Wikipedia:Files for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Wikipedia:FFD)

Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcuts: WP:FFD WP:IFD

Files for deletion

Files for deletion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created — see burden of proof." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

Examples of what you may request here

Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality - The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright.
NFCC violation - The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.

Search from deletion requests:

[edit] What not to list here

I. For speedy deletion candidates, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.

II. Files that have no source, or have an unknown copyright, or are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:

{{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated
{{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information
{{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but isn't used in any articles
{{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but could be replaced by a free file
{{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed
{{subst:frn}} if a file has no non-free use rationale

If the source or licensing information of an image marked as being freely licensed is disputed, please list the file on Possibly unfree files

III. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use

{{isd|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
{{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)

IV. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}

V. Suspected copyright violations shouldn't be listed here.

If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
For other suspected copyright infringements or licensing issues, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.

VI. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.

VII. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.

VIII. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for deletion

To list a file:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{ffd\|log=2012 March 7}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:ffd2\|File_name.ext\|Uploader= \|Reason= }} ~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader= }}`
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:fdw\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:fdw-multi\|First_file.ext\|Second_file.ext\|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{ifdc\|File_name.ext\|log=2012 March 7}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted. Some common reasons are:

Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name (often abbreviated OB)
Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} . (often abbreviated OR, not to be confused with original research which generally doesn't apply to images)
Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos). (often abbreviated UE)
Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. (often abbreviated LQ)
Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright. (often abbreviated CV)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to delete a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

Since abbreviated deletion reasons will not be familiar to most Wikipedians, especially newbies, please consider using full words. A few extra keystrokes now can save paragraphs of explanation to a panicked uploader wondering what's wrong with their image.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

To force the server to update this page immediately, purge the cache.

[edit] Instructions for discussion participation

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Wikipedia:NFCC#1 - Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8 - Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 - Unacceptable image use

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

[edit] Instructions for closing discussions

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

[edit] Old discussions

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
This notice is automatically updated by AnomieBOT (talk) and will no longer be displayed when the backlog is cleared.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 22 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 23 - 30 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 24 - 14 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 25 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 26 - 3 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 27 - 2 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 28 - 37 remaining

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 29 - Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

[edit] Recent nominations

[edit] March 1

[edit] File:Hla.jpg + 1 other

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hoaxis.JPG

Orphaned File, Unencyclopaedic, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Holladaypic.jpg

Orphaned File, Unencyclopaedic, no use to keep WP:NOTHOST Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, useless image. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Susan kliewer 'sinagua' statue sedona arizona.jpg

See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Susan kliewer 'sinagua' statue sedona arizona.jpg; discussion should probably occur there because it is ineligible for fair use as it's currently being used. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Atlasofgeorgia.gif

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I believe it satisfies policy as it allows the reader to view the cover of a Georgia state symbol. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Allisfulloflovevideo.jpg

Excessive use of non-free files (WP:NFCC#3). Stefan2 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Northumberland Street.jpg

The Northumberland Street pictures can be deleted as F8. The red-haired boy picture looks useless. Stefan2 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lydia Patterson entrance.jpg

Revision from 2010-11-30T20:34:57 should be deleted as F8 and, from what I can see from the file information page history, the revision from 2010-11-30T19:07:27 should be deleted as F9. Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Building1.jpg

File by User:Rtcpage has no source and no licence. File by User:Dand82 has no description and it is not clear what building it is, so it should probably be deleted as useless. Stefan2 (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Transfer to Commons, this has a GFDL license. And the original uploader Dand82 is obviously one Dan Davis credited in the "source" parameter. I have however reverted the version to the very first one which shows a church tower. Someone had overloaded that with the image of an office building. De728631 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:LexisLogo.gif

Unused logos. Company not notable? Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muscatine Community College students.jpg

The 2007 revision should be deleted as F1 because of File:Students at a table in Muscatine Community College courtyard.jpg. The 2011 revision has no source and no licence and was taken using a different camera model. Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:FAB Super Tucano.jpg

Looks like a case of flickrwashing. The file has been published in a Polish forum on 24 March 2009 but was uploaded to Flickr on 13 April 2009 without exif data. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pizza inn popular bluff mo.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Missouri one can be deleted as F8. The uploader of the Texas one changed the description but not the licence ({{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}). What do you say, does it have a licence or not? Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say if a n00b uploads over an old image, then the n00b agrees to the license. ~~However, sourcing is a problem - it is really the uploader's work? Thus delete.~~ Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I was wrong; the uploader said it was by him;[1] he agrees to the license if he is technically proficient enough to change the description on the file page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:Michaelmeeks.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo by User:Praisethelord5 should be deleted as G3, F4 or something similar. The other photos should be deleted as F8. Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - ~~ditto to above.~~ Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Actual reason for deletion: attack page (having a bad day so far in FFD).Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:SOF day 2005.JPG

What's "SOF day"? Unused, probably not useful. Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. That sounds and looks like Special Operation Forces Day. I agree though that the photo is useless, personal snapshot. De728631 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] March 2

[edit] File:Taiwan map.png

The 2003 revision has neither source nor licence. The other two revisions are unused and already exist as GIF on Commons and could probably be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Couscous.jpg

November 2004 revision is unfree. The other revisions might be useless. Stefan2 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cushing Hall 1.jpg

Appears to be from http://hcap.artstor.org/cgi-bin/library?a=d&d=p758 Mosmof (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, copyvio. De728631 (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cushing Hall Back.jpg

Appears to be from: http://hcap.artstor.org/cgi-bin/library?a=d&d=p758 Mosmof (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, copyvio. De728631 (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:SwamiRama.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 F9 by Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

unlikely to be a personal photo - is found all over the internet, including in versions that are less tightly cropped[2] Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:SwamiRamaSitting.jpg

uploader lied about the source of another similar photo, first saying it was a press photo then reuploading it and calling it a "personal photo". this image is found all over the internet including here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Saxman.JPG

db-g3 144.173.5.196 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. DB-G3 is vandalism/hoax and no evidence has been offered that those apply. The IP address raising this FfD proposal is registered to the University of Exeter. I would expect someone at a university to be able to communicate more coherently. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment See also File talk:Saxman.JPG where the same person has placed an unsigned comment about the same photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Transfer to Commons:Category:Saxophonists. The deletion rationale is nonsense. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Orphaned and very low quality so it may be good to delete it. However, I agree that the nominator didn't give any good reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete as low quality Bulwersator (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete - This article is indeed a hoax as it is about my little brother and was posted as a joke, hence it being an orphaned article and no linking or referencing. Rather confused as to what possible value some of the contributors to this thread may think such a poor quality image may have to wikipedia to warrant its retention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.135.158 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Saxman.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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

{{db-g3}} 144.173.5.196 (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:View of Saturn from Polydeuces.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 G7 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Random orphaned screenshoot from Celestia Bulwersator (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I used to use it as a sample image for my "celestial objects workshop" where I uploaded Celestia screenshots for requested celestial objects. This workshop no longer exists and so the image isn't needed anymore. Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:Vijaya.JPG

Unused personal photo Bulwersator (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vijay1.jpg

Unused personal photo Bulwersator (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vik1.jpg

Unused personal photo Bulwersator (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vik3.jpg

Unused personal photo Bulwersator (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vikapose.jpg

Unused personal photo Bulwersator (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vikas.jpg

Unused personal photo Bulwersator (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vikassharma.jpg

Unused personal photo Bulwersator (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vikedal-smrifle.jpg

Unused personal photo Bulwersator (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vikki Richards.jpg

Unused personal photo Bulwersator (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:VikkiAS.jpg

Unused personal photo Bulwersator (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vinotemp Logo.jpg

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Violet bar txt.png

Useless, unused Bulwersator (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MS Viking Princess.jpg

