Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 November 17

< November 16	November 18 >

November 17

File:Worlds Index.gif

Orphaned image that makes contentious unsourced claims (Australia and Pakistan being glaring examples, as with the large swathe of "failed states" which bizarrely includes Bhutan). Fails as original research. See also File:Redifining the world.png. Claret Ash 00:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sw logo 2010.png

unencyclopedic (see Steelwedge) Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health logo.jpg

obsolete (unused by uploader); cf. File:PMNCH logo white high res 500x500.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tooth Fairy Barbie Doll.jpg

I do not believe this fair use explanation is valid. While we choose not to create an article depicting the Tooth Fairy (as we cannot find a universal description of the "child with wings, a pixie, a dragon, a blue mother-figure, a flying ballerina, two little old men, a dental hygenist, a potbellied flying man smoking a cigar, a bat, a bear and others") we can create such an image. SummerPhD (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the original uploader, I obviously disagree and the above rationale for deleting the image actually serves to verify the exact reasoning as to why I believe we should keep it, although I admit the use of the image on the Tooth fairy article is definitely the most unique case I've ever made as far as non-free use rationales go. Unlike various other mythical "pop-culture" characters; Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Cupid, etc, there are various (often conflicting) descriptions of the "Tooth fairy", so a widely recognized "iconic" image of the character is more difficult to "create". An original photo or illustration depicting one person's idea of a "fairy" with a wand and wings would most likely not adequately represent the way the vast majority of people "imagine" the character in their own minds, therefore, I believed the use of a "pop culture" representation of the character already introduced into mainstream American culture served as the best way to depict the character in an encyclopedia article. From the research I skimmed through - the other two most well-known representations are Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Kirstie Alley, both starring in "comedy" films spoofing the "Tooth fairy" myth/character (a big muscle-man as a "fairy", hardy-har-har), rather than an attempt to give an "iconic", widely accepted representation of the character itself. This leaves Barbie, a "celebrity" (for lack of a better word) in her own right - who has "portrayed" a wide range of iconic characters over the years (everything from Cleopatra to Dorothy Gale and everywhere in between). As provided in the source link on the file page - This image was Mattel's representation of the key elements they believed most represented the most widely-accepted "iconic" features of the Tooth fairy character, and this publicity image, as well as the "Tooth fairy" Barbie doll itself, was widely distributed where millions have seen it (much like a character in a movie). As Barbie (known for her various portrayals of pop "icons") is an internationally recognized pop-culture "celebrity" in her own right, I believe this representation of her as the Tooth fairy (where Mattel clearly took great pains to create a serious depiction of the character instead of a "parody" or "spoof" of it) is the best possible option we have available, rather than one single artist's/photographer's own subjective ideas about what the modern-day Tooth fairy character should look like. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not think we need a copyrighted image in this page. While I agree with Crakkerjakk about the picture's displaying much of the iconic image of the tooth fairy, I think the same features could be shown with a free image. I also think that by using this image, we are actually engaging in promotion of a commecial enterprise - we are giving free advertising to Barbie by using a picture of her in an article that is not about the doll. LadyofShalott 09:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the two of us agree this image is a fairly accurate representation of the character, however, you've been part of the protracted disagreements regarding the character's appearance on the article's talk page. I'm a fairly decent artist and could fairly easily draw up an image of a "tooth fairy" with these key elements, but other users (such as the nominator for deletion above) is arguing that this doesn't look anything like the tooth fairy, and that the character is actually a dragon, a bat, a bear, a fat little old man smoking a cigar, etc.. This unique problem posed with this particular mythical character means that we'll never have consensus regarding a free-license unknown "artist's" representation of what the character looks like - which brings the whole thing back to my original rationale - a widely-known/widely-distributed "pop-culture" representation is the only way to avoid the never-ending disagreements about everyone's personal "opinions" of what the character looks like. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't speak for me. I am not "arguing that this doesn't look anything like the tooth fairy". Clearly this is one of many representations of the tooth fairy. If you have a reliable source stating that the tooth fairy is commonly represented with wings, a wand, humanoid, female, etc., feel free to add it to the article. That said, you've also just argued that the image is replaceable, as you "could fairly easily draw up an image of a "tooth fairy" with these key elements", once sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "speaking for you" - I'm letting you speak for yourself. On the talk page you clearly stated -

“

"the image does not convey information from the article (which states that the Tooth Fairy is "a child with wings, a pixie, a dragon, a blue mother-figure, a flying ballerina, two little old men, a dental hygenist, a potbellied flying man smoking a cigar, a bat, a bear and others").

