Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 13

< June 12	June 14 >

June 13

File:FA on main page (for the Signpost).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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. Not useful. damiens.rf 02:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care: it's just in long-forgotten archives. It will, though, just leave an ugly hole. I don't see the point in deleting. Tony (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ugly hole? --damiens.rf 14:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means that since it is linked to in some archives, deleting it would reduce the usefulness of the content in said archives. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's deleted, the image will be replaced with some sign that says "deleted". The Signpost's archives are often linked to in retrospect, especially from Signpost articles. Is this just a house-cleaning? If so, I think they'd object to the obliteration of images in what is generally a valuable community archive. Tony (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On investigation, it was never used: replaced by another that doesn't have the logo. Please delete the one that is the subject of this deletion request. Tony (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Sabredogato.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Higher resolution at this site. Orphaned, doubt PD licensing due to the existence of a higher-res version and the uploader's previous issues with image copyrights. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because I also doubt the PD and both images are identical (not in higher res) since they have following identical comments:
- Bild-Orientierung: 1
- Datum der Aufnahme: 2010:02:07 19:00:57
- Benutzte Software: Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Oh and the image is orphan! mabdul 20:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Holy Trinity College.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with de:Datei:Holy Trinity Theological College.jpg. The uploader is not the author; OTRS-verification is required. JuTa (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Why is the uploader not the author? I don't get it: same username, same description. But I doubt the license since Quelle: Stefan Lobnig (in German) and (c) Stefan Lobnig (here)... 19:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I marked them as CSD. mabdul 20:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Alexander—Coat of arms of Jean de Vienne, Admiral of France—2011.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: speedy delete, WP:CSD#F3. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of community-banned user, almost certainly uploaded by sock of said user. Poor artistic quality. Violation of WP:WATERMARK. Licencing incompatible with Wikipedia requirements. →ROUX ₪ 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Alexander—Coat of arms of the Diocese of Truro, Church of England—2011.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: speedy delete, WP:CSD#F3. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of community-banned user, almost certainly uploaded by sock of said user. Poor artistic quality. Violation of WP:WATERMARK. Licencing incompatible with Wikipedia requirements. →ROUX ₪ 18:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Alexander—Coat of arms of the Diocese of Lichfield, Church of England—2011.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: speedy delete, WP:CSD#F3. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of community-banned user, almost certainly uploaded by sock of said user. Poor artistic quality. Violation of WP:WATERMARK. Licencing incompatible with Wikipedia requirements. →ROUX ₪ 18:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Alexander—Coat of arms of the Howards, The Dukes of Norfolk and Earl Marshals—2011.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: speedy delete, WP:CSD#F3. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of community-banned user, almost certainly uploaded by sock of said user. Poor artistic quality. Violation of WP:WATERMARK. Licencing incompatible with Wikipedia requirements. →ROUX ₪ 18:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:210px-CARTOON NETWORK logo.svg.png.32x32 q85.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very small resultion. No source or rationale. JJ98 (Talk) 20:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke from orbit because we have this. Sadly, not a speedy due to the file format. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned. mabdul 20:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kidswb logo.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very extremely low resolution. JJ98 (Talk) 20:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned, copyrighted and the old one (see article) mabdul 20:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Intro full metal-jacket1.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely decorative movie still. Also, no license tag. damiens.rf 21:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coprighted and orphaned. (CSD?) mabdul 20:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Images.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 and salt (already done by Skier Dude). Bencherlite ^Talk 23:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Some weird images under an obscure name and no licensing info. damiens.rf 21:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used on a lot of other files.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because the file was already deleted and "salted"... and those a duplicates, not file uses. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:NetLogoCartoon.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very small and extremely low resolution. No source or rationale. JJ98 (Talk) 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale is not needed for {{PD-text}} logos. Still delete due to size, file format and redundancy. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned "copyrighted" logo. mabdul 20:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hg(CN)2-2.gif

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect geometry: Mercury(II) cyanide is linear. Leyo 22:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned and bad quality. mabdul 20:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.