Non-free photograph of a cruise ship, FUR argues that it no longer exists "in this condition". However, free alternative photographs of the same ship a few years later exist; changes are merely trivial modifications of livery. Picture is being used merely in an image gallery, without further commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. If at all this image should be shown in Palm Beach Princess, the article on the very ship, not the cruise line. However, the quality of this image is really bad and there is already another image in the ship's article. De728631 (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ciaran Farrell - Howth - Dublin, Ireland.jpeg

Person still alive. OTRS permission but it says that it is copyrighted, so I would guess that the permission only is for Wikipedia, unless an OTRS person can tell otherwise. If only for Wikipedia, it fails WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate Creative Commons licenses are to be applied to images at http://www.ciaranfarrell.com/downloads.php in the coming days, including this one. Pook2000 11:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pook2000 (talk • contribs)

[edit] File:McChrystalOgden - PluckBlow - Cover.jpg

Used only in a discography. Fails WP:NFCC#8 because of WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ciaran Farrell Around and About.ogg

Used only in a discography. Fails WP:NFCC#8 because of WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep WP:NFC#UUI does not apply to sound files. Critical commentary giving contextual significance in accompanying article. Appropriate FUR provided. Thincat (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK then, WP:NFCC#3a: no need for two sound files. WP:NFCC#8: the individual songs are not critically discussed and would at most be mentioned by title in a discography. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  - Although the section heading is "Discography", both songs are critically discussed (see Ciarán Farrell). 3a says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and it it not clear how one clip can give information about two works and discussions. However, we are here to discuss such matters. Thincat (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Contemporary Music from Ireland - Cover.jpg

Used only in a discography. Fails WP:NFCC#8 because of WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ciaran Farrell - Perfect State - Cover.jpg

Used only in a discography. Fails WP:NFCC#8 because of WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep WP:NFC#UUI does not apply to sound files. Critical commentary giving contextual significance in accompanying article. Appropriate FUR provided. Although the section heading is "Discography", this work and File:Ciaran_Farrell_Around_and_About.ogg are critically discussed (see Ciarán Farrell). 3a says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and it it not clear how one clip can give information about two works and discussions. However, we are here to discuss such matters. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Katie McMahon - Shine - Cover.jpg

Used only in a discography. Fails WP:NFCC#8 because of WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ciaran Farrell - Jolt - Cover.jpg

Used only in a discography. Fails WP:NFCC#8 because of WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ciaran Farrell Perfect State.ogg

Used only in a discography. Fails WP:NFCC#8 because of WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep WP:NFC#UUI does not apply to sound files. Critical commentary giving contextual significance in accompanying article. Appropriate FUR provided. Thincat (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK then, WP:NFCC#3a: no need for two sound files. WP:NFCC#8: the individual songs are not critically discussed and would at most be mentioned by title in a discography. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:JohnFeeley - E-Motion - Cover.jpg

Used only in a discography. Fails WP:NFCC#8 because of WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vinozito 111.jpg

Absolutely and completely useless file Bulwersator (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The file was uploaded for userbox, for the Macedonian Rainbow (political party) in Greece. If it is not used, it may be deleted.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Derek Ridgers - skinhead backdrop1.jpg

Non free image. The person in question is still alive and I don't see a great deal of critical commentary about the image. So I initially tagged it as "di-replaceable fair use" because we have a living person. Uploader claims his image is valid, I think it's better to have a full consensus on this one, rather than a pseudo speedy, so I'm changing it to FfD. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(Copy of uploader's original response) There is NO comparable free image available of both singer AND backdrop. IMPORTANT NOTE - the subject of this image is a combination of two things: the photographic backdrop utilising the Skinhead Girls photo by Derek Ridgers in relation to its use by the singer Morrissey at this particular concert; the subject is NOT just Morrissey and NOT just the backdrop, it is a combination of both - and there is no other free image available of this subject combination, which is why permission was sought and granted by the original author of the image Affable Familiar (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. As I say, the image in question is a very specific portrait of something discussed in depth in the entry 'Derek Ridgers', relating to the use of a Derek Ridgers photograph as the backdrop during the concert portrayed in the image; so the image is not of Morrissey per se, but of him in relation to a Derek Ridgers photograph - the backstory of which is a significant and well-known part of Derek Ridgers ouvre. There is no other comparable image that could be used here, and I think it makes a fair and valuable illustrative point regarding this part of the subject's history. Thanks. Affable Familiar (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete Person still alive. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The image meets all ten criteria listed in the 'Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria' page; and I can't see that there is any mention among the 10 criteria that a person featured in the image must not be alive. 109.170.220.22 (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:NFC#UUI §1 & wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy §3. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- If it does stay, it needs reducing in size - 502px for the smaller dimension is about 2 times too big. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: 'See WP:NFC#UUI'.
(1) Under Unacceptable Use it says: 'Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose as the non-free image.

So this image falls into the category of those that it would NOT be considered possible to replace with a new image even though the subject is alive because it would be impossible to recreate the circumstance of the image utilising Deerek Ridgers background photograph.

(2) Unnacceptable Use also says: 'However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.'

This image effectively represents a part of the subjct's career that is in the past and that cannot be replicated or updated, and so no replacement photograph could be taken that would serve the same purpose as this image taken during that part of their career.

NOTE: Morrissey has also announced in interviews that it seems unlikely he will record again, which would move him closer to the defintion of 'retired individuals'; The Guardian quotes, 'A new Morrissey album is growing "less and less likely", the singer has revealed... "I now no longer expect to live long enough to experience an offer to record for a grownup label," he wrote this week.' - http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/dec/23/morrissey-chances-new-album-receding
Affable Familiar (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Re: image size - in preview the image is only 160 x 239 and on the page entry it is only 220 x 329. If it is larger on full resolution then by all means reduce the full resolution size. Thanks.

[edit] File:Green Line branches.jpg

see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Green Line branches.jpg; ineligible for fair use so discussion should happen at Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] March 3

[edit] File:VH Luke.png

This fails WP:NFCC#3a (there's already a different non-free image in the article showing the same thing) and WP:NFCC#7 (not used, at least not for the moment). Besides, it is not a logo, as stated in the FUR. Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add to this, don't know if I should, but the image was uploaded for the article and I was in the process of editing the article. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 01:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, keep, then. I tagged this too early: the image is currently the only non-free image in use in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:One Direction, Up All Night alternative cover.jpg

since the book TWO book covers are causing a stir before there was one and that seemed to be fine so could we keep the dare to dream covet instead and delete forever young - AdabowtheSecond

same goes to the album alternative covers i uploaded the new one because the black and white was the same as the main photo but just black and white and how do you see a discography ?? But please atleast keep the dare to dream cover?? Delete forever young

Fails WP:NFCC#3a because there already is a different cover for the CD (File:One direction up all night albumcover.jpg) in the article. Its use makes the infobox look more like a discography (WP:NFCC#UUI §2). Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:One Direction Forever Young book cover.jpg

Used in a kind of gallery section with a different book cover. Stefan2 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:One Direction Dare to Dream Life as One Direction book cover.jpgOne Direction Dare to Dream Life as One Direction book cover.jpg

Used in a kind of gallery section with a different book cover. Stefan2 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Darkness Falls (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack).jpg

WP:NFCC#3a: an almost identical image, File:Darkness Falls movie.jpg, is already used in the same article. Stefan2 (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Reign of Fire (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack).jpg

WP:NFCC#3a: an almost identical file, File:Reign of Fire movie.jpg, is already used in the same article. Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] [[:File:]]

