grant from West Point to Appomattox.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 02:45, 31 August 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:Bongspud.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 05:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No longer want this file on wikipedia Jm51 (talk) 05:05, 31 August 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:BUCC Logo.gif[edit]

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 ⚡ 07:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, used in an a now deleted article, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 08:09, 31 August 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:Kingfishers Cricket Club.JPG[edit]

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 ⚡ 07:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 08:09, 31 August 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:Adolf Hitler cph 3a48970-mirror.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned version of File:Adolf Hitler cph 3a48970.jpg. Can't be moved to Commons. Kelly ^hi! 11:36, 31 August 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:CanadaPeaceBridgeStamp.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a stamp. The stamp depicts a bridge, and is used in an article about that bridge. The stamp itself is not particularly notable. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unnecessary to the one article it is in. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 17:12, 7 September 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:Small-CFAIII.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned crop of File:Adams-Longworth.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 12:28, 31 August 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:MendelJacksonDavis.gif[edit]

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 ⚡ 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, Library of Congress has no authorship or copyright info on this file. Kelly ^hi! 13:24, 31 August 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:The Sun (Gotcha).png[edit]

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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free newspaper cover, used in four articles to show what the headline was and how big the headline was. I agree the headline is notable, but I don't think it's necessary to violate the Sun's copyright to give this information. A text description would suffice in each case (in my opinion). Note that this issue was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:The_Sun_.28Gotcha.29.png – Quadell ^(talk) 16:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the really relevant information is already conveyed without the duplication of this copyrighted work in every single article that mentions the newspaper issue. --damiens.rf 17:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a lot of historical value that otherwise will be lost. Text descriptions are not the same nor convey the power of the headline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.224.104 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quadell and Damiens. The IP's argument, WP:ITSHISTORIC, is a weak one. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the comments below, I'm inclined to change my opinion to Keep, but to limit its use to pages that actually discuss, in their text, the significance of the page layout. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently used in four articles. In which of these articles (in your view) does the image (and not a text description) help the reader to fully understand the topic? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an historic and iconic image and in my opinion words alone do not convey the image suitably. The aspects of the cover that are discussed in the articles and the sources, namely the layout of the page, are not easily or accurately conveyed by using simple text. I don't think some readers will be able to visualise this image simply from a written description, it takes the actual image to fully convey the issues surrounding the image. I think this is one of those rare cases where the non-free image is suitable for inclusion here and in multiple articles. I don't think it should be deleted. Woody (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For reference, the previous discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 12#File:The Sun (Gotcha).png. To my mind, this is one of a very few individually famous front pages - it's still being parodied this year, almost three decades on - and it seems a fairly clear-cut case for inclusion somewhere. I am not sure that it needs to be used to illustrate Kelvin MacKenzie, and it seems a bit tangential in the context of the Belgrano article, but it's definitely worth including in the article on the newspaper (as a particularly significant moment) and in the Falklands article (as part of a discussion of journalistic responses). Shimgray | talk | 18:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for linking to the (now) correct location. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most (in)famous newspaper front pages and is of significant historical importance. I don't think that a textual description of its contents is an adequate replacement for the image itself. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has great historical significance. Probably the only other newspaper headlines of comparable notoriety are "Dewey defeats Truman" and "Headless Corpse in Topless Bar". Not competent to offer a legal opinion as to whether a single word headline can be copyrighted. In this country it cannot; but not sure about the UK. If it cannot, then there is no copyright violation. If it can be, then the argument is invalid, because the text version would be copyrighted too, and reproducing the front page in this form would be preferred, as it gives proper and appropriate credit to the Sun newspaper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just note that the entire front page (including images and layout) are here reproduced, not just the headline. Text would reproduce the headline (too short for copyright protection) without reproducing the copyrighted elements. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nick-D and Woody. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:14, 6 September 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:Dennis Rader booking.jpg[edit]

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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a free of image of him on Commons. (File:Dennis Lynn Reader.JPG) It's on the bottom of the page. 74.77.134.184 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This photo is his actual booking photo taken at the time of his initial arrest. The photo in Commons is one that is more recent. Neither photo would be candidates for deletion. Having another photo isn't an argument for deletion...is there a policy-based reasoning?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. It's know as WP:NFCC#1. --damiens.rf 17:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to keep the image, the image should be put in the Arrest section of the Article and the free image in the infobox. (74.77.134.184 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, the info on the image at Commons is incorrect and it is subject to deletion. The uploader is not the copyright holder and I do not see where the state of Kansas has allowed its use under the uploader's claim. In fact, they state quite the opposite that it is copyrighted. Both photos come from the exact same source.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:48, 31 August 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:ColoredFreudPortrait.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, possibly non-free according to Library of Congress. Kelly ^hi! 22:46, 31 August 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.