Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 6

< March 5	March 7 >

March 6

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 · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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:Twofamilyhouse.jpg

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]" 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)[reply]

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)[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:RufflesBag.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 F1 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

File: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)[reply]

File:Sydney morning herald masthead.png

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

File:Pacific bell logo.png

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

File:Viacom logo.png

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

File:EMC logo.png

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

File:NSPower Logo.PNG

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

File:Caldor logo.png

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

File:Heinekenlogo.png

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

File:Microsoft Game Studios.svg

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

File:Canada flag corp signature small.png

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

File:C-SPAN.png

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

File:SAS Ligaen.png

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

File:Chvchile.jpg

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

File:Council on Foreign Relations Logo.jpg

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

File:Shareaza 2 Logo.png

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

File:Pocketstation logo mod.png

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

File:Keane Logo2.png

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

File:Windows 98 logo.png

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

File:SilverLegacy.jpg

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

File:Ntpc.jpg

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

File:Lightsurf Logo.png

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

File:The Adult Channel.jpg

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

File:ASEA logo modern.png

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

File:Amcal.PNG

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

File:Premchaine.png

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

File:Cjadlogo.png

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

File:Tremere.gif

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

File:NordstromPNGlogo.PNG

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

File:Winn-Dixie logo 2006.png

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

File:Los.png

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

File:LA 1142.png

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

File:Logobig2.gif

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

File:Klondike-gold-rush-NHP-seattle.jpg

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

File:Spaceneedleseattle.jpg

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

File:Sound001.jpg

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

File:Angelo State University Library.jpg

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

File:Ftpitttunnel1.JPG

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

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)[reply]

File:Museum20buckle.jpg

orphaned photo of copyrighted belt buckle Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC) | The buckles were not ever copyrighted. RobHoitt (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MuseumBuckle.jpg

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

| The buckles were not ever copyrighted. RobHoitt (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to delete.Thompsma (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:XJapanreunionfans.jpg

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