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: Erroneous Nomination. No image name is specified. Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

incorrect picture Odachi16 (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Procedural issue. Editor is attempting to nominate File:Flag of the Ba'ath Party.svg, which is on Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:Dakota Goyo.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 G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §1: person still alive. Stefan2 (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The image is actually free (I chose the wrong template) and is available under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and conforms with applicable copyright laws by sourcing the author and describing the image. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Now tagged {{bsr}}{{di-no permission}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:Troye Sivan.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 G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#1: person still alive. Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The image is actually free (I chose the wrong template) and is available under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and conforms with applicable copyright laws by sourcing the author and describing the image. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Now tagged {{bsr}}{{di-no permission}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:Markham Ward Map.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 as G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFCC#1 (see WP:NFC#UUI §4). Stefan2 (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The image is actually free (I chose the wrong template) and is available under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and conforms with applicable copyright laws by sourcing the author and describing the image. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Now tagged {{bsr}}{{di-no permission}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment it says there's an OTRS ticket?? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Statement added after my tagging, see here and my talk page. Let's wait and see what comes out of it. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:Biomedical.jpg

Unused, useless, small, probably grabbed from random website Bulwersator (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Car Prodn.png

Unused graph without source Bulwersator (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The image source is "Self made" but I'd like to have a source for the data and some more explanation on the numbers to keep it. Car production? Which, where and when? De728631 (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hierarchy of Administration at ECU.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 G6 by Wizardman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Unused and will never be used. No encyclopedia value. Uses comic sans font. Serves no purpose existing on Wikipedia servers GrapedApe (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:Emily Stevenson.jpg

Appears to be an unfree photo of someone who's still alive. See WP:NFC#UUI §1. Stefan2 (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep, the person may be alive but this image depicts her at the height of her career. So the exception stated in WP:NFC#UUI §1 applies: "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." De728631 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Falling-skies-poster.jpg

Non-free file not subject to critical discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mugla map.gif

orphan, no verification of permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mugmapd.jpg

orphaned, supposedly created by the us military but the source (not a us military site) has gone dead, and it is not archived by archive.org. i also searched for this image in google to try to verify the copyright status but couldn't find another copy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This site confirms the NGA as a source. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MugRogolJarrod.JPG

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muhammad Yoosuf.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muhammad Ali painting.JPG

orphan, derivative work of copyrighted image[3] Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, copyvio. De728631 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muhaiminconan94.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (all versions of file) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, useless personal images and drawing. De728631 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:ZebbugGhawdexHTML.gif

no source for either one of component images, superseded by File:Zebbug Gozo coa.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Redundant image. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muhself.jpg

first photo is Orphaned, Unencyclopedic; current photo is OR, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bungalow02.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (only ever used on userpage - user's only contribution, in 2005) for promotion Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bungalow03.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (only ever used on userpage - user's only contribution, in 2005) for promotion Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kolhapur.gif

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (only ever used on userpage - user's only contribution, in 2005) for promotion, not to mention unclear copyright statement Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MUHS1.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (only ever used on userpage - user's only contribution, in 2005) for promotion, not to mention unclear copyright statement Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MUHS3.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (only ever used on userpage - user's only contribution, in 2005) for promotion, not to mention unclear copyright statement Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rajapur.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (only ever used on userpage - user's only contribution, in 2005) for promotion, not to mention unclear copyright statement Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rohinjan.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (only ever used on userpage - user's only contribution, in 2005) for promotion, not to mention unclear copyright statement Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muhan-haha-concert5.png

Orphaned, sourced to random blog Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Haha SBS Award 2011.jpg

cannot verify source of image - this image doesn't seem to have been uploaded by whitenight7 at ko.wiki or at commons. maybe it has been deleted since uploading? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mujer Chichimeca.jpg

sourced to random geocities site (now dead) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Plaza Zaragoza.jpg

no stated source, user's other uploads are sourced to random geocities/tripod sites Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mujss peoplephoto.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mullette.jpg

Orphaned, photo appears all over the internet[4], likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MultArt05-Eliabeth.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, appears to require permission for use outside wikipedia, which is not permitted Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MultArt05-Ismary.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, appears to require permission for use outside wikipedia, which is not permitted Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MultArt05-Jessie.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, appears to require permission for use outside wikipedia, which is not permitted Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MultArt05-Melanie.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, appears to require permission for use outside wikipedia, which is not permitted Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MultArt02-NameUnknown.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, appears to require permission for use outside wikipedia, which is not permitted Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MultArt02-Eddie.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, appears to require permission for use outside wikipedia, which is not permitted Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MultArt02-Ivette.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, appears to require permission for use outside wikipedia, which is not permitted Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Legalgato.jpg

Orphaned, user has uploaded two supposedly self-taken photos and the other is definitely a copyvio. i think we should delete this because there's no way to be sure of its copyright status Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MumCat and kittens.jpg

Orphaned, very low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom Bulwersator (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Red chin curtain feat teenage moustache.JPG

Unused user photo (I assume) without evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of permission. De728631 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] March 4

[edit] File:Dan Schneider.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-free photo of a person who is still alive (see WP:NFC#UUI §1). Stefan2 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, replaceable. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:Engin Akyurek, Turkish Actor.jpg

Non-free photo of someone who still appears to be alive. Stefan2 (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Stefan:

I may have miscategorized this picture, as I didn't know how to load it correctly, and to categorize it. The picture is of someone who is alive, but was sent to me by the production company, Ay Yapim, for which Engin Akyurek works. The picture was to be uploaded into the Wiki file, "Engin Akyurek" as it is missing an image. I looked at the other categorizations for images, and thought this would be the best choice; if I should categorize it in another way, please let me know, and I will do my best to reload it. Alternatively, if I can have an administrator load it correctly, that would be fantastic. The picture was sent to me directly by the production company, with the understanding that it be used in Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Infuzein (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is not categorisation but the fact that non-free images of living people can be replaced by other images with a free license. And if this was sent to you by a company, we need a confirmation from them by email that validates any free use license they may give to the image. It's not up to you to decide about the licensing but the author of the image ultimately has to release their work under a certain permission of use. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DCM and WP:CONSENT for further instructions to get permission for free licensing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mercurybattery2.PNG

Image is inaccurate and of no encyclopediac value Wtshymanski (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: why exactly is this inaccurate? And we have an article on the mercury battery so the image could be used. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Mercury batteries don't have a zinc can. Steel is not the cathode. The electrolyte is not a solution of mercuric oxide (mercuric oxide doesn't dissolve). --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Golgo 13 - ss 3.gif

Fails NFCC #8 - it's a random copyvio cutscene from a game, in fullres, that is quite adequately described by the (overwrought and obsessive, as is typical for anime and videogames) article text. 108.45.112.39 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete not a reduced resolution video since the NES native resolution is 256x224. ☮Soap☮ 04:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Golgo 13 - ss 4.gif

Fails NFCC #8 - it's a random copyvio cutscene from a game, in fullres, that is quite adequately described by the (overwrought and obsessive, as is typical for anime and videogames) article text. 108.45.112.39 (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete not a reduced resolution video since the NES native resolution is 256x224. ☮Soap☮ 04:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MU panoramic.JPG

Orphaned, possible copyright violation - no stated source, image watermarked as though it comes from the school website, a cropped version of this image is confirmed to exist on the school website[5] Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User says he will get confirmed permission for this image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The owner has sent in the OTRS request. Gsingh (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mu'tah.JPG

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mubabinge.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Mubabinge Bilolo) Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mubashirr.JPG

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mucemoore.gif

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (article deleted as non-notable) Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muchachos-Ivan Iqbal and Carlito--- after eid prayer.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pakistani students during Eid gathering.jpeg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Last broncos game at anz.jpg

This file is either PD-self (and then it should be kept) or it is unfree and then it should be deleted as replacable (other images in the article where it i used).

I searched the internet for other versions and one website mentioned http://www.freebase.com/view/m/02fx_kf as source but that mention Wikipedia as source. So I found no proof that it was taken from the Internet.

I listed the file here because uploader did not add a clear source (like "own work" or "taken from <link>".

Uploader has many deletion notices on the user talk but they are almost all related to logos so I see no evidence that the user has a history of uploading copyvios as own work. MGA73 (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mudaliar people.jpg

Orphaned, composite of a bunch of unsourced images that are themselves up for deletion Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mudau coa.jpg

Orphaned, superseded by File:Wappen Mudau.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muckross.jpg

Orphaned, Low quality, unverified permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mudchute02.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mudcloth-006.jpg

worse-quality version of File:Mudcloth-005.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muddasser.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muddhall1920.jpg

Orphaned, Low quality, unverifiable source Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muddyb 4.JPG

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Carry on please! I don't need it anymore.--_{Mwanaharakati}^(Longa) 06:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muff.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (1st and 3rd versions); no source, likely copyvio (second version) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mugai-wiki.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tsuba-wiki.jpg

Orphaned, Low quality, uploader appears to upload almost exclusively copyvios Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mushin-wiki.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] March 5

[edit] File:MumsOnline Header.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mumss camera pic tures 026.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tulips2007paris.jpg

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mumv.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MumandDadWedding.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mulatto Woman 1861.jpg

Orphaned, worse-quality version of File:Boyce Joanna Mrs. Edwards.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Multi-Image workflow.png

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value (no source - original research?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MultiBuildingManagementCenter -BrightCore.PNG

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value, no stated source Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Structure and operation brightcore.PNG

Orphaned, undescribed, unclear encyclopedic value, could be recreated if needed Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:LonBrightNode.PNG

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value (may relate to BrightCore), could be recreated if needed Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Modbus BrightNode.PNG

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value (may relate to BrightCore), could be recreated if needed Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:DemonstrationSytem - BrightCore.PNG

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value (may relate to BrightCore), could be recreated if needed Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MultiCam.jpg

Orphaned, fabric designs can be copyrighted, and this looks creative enough to be copyrightable. a wikipedian could make a freely-licensed camo print instead. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Set-mundu.jpg

Orphaned, no stated source, user's other uploads are copyvios Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mundkurganapa.gif

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code no colour3528f.gif

Unused, without description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code no colour3750f.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code no colour3652f.gif

Unused, without description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code no colour3650f.gif

Unused, without description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code no colour3523.gif

Unused, without description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code no colour3529.gif

Unused, without description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code no colour3521.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code black41.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code darkgreen75.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code darkgreen84.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code darkgreen72.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code brown89.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code brown62.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code brown60.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code brown58.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code black3650.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code black3652.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code black83.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code black43.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code Red50.jpg

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:BLACK50.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code Red50.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code green60.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code green61.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code green62.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code green63.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code green64.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code black40.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code black45.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code red51.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code red52.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code red53.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code red54.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Unit code darkgreen92.gif

Unused, without useful description therefore useless Bulwersator (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Once More with Feeling- Singles 1996–2004 CD-DVD front cover.jpeg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of fair use images and too high resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete: the same artwork of the CD cover. Quite useless. Cavarrone (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Once More with Feeling- Singles 1996–2004 DVD front cover.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of fair use images and too high resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep this cover is different and alternative to the CD cover, and the two images dispay different products (the DVD and the CD). A second image is not excessive use of fair image if it is justified, as in this case. Cavarrone (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The significance of the different cover isn't discussed in the article, so it fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Special Needs 7" vinyl front cover.jpeg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of fair use images and too high resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Special Needs DVD front cover.jpeg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of fair use images and too high resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Every Day Should Be a Holiday 1998 version front cover.jpeg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of fair use images. Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Seventh Dream of Teenage Heaven 2000 reissue front cover.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of fair use images and too high resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:We Used to Be Friends DVD front cover.jpeg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of fair use images and too high resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:You Were the Last High.jpeg

Fails WP:NFCC#1: is replaceable by File:You Were the Last High CD2 front cover.jpeg which is ineligible for copyright. Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Get Off (The Dandy Warhols song) CD2 front cover.jpeg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of fair use images and too high resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Boys Better CD2 front cover.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of fair use images and too high resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:AdamandtheAntsDirkWearsWhiteSox.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of non-free images. Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This is not excessive at all. It illustrates the album cover from the re-release, which is completely different to the cover of the original release.--Michig (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The significance of the different cover isn't discussed in the article, so it fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The album was reissued in a different format several years after its original release with a completely different sleeve. The additional image increases readers' understanding of the different versions of the albums, thus passing criterion 8.--Michig (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The significance of the second cover being different isn't critically discussed in the article. Compare with the article Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film): an old film for which there are plenty of different film posters, DVD covers, VHS covers and other kinds of posters and covers. Yet, only one of them is included in the article, with a single screenshot from the film further down. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The cover from the 1983 version being different is discussed in the article. There are exactly two images that identify the different versions of this album. Not comparable at all to Snow White. This is the sleeve from a different version of the album, with different tracks.--Michig (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Elgin Avenue Breakdown Revisited.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of fair use images. Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Live at CBGB Theatre, New York - July 18th 1978 front cover.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of non-free images. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:The dandy warhols bohemian like you (front) - Re-Release.JPG

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of non-free images and too high resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bohemian Like You Australian Tour EP front cover.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of non-free images and too high resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bohemian Like You CD2 front cover.jpeg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of non-free images. Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

...on Earth? LF (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Machine Gun Fellatio - Paging Mr. Strike - 2nd Page for Mr. Strike Coverart.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3: excessive use of non-free images. Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the proposed deletion. It clearly is excessive and gives no extra value to the article. Salavat (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:US 30 and 5th Avenue in Chicago Heights, Illinois.JPG

Orphaned local version of Commons file. Kelly ^hi! 16:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:PaceOrionVI.jpg

Orphan, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 16:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Logoshoepediageniuscopy copy.gif

OR, LQ, no encyc use foreseen Skier Dude (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gorbalwheelchair.jpg

OR, UE, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gorbalsgroup2.jpg

OR, UE, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Keith Barry 2.jpg

Non-free photo of a person who is still alive. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't delete this image, because this is a non-free media information and use rationale for Keith Barry article see photo licensing. Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 21:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

He is still alive, so you will have to wait until he dies before you can upload any non-free photos of him. See WP:NFC#UUI §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Teddy bear 1111111.jpg

Useless user photo. Additionally: "photo by: S.F.", uploaded as own work by User:Inthenameofgod, possibly copyvio because of toy policy. Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Micopix 029.JPG

Unused user photo, I suppose. Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mico.jpg

Unused user photo or copyvio (see watermark). Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mark-Abel.jpg

Non-free photo of a person who is still alive. Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:LIVE RR LittleBook.jpg

WP:NFC#UUI §2: CD covers as part of a discography are disallowed. This is a similar situation: lots of non-free book covers in a list of books. Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This is not a "random assembly" of book covers, or merely a "list of books." This specific book was edited by the subject of this Wikipedia article. The book cover is a clear and specific way to illustrate the book, which the subject edited.

Also, this is a book cover of a published hardcover book. The publisher who owns the copyright is not harmed or damaged in any way by the use of this image. In fact, since the publisher wants to sell its books, the publisher benefits from the inclusion of this image.

The significance of this precise book is discussed in the article itself, and numerous in-line citations are also provided.

In addition, the image is not being used in a promotional manner, and does not tarnish or compromise the underlying product. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, images of CD covers in a discography are not a "random assembly" of CD covers, or merely a "list of CDs." Those specific CDs are made by the subject of a single Wikipedia article, but images of them are still not allowed in a discography. This is exactly the same situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NFC#UUI, please note that WP:NFC#UUI defines the following as an allowable use:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

This is precisely the way this photo was used in this article, with critical commentary, newspaper reviews, and in-line citations about this specific book. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Compare with the article Walt Disney Classics which is not allowed to contain non-free photos of all of the films discussed in it. What is the difference between that article and the way you're using the image in this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, that is a good question because it precisely illustrates the point, and precisely demonstrates what WP:NFC#UUI is saying. If you read through the Walt Disney Classics article, you will see that there is no critical commentary, merely a recitation of box office statistics. However this photo that was nominated, relates to a book that was discussed with critical commentary, newspaper references, and in-line citations.

The Walt Disney photos fail under the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard. This photo meets that standard.

I'm glad you brought up this point, because it helps to illustrate the policy rationale for this photo. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you read through this article, you will notice that there is even less critical commentary: the article only lists a few works and mentions some things related to them. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, please do not be offended by this - but what you are saying is not true, and does not make sense. The Walt Disney photos had zero critical commentary related to them. That is why they failed the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard.

But this photo was accompanied by newspaper articles, direct quotes to those news articles, and in-line citations to those news articles, all of which dealt with the book associated with this specific photo. So this photo was accompanied by much more critical commentary than the Walt Disney article which you mentioned. The Disney article had no critical commentary, but merely a recitation of box office statistics. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Leibowitz.jpg

WP:NFC#UUI §2: CD covers as part of a discography are disallowed. This is a similar situation: lots of non-free book covers in a list of books. Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This is not a "random assembly" of book covers, or merely a "list of books." This specific book was edited by the subject of this Wikipedia article. The book cover is a clear and specific way to illustrate the book, which the subject edited.

Also, this is a book cover of a published hardcover book. The publisher who owns the copyright is not harmed or damaged in any way by the use of this image. In fact, since the publisher wants to sell its books, the publisher benefits from the inclusion of this image.

The significance of this precise book is discussed in the article itself, and numerous in-line citations are also provided.

In addition, the image is not being used in a promotional manner, and does not tarnish or compromise the underlying product. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, images of CD covers in a discography are not a "random assembly" of CD covers, or merely a "list of CDs." Those specific CDs are made by the subject of a single Wikipedia article, but images of them are still not allowed in a discography. This is exactly the same situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NFC#UUI, please note that WP:NFC#UUI defines the following as an allowable use:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

This is precisely the way this photo was used in this article, with critical commentary, newspaper reviews, and in-line citations about this specific book. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Compare with the article Walt Disney Classics which is not allowed to contain non-free photos of all of the films discussed in it. What is the difference between that article and the way you're using the image in this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, that is a good question because it precisely illustrates the point, and precisely demonstrates what WP:NFC#UUI is saying. If you read through the Walt Disney Classics article, you will see that there is no critical commentary, merely a recitation of box office statistics. However this photo that was nominated, relates to a book that was discussed with critical commentary, newspaper references, and in-line citations.

The Walt Disney photos fail under the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard. This photo meets that standard.

I'm glad you brought up this point, because it helps to illustrate the policy rationale for this photo. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you read through this article, you will notice that there is even less critical commentary: the article only lists a few works and mentions some things related to them. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, please do not be offended by this - but what you are saying is not true, and does not make sense. The Walt Disney photos had zero critical commentary related to them. That is why they failed the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard.

But this photo was accompanied by newspaper articles, direct quotes to those news articles, and in-line citations to those news articles, all of which dealt with the book associated with this specific photo. So this photo was accompanied by much more critical commentary than the Walt Disney article which you mentioned. The Disney article had no critical commentary, but merely a recitation of box office statistics. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Roomftd.jpg

WP:NFC#UUI §2: CD covers as part of a discography are disallowed. This is a similar situation: lots of non-free book covers in a list of books. Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This is not a "random assembly" of book covers, or merely a "list of books." This specific book was edited by the subject of this Wikipedia article. The book cover is a clear and specific way to illustrate the book, which the subject edited.

Also, this is a book cover of a published hardcover book. The publisher who owns the copyright is not harmed or damaged in any way by the use of this image. In fact, since the publisher wants to sell its books, the publisher benefits from the inclusion of this image.

The significance of this precise book is discussed in the article itself, and numerous in-line citations are also provided.

In addition, the image is not being used in a promotional manner, and does not tarnish or compromise the underlying product. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, images of CD covers in a discography are not a "random assembly" of CD covers, or merely a "list of CDs." Those specific CDs are made by the subject of a single Wikipedia article, but images of them are still not allowed in a discography. This is exactly the same situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NFC#UUI, please note that WP:NFC#UUI defines the following as an allowable use:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

This is precisely the way this photo was used in this article, with critical commentary, newspaper reviews, and in-line citations about this specific book. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Compare with the article Walt Disney Classics which is not allowed to contain non-free photos of all of the films discussed in it. What is the difference between that article and the way you're using the image in this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, that is a good question because it precisely illustrates the point, and precisely demonstrates what WP:NFC#UUI is saying. If you read through the Walt Disney Classics article, you will see that there is no critical commentary, merely a recitation of box office statistics. However this photo that was nominated, relates to a book that was discussed with critical commentary, newspaper references, and in-line citations.

The Walt Disney photos fail under the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard. This photo meets that standard.

I'm glad you brought up this point, because it helps to illustrate the policy rationale for this photo. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you read through this article, you will notice that there is even less critical commentary: the article only lists a few works and mentions some things related to them. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, please do not be offended by this - but what you are saying is not true, and does not make sense. The Walt Disney photos had zero critical commentary related to them. That is why they failed the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard.

But this photo was accompanied by newspaper articles, direct quotes to those news articles, and in-line citations to those news articles, all of which dealt with the book associated with this specific photo. So this photo was accompanied by much more critical commentary than the Walt Disney article which you mentioned. The Disney article had no critical commentary, but merely a recitation of box office statistics. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Farm&m.jpg

WP:NFC#UUI §2: CD covers as part of a discography are disallowed. This is a similar situation: lots of non-free book covers in a list of books. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This is not a "random assembly" of book covers, or merely a "list of books." This specific book was edited by the subject of this Wikipedia article. The book cover is a clear and specific way to illustrate the book, which the subject edited.

Also, this is a book cover of a published hardcover book. The publisher who owns the copyright is not harmed or damaged in any way by the use of this image. In fact, since the publisher wants to sell its books, the publisher benefits from the inclusion of this image.

The significance of this precise book is discussed in the article itself, and numerous in-line citations are also provided.

In addition, the image is not being used in a promotional manner, and does not tarnish or compromise the underlying product. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, images of CD covers in a discography are not a "random assembly" of CD covers, or merely a "list of CDs." Those specific CDs are made by the subject of a single Wikipedia article, but images of them are still not allowed in a discography. This is exactly the same situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NFC#UUI, please note that WP:NFC#UUI defines the following as an allowable use:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

This is precisely the way this photo was used in this article, with critical commentary, newspaper reviews, and in-line citations about this specific book. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Compare with the article Walt Disney Classics which is not allowed to contain non-free photos of all of the films discussed in it. What is the difference between that article and the way you're using the image in this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, that is a good question because it precisely illustrates the point, and precisely demonstrates what WP:NFC#UUI is saying. If you read through the Walt Disney Classics article, you will see that there is no critical commentary, merely a recitation of box office statistics. However this photo that was nominated, relates to a book that was discussed with critical commentary, newspaper references, and in-line citations.

The Walt Disney photos fail under the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard. This photo meets that standard.

I'm glad you brought up this point, because it helps to illustrate the policy rationale for this photo. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you read through this article, you will notice that there is even less critical commentary: the article only lists a few works and mentions some things related to them. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, please do not be offended by this - but what you are saying is not true, and does not make sense. The Walt Disney photos had zero critical commentary related to them. That is why they failed the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard.

But this photo was accompanied by newspaper articles, direct quotes to those news articles, and in-line citations to those news articles, all of which dealt with the book associated with this specific photo. So this photo was accompanied by much more critical commentary than the Walt Disney article which you mentioned. The Disney article had no critical commentary, but merely a recitation of box office statistics. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Be a road.jpg

WP:NFC#UUI §2: CD covers as part of a discography are disallowed. This is a similar situation: lots of non-free book covers in a list of books. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This is not a "random assembly" of book covers, or merely a "list of books." This specific book was edited by the subject of this Wikipedia article. The book cover is a clear and specific way to illustrate the book, which the subject edited.

Also, this is a book cover of a published hardcover book. The publisher who owns the copyright is not harmed or damaged in any way by the use of this image. In fact, since the publisher wants to sell its books, the publisher benefits from the inclusion of this image.

The significance of this precise book is discussed in the article itself, and numerous in-line citations are also provided.

In addition, the image is not being used in a promotional manner, and does not tarnish or compromise the underlying product. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, images of CD covers in a discography are not a "random assembly" of CD covers, or merely a "list of CDs." Those specific CDs are made by the subject of a single Wikipedia article, but images of them are still not allowed in a discography. This is exactly the same situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NFC#UUI, please note that WP:NFC#UUI defines the following as an allowable use:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

This is precisely the way this photo was used in this article, with critical commentary, newspaper reviews, and in-line citations about this specific book. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Compare with the article Walt Disney Classics which is not allowed to contain non-free photos of all of the films discussed in it. What is the difference between that article and the way you're using the image in this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, that is a good question because it precisely illustrates the point, and precisely demonstrates what WP:NFC#UUI is saying. If you read through the Walt Disney Classics article, you will see that there is no critical commentary, merely a recitation of box office statistics. However this photo that was nominated, relates to a book that was discussed with critical commentary, newspaper references, and in-line citations.

The Walt Disney photos fail under the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard. This photo meets that standard.

I'm glad you brought up this point, because it helps to illustrate the policy rationale for this photo. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you read through this article, you will notice that there is even less critical commentary: the article only lists a few works and mentions some things related to them. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, please do not be offended by this - but what you are saying is not true, and does not make sense. The Walt Disney photos had zero critical commentary related to them. That is why they failed the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard.

But this photo was accompanied by newspaper articles, direct quotes to those news articles, and in-line citations to those news articles, all of which dealt with the book associated with this specific photo. So this photo was accompanied by much more critical commentary than the Walt Disney article which you mentioned. The Disney article had no critical commentary, but merely a recitation of box office statistics. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Butlerian.jpg

WP:NFC#UUI §2: CD covers as part of a discography are disallowed. This is a similar situation: lots of non-free book covers in a list of books. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This is not a "random assembly" of book covers, or merely a "list of books." This specific book was edited by the subject of this Wikipedia article. The book cover is a clear and specific way to illustrate the book, which the subject edited.

The significance of this precise book is discussed in the article itself, and numerous in-line citations are also provided.

Also, this is a book cover of a published hardcover book. The publisher who owns the copyright is not harmed or damaged in any way by the use of this image. In fact, since the publisher wants to sell its books, the publisher benefits from the inclusion of this image.

In addition, the image is not being used in a promotional manner, and does not tarnish or compromise the underlying product. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, images of CD covers in a discography are not a "random assembly" of CD covers, or merely a "list of CDs." Those specific CDs are made by the subject of a single Wikipedia article, but images of them are still not allowed in a discography. This is exactly the same situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NFC#UUI, please note that WP:NFC#UUI defines the following as an allowable use:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

This is precisely the way this photo was used in this article, with critical commentary, newspaper reviews, and in-line citations about this specific book. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Compare with the article Walt Disney Classics which is not allowed to contain non-free photos of all of the films discussed in it. What is the difference between that article and the way you're using the image in this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, that is a good question because it precisely illustrates the point, and precisely demonstrates what WP:NFC#UUI is saying. If you read through the Walt Disney Classics article, you will see that there is no critical commentary, merely a recitation of box office statistics. However this photo that was nominated, relates to a book that was discussed with critical commentary, newspaper references, and in-line citations.

The Walt Disney photos fail under the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard. This photo meets that standard.

I'm glad you brought up this point, because it helps to illustrate the policy rationale for this photo. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you read through this article, you will notice that there is even less critical commentary: the article only lists a few works and mentions some things related to them. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, please do not be offended by this - but what you are saying is not true, and does not make sense. The Walt Disney photos had zero critical commentary related to them. That is why they failed the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard.

But this photo was accompanied by newspaper articles, direct quotes to those news articles, and in-line citations to those news articles, all of which dealt with the book associated with this specific photo. So this photo was accompanied by much more critical commentary than the Walt Disney article which you mentioned. The Disney article had no critical commentary, but merely a recitation of box office statistics. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] March 6

[edit] File:Sixtoescobar.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 G7 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo of a venue, probably Estadio Sixto Escobar, which still appears to exist. See WP:NFC#UUI §1. Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

DELETE. I was the uploader of this photo, and User talk:Stefan2 makes a good point. I think his photo does have a problem, since it is a still-standing structure. I agree with his deletion nomination. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:Twofamilyhouse.jpg

Film poster used in a discography-like situation, see WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2(talk) 00:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This is not a "random assembly" of movie posters, or merely a "list of movies." This specific film was produced by the subject of this Wikipedia article. The poster is a clear and specific way to illustrate the film, which the subject produced.

The significance of this precise film is discussed in the article itself, and in-line citations are also provided.

Also, this is a poster of a film that was distributed. The distributor of the film is not harmed or damaged in any way by the use of this image. In fact, since the distributor wants to sell its films, the distributor benefits from the inclusion of this image.

In addition, the image is not being used in a promotional manner, and does not tarnish or compromise the underlying product. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, images of CD covers in a discography are not a "random assembly" of CD covers, or merely a "list of CDs." Those specific CDs are made by the subject of a single Wikipedia article, but images of them are still not allowed in a discography. This is exactly the same situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NFC#UUI, please note that WP:NFC#UUI defines the following as an allowable use:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

This is precisely the way this photo was used in this article, with critical commentary, newspaper reviews, and in-line citations about this specific film. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Compare with the article Walt Disney Classics which is not allowed to contain non-free photos of all of the films discussed in it. What is the difference between that article and the way you're using the image in this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, that is a good question because it precisely illustrates the point, and precisely demonstrates what WP:NFC#UUI is saying. If you read through the Walt Disney Classics article, you will see that there is no critical commentary, merely a recitation of box office statistics. However this photo that was nominated, relates to a film that was discussed with critical commentary, newspaper references, and in-line citations.

The Walt Disney photos fail under the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard. This photo meets that standard.

I'm glad you brought up this point, because it helps to illustrate the policy rationale for this photo. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you read through this article, you will notice that there is even less critical commentary: the article only lists a few works and mentions some things related to them. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, please do not be offended by this - but what you are saying is not true, and does not make sense. The Walt Disney photos had zero critical commentary related to them. That is why they failed the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard.

But this photo was accompanied by newspaper articles, direct quotes to those news articles, and in-line citations to those news articles, all of which dealt with the film associated with this specific photo. So this photo was accompanied by much more critical commentary than the Walt Disney article which you mentioned. The Disney article had no critical commentary, but merely a recitation of box office statistics. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Forever Fabulous.jpg

Film poster used in a discography-like situation, see WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This is not a "random assembly" of movie posters, or merely a "list of movies." This specific film was produced by the subject of this Wikipedia article. The poster is a clear and specific way to illustrate the film, which the subject produced.

The significance of this precise film is discussed in the article itself, and in-line citations are also provided.

Also, this is a poster of a film that was distributed. The distributor of the film is not harmed or damaged in any way by the use of this image. In fact, since the distributor wants to sell its films, the distributor benefits from the inclusion of this image.

In addition, the image is not being used in a promotional manner, and does not tarnish or compromise the underlying product. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, images of CD covers in a discography are not a "random assembly" of CD covers, or merely a "list of CDs." Those specific CDs are made by the subject of a single Wikipedia article, but images of them are still not allowed in a discography. This is exactly the same situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NFC#UUI, please note that WP:NFC#UUI defines the following as an allowable use:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

This is precisely the way this photo was used in this article, with critical commentary, newspaper reviews, and in-line citations about this specific film. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Compare with the article Walt Disney Classics which is not allowed to contain non-free photos of all of the films discussed in it. What is the difference between that article and the way you're using the image in this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, that is a good question because it precisely illustrates the point, and precisely demonstrates what WP:NFC#UUI is saying. If you read through the Walt Disney Classics article, you will see that there is no critical commentary, merely a recitation of box office statistics. However this photo that was nominated, relates to a film that was discussed with critical commentary, newspaper references, and in-line citations.

The Walt Disney photos fail under the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard. This photo meets that standard.

I'm glad you brought up this point, because it helps to illustrate the policy rationale for this photo. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you read through this article, you will notice that there is even less critical commentary: the article only lists a few works and mentions some things related to them. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, please do not be offended by this - but what you are saying is not true, and does not make sense. The Walt Disney photos had zero critical commentary related to them. That is why they failed the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard.

But this photo was accompanied by newspaper articles, direct quotes to those news articles, and in-line citations to those news articles, all of which dealt with the film associated with this specific photo. So this photo was accompanied by much more critical commentary than the Walt Disney article which you mentioned. The Disney article had no critical commentary, but merely a recitation of box office statistics.Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:McCann-Runaway-DVD-2009.jpg

Film poster used in a discography-like situation, see WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This is not a "random assembly" of movie posters, or merely a "list of movies." This specific film was produced by the subject of this Wikipedia article. The poster is a clear and specific way to illustrate the film, which the subject produced.

The significance of this precise film is discussed in the article itself, and in-line citations are also provided.

Also, this is a poster of a film that was distributed. The distributor of the film is not harmed or damaged in any way by the use of this image. In fact, since the distributor wants to sell its films, the distributor benefits from the inclusion of this image.

In addition, the image is not being used in a promotional manner, and does not tarnish or compromise the underlying product. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, images of CD covers in a discography are not a "random assembly" of CD covers, or merely a "list of CDs." Those specific CDs are made by the subject of a single Wikipedia article, but images of them are still not allowed in a discography. This is exactly the same situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NFC#UUI, please note that WP:NFC#UUI defines the following as an allowable use:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

This is precisely the way this photo was used in this article, with critical commentary, newspaper reviews, and in-line citations about this specific film. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Compare with the article Walt Disney Classics which is not allowed to contain non-free photos of all of the films discussed in it. What is the difference between that article and the way you're using the image in this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, that is a good question because it precisely illustrates the point, and precisely demonstrates what WP:NFC#UUI is saying. If you read through the Walt Disney Classics article, you will see that there is no critical commentary, merely a recitation of box office statistics. However this photo that was nominated, relates to a film that was discussed with critical commentary, newspaper references, and in-line citations.

The Walt Disney photos fail under the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard. This photo meets that standard.

I'm glad you brought up this point, because it helps to illustrate the policy rationale for this photo. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you read through this article, you will notice that there is even less critical commentary: the article only lists a few works and mentions some things related to them. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, please do not be offended by this - but what you are saying is not true, and does not make sense. The Walt Disney photos had zero critical commentary related to them. That is why they failed the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard.

But this photo was accompanied by newspaper articles, direct quotes to those news articles, and in-line citations to those news articles, all of which dealt with the film associated with this specific photo. So this photo was accompanied by much more critical commentary than the Walt Disney article which you mentioned. The Disney article had no critical commentary, but merely a recitation of box office statistics. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:51n2aQdwWrL SX500 .jpg

Film poster used in a discography-like situation, see WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This is not a "random assembly" of movie posters, or merely a "list of movies." This specific film was produced by the subject of this Wikipedia article. The poster is a clear and specific way to illustrate the film, which the subject produced.

The significance of this precise film is discussed in the article itself, and in-line citations are also provided.

Also, this is a poster of a film that was distributed. The distributor of the film is not harmed or damaged in any way by the use of this image. In fact, since the distributor wants to sell its films, the distributor benefits from the inclusion of this image.

In addition, the image is not being used in a promotional manner, and does not tarnish or compromise the underlying product. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, images of CD covers in a discography are not a "random assembly" of CD covers, or merely a "list of CDs." Those specific CDs are made by the subject of a single Wikipedia article, but images of them are still not allowed in a discography. This is exactly the same situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NFC#UUI, please note that WP:NFC#UUI defines the following as an allowable use:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

This is precisely the way this photo was used in this article, with critical commentary, newspaper reviews, and in-line citations about this specific film. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Compare with the article Walt Disney Classics which is not allowed to contain non-free photos of all of the films discussed in it. What is the difference between that article and the way you're using the image in this article? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, that is a good question because it precisely illustrates the point, and precisely demonstrates what WP:NFC#UUI is saying. If you read through the Walt Disney Classics article, you will see that there is no critical commentary, merely a recitation of box office statistics. However this photo that was nominated, relates to a film that was discussed with critical commentary, newspaper references, and in-line citations.

The Walt Disney photos fail under the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard. This photo meets that standard.

I'm glad you brought up this point, because it helps to illustrate the policy rationale for this photo. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But if you read through this article, you will notice that there is even less critical commentary: the article only lists a few works and mentions some things related to them. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2, please do not be offended by this - but what you are saying is not true, and does not make sense. The Walt Disney photos had zero critical commentary related to them. That is why they failed the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard.

But this photo was accompanied by newspaper articles, direct quotes to those news articles, and in-line citations to those news articles, all of which dealt with the film associated with this specific photo. So this photo was accompanied by much more critical commentary than the Walt Disney article which you mentioned. The Disney article had no critical commentary, but merely a recitation of box office statistics. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Photo of gaia.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 G7 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo of someone who is still alive. Taken from Flickr where it is listed as having all rights reserved. I tagged this as "replaceable fair use" but it was disputed: "Reasons to remove this tag: The individual is a recluse, and creates all his work under the pseudonym "Gaia." In addition, this photo file is taken from the FlickR Photostream of Gaia [6]" Still looks replaceable, though. The person is alive and since it is possible to see what he looks like on this photo, he would be easily identified if you happen to be walking in the right city with a camera when he's painting somewhere. Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

DELETE. I was the uploader of this photo, and User talk:Stefan2 makes a good point. I think this photo does have a problem. Although the artist Gaia is not fully recognizable in the photo, he is still partly visible. I agree with this deletion nomination. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

[edit] File:Keith and Joe.JPG

The article on Keith Curtin closed as delete (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Curtin), so this photo should probably also be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Keith and cormega.JPG

The article on Keith Curtin closed as delete (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Curtin), so this photo should probably also be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Travis and keith.jpg

The article on Keith Curtin closed as delete (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Curtin), so this photo should probably also be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Leeroyparnell.alittlebitofyou.jpg

Way too low quality. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:RufflesBag.jpg

better quality, more encyclopedic image exists to demonstrate Ruffles packaging, at File:Reducedfatrufflesbag.jpg Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:CDCover for Snehikkunna Daivam 2010.jpg

Currently unused image uploaded with the sole intent of being used in Sands G Sunny, which was CSD'ed as G11; the image can serve no other purpose and may constitute "advertising" by itself. Salvidrim! 09:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sydney morning herald masthead.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pacific bell logo.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Viacom logo.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:EMC logo.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:NSPower Logo.PNG

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Caldor logo.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Heinekenlogo.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Microsoft Game Studios.svg

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Canada flag corp signature small.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:C-SPAN.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:SAS Ligaen.png

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chvchile.jpg

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Council on Foreign Relations Logo.jpg

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Shareaza 2 Logo.png

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pocketstation logo mod.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Keane Logo2.png

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Windows 98 logo.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:SilverLegacy.jpg

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ntpc.jpg

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lightsurf Logo.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:The Adult Channel.jpg

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:ASEA logo modern.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Amcal.PNG

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Premchaine.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cjadlogo.png

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tremere.gif

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:NordstromPNGlogo.PNG

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Winn-Dixie logo 2006.png

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Los.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:LA 1142.png

Unused logo, replaced by svg Bulwersator (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Logobig2.gif

This is a no longer needed variant of File:Logobig2.png Jezhotwells (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Klondike-gold-rush-NHP-seattle.jpg

Orphan, unable to verify license. Kelly ^hi! 14:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Spaceneedleseattle.jpg

Orphan, low resolution, unable to verify original source/license. Kelly ^hi! 14:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sound001.jpg

Blurry, unknown guitarist, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Angelo State University Library.jpg

Orphan, low-resolution, possibly nonfree. Kelly ^hi! 15:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ftpitttunnel1.JPG

Orphan, poor quality, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 15:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, looks like it is the Fort Pitt Tunnel. However, I don't think this particular image is work keeping. Kelly ^hi! 15:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Museum20buckle.jpg

orphaned photo of copyrighted belt buckle Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MuseumBuckle.jpg

orphaned photo of copyrighted belt buckle Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mustang-ani-t.gif

Orphaned, sourced to random (now-dead) website Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rates of Return Example1.JPG

Orphaned, unneeded Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mutual-Information.jpg

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value, could be recreated using WP:MATH Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mutually-inscribed-pentagon.png

Orphaned, superseded by SVG Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mutualism gradient.jpg

Orphaned, now replaced with a text table in Biological interaction Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Muyangguniang.jpg

Orphaned, appears to relate to United SimCity Nations (Unencyclopedic) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Meowkat.jpg

Orphaned. Impossible to see what it is. Stefan2 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mini-Comet on 75 map.jpg

Only briefly mentioned. Fails WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This image actually falls under the Public Domain, as it was printed without copyright notice prior to 1978. --Son (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If there was no copyright notice, there is no problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Have just searched at copyright.gov under "Hershey". There are some listings for Hershey Entertainment & Resort, but none appear to pertain to any park maps. We hope (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mini-Comet on 78 map.jpg

Only briefly mentioned. Fails WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe this image falls under public domain, as it is without notice, and was not copyrighted within 5 years of publishing. --Son (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If there was no copyright notice and no registration, there is no problem. Is anyone aware of any database where you can search for registrations? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Have just searched at copyright.gov under "Hershey". There are some listings for Hershey Entertainment & Resort, but none appear to pertain to any park maps. We hope (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

One of these also turned up at eBay. If you look at the auction images with the eBay viewer or as separate images 1 2 3 4 The mini comet is seen best here, near the smaller ZooAmerica box, there's no evidence of copyright marks. We hope (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:XJapanreunionfans.jpg

A blurry crowd. Useless? Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] March 7

[edit] Footer

Today is March 7 2012. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 7 -- (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===March 7===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for deletion page (the one you're on now) work.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion

[edit] What not to list here

Contents

[edit] Instructions for discussion participation

[edit] Instructions for closing discussions

[edit] Old discussions

Discussions approaching conclusion

[edit] Recent nominations

[edit] March 1

[edit] File:Hla.jpg + 1 other

[edit] File:Hoaxis.JPG

[edit] File:Holladaypic.jpg

[edit] File:Susan kliewer 'sinagua' statue sedona arizona.jpg

[edit] File:Atlasofgeorgia.gif

[edit] File:Allisfulloflovevideo.jpg

[edit] File:Northumberland Street.jpg

[edit] File:Lydia Patterson entrance.jpg

[edit] File:Building1.jpg

[edit] File:LexisLogo.gif

[edit] File:Muscatine Community College students.jpg

[edit] File:FAB Super Tucano.jpg

[edit] File:Pizza inn popular bluff mo.jpg

[edit] File:Michaelmeeks.jpg

[edit] File:SOF day 2005.JPG

[edit] March 2

[edit] File:Taiwan map.png

[edit] File:Couscous.jpg

[edit] File:Cushing Hall 1.jpg

[edit] File:Cushing Hall Back.jpg

[edit] File:SwamiRama.jpg

[edit] File:SwamiRamaSitting.jpg

[edit] File:Saxman.JPG

[edit] File:Saxman.jpg

[edit] File:View of Saturn from Polydeuces.png

[edit] File:Vijaya.JPG

[edit] File:Vijay1.jpg

[edit] File:Vik1.jpg

[edit] File:Vik3.jpg

[edit] File:Vikapose.jpg

[edit] File:Vikas.jpg

[edit] File:Vikassharma.jpg

[edit] File:Vikedal-smrifle.jpg

[edit] File:Vikki Richards.jpg

[edit] File:VikkiAS.jpg

[edit] File:Vinotemp Logo.jpg

[edit] File:Violet bar txt.png

[edit] File:MS Viking Princess.jpg

[edit] File:Ciaran Farrell - Howth - Dublin, Ireland.jpeg

[edit] File:McChrystalOgden - PluckBlow - Cover.jpg

[edit] File:Ciaran Farrell Around and About.ogg

[edit] File:Contemporary Music from Ireland - Cover.jpg

[edit] File:Ciaran Farrell - Perfect State - Cover.jpg

[edit] File:Katie McMahon - Shine - Cover.jpg

[edit] File:Ciaran Farrell - Jolt - Cover.jpg

[edit] File:Ciaran Farrell Perfect State.ogg

[edit] File:JohnFeeley - E-Motion - Cover.jpg

[edit] File:Vinozito 111.jpg

[edit] File:Derek Ridgers - skinhead backdrop1.jpg

[edit] File:Green Line branches.jpg

[edit] March 3

[edit] File:VH Luke.png

[edit] File:One Direction, Up All Night alternative cover.jpg

[edit] File:One Direction Forever Young book cover.jpg

[edit] File:One Direction Dare to Dream Life as One Direction book cover.jpgOne Direction Dare to Dream Life as One Direction book cover.jpg

[edit] File:Darkness Falls (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack).jpg

[edit] File:Reign of Fire (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack).jpg

[edit] [[:File:]]

[edit] File:Dakota Goyo.jpg

[edit] File:Troye Sivan.jpg

[edit] File:Markham Ward Map.gif

[edit] File:Biomedical.jpg

[edit] File:Car Prodn.png

[edit] File:Hierarchy of Administration at ECU.jpg

[edit] File:Emily Stevenson.jpg

[edit] File:Falling-skies-poster.jpg

[edit] File:Mugla map.gif

[edit] File:Mugmapd.jpg

[edit] File:MugRogolJarrod.JPG

[edit] File:Muhammad Yoosuf.jpg

[edit] File:Muhammad Ali painting.JPG