”

which basically makes the perfect case as to why a "celebrity" representation is the only way the article will ever have an image of the subject in question. You obviously missed the point I was making when I said "I could fairly easily draw up an image of a "tooth fairy" with these key elements" - I said I could, but the point I was making is why would anyone waste their time? It'll obviously never be possible to get everyone to agree on a non-celebrity image, especially when there are those who keep insisting the "tooth fairy" is not really a "fairy" at all, but it's actually a "bear", or a "bat", or a "dragon, etc, etc".. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"[W]hy would anyone waste their time?" They might do so in order to illustrate this article. That we may or may not ever agree on a non-free image does not mean it's not possible to have one. This image fails the irreplaceability criterion that Wikipedia has imposed for non-free image use. Is it an entirely reasonable requirement? That's debateable, but it is the current policy. LadyofShalott 23:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I guess I didn't make my point clear enough. I'm saying - "Why would anyone waste their time" when we have some people who keep citing a source describing everything from dragons, to bears to fat little old men (which was obviously a "collector" describing every obscure representation they had in their collection of over 500 "knickknacks".) The only difference between some obscure teddy-bear dressed as the tooth fairy that somebody sent her and Barbie is that Barbie is an international icon. An illustration is never going to represent every knickknack in that 500+ collection, so nobody with so much as an ounce of talent would ever waste their time trying to pacify an editor who can't even admit that the tooth fairy is most commonly understood to be a fairy. I guess where I'm having trouble following your logic is where you're saying - "That we may or may not ever agree on a non-free image does not mean it's not possible to have one." To my understanding, that's exactly what it means. Unless you're saying we don't really need 100% consensus and the majority of us using common sense can go ahead and decide on a free image together. If that's the case then we don't even need to bother creating original artwork because there are several Commons images of fairies that would be far more beautiful on the page than this image of Barbie or anything any amateur artist could ever come up with. I mean I could do a fairly decent little sketch, but I don't pretend to hold a candle to some of the world-class artists who have created images of fairies that we already have access to. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That free images exist that could be used mean the image is replaceable. That we might not agree on the which of those images to use is another matter entirely. LadyofShalott 22:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I think I see what you mean. It's sort of like the "sound a tree makes when it falls in the woods, but nobody is there to hear it" dilemma. I viewed the criteria as "a free image exists that can be used in the article" - you're saying it's more "a free image exists that could be created" (and whether it could actually ever be used in any article is a separate issue). To me, on a practical level, "no free image that can be used in the article" is the same as "no image", but on the technicality, I see what you're saying. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Crakkerjakk, please don't speak for me. I did not "(insist) the 'tooth fairy' is not...a fairy" and I did not "(argue) that this doesn't look anything like the tooth fairy". I insisted that the content of the article gave numerous representations, including "a child with wings, a pixie," etc. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that still sounds like you're insisting we need a dozen different images representing every abstract knickknack granny had in her collection of over 500 tooth fairy items (which was obviously what she was talking about) before you will accept any image on the page. As I've stated before on the talk page, a 5 second Google image search and/or 5 second Amazon book search shows the vast majority of representations of the tooth fairy show the character to be a female fairy. Since I realize a common sense Google image search was probably not something that would be good enough for you, I also went ahead and cited news sources (quoting the same woman in that source you keep citing) showing that a whopping 12% of people surveyed in 1984 believed the tooth fairy was NOT a female fairy (6% was unaccounted for in that survey so I'll give you 18%) - which leaves a vast majority, 82%, who believed the tooth fairy to be a female fairy (74%) or could be female (8%). Again, using common sense I'd say 82% voting for a standard female fairy (the decision regarding what a standard fairy looks like doesn't seem to have been a big question on the fairy article) far outweighs the 2% who might think of a bat, the 2% who might think of a bear, the 2% who might think of a dragon, the 2% who might think of a fat little old man, etc, etc, etc... My grandmother had a collection of tons of Christmas crap too, little teddy bears, or mice, or children, dressed as Santa, and we've all seen the slutty "joke" Santa outfits for college girls to wear to frat parties during Christmas time, but nobody is making inane arguments that we need pictures of all of that in the Santa article. As soon as you drop this little charade insisting that we need to give equal weight to every obscure knickknack the little old lady had in her collection (which was all most likely copyrighted, btw) and admit that a "fairy", by definition, is most commonly depicted as a small (90% of the time female) humanoid with wings, a wand, etc, then I agree - there are some amazing Commons images of fairies that we could be using (which are far more beautiful than any picture of a Barbie doll, btw). The more you keep hammering that tired source mentioning every obscure knicknack the little old lady had, the more you just keep making my original point that a copyrighted internationally known "pop culture" image is the only way we'll ever have an image for the article. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. Dr. Well's "survey of published children's books and popular artwork" vs. "every obscure knickknack the little old lady had in her collection". You've already removed the image from the article. If you would like to discuss what the sources say (and misinterpret the source you don't like), please go to the article's talk page. If you would like to repeatedly misconstrue what I have said and attack me, you'll need to find somewhere else. The source you don't like was the only source in the article describing the tooth fairy's appearance at the time you added the copyrighted image of Barbie. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And nowhere in that source does Dr. Wells say those various obscure representations she mentions were all equally represented in mainstream American culture either, so I admit I'm guilty of (mistakenly) over-estimating some editors' ability to use common sense (I don't see any other editors arguing that we need pictures of bats, or bears, or dragons, or fat old men, etc, etc) And yes, I can admit when I'm outvoted by 75%-80%, so once I saw there were plenty of common sense editors who do know what a "fairy" is, I went ahead and took the Barbie image down two days ago (a little late to the party on that one), the same night I cited sources where Dr. Wells stated that 75%-80% envision the tooth fairy to be a female fairy - not a bat, or a bear, or a dragon, or a fat little old man, but a "basic tinkerbell-type fairy" - exactly the same results any five year old who knows how to turn on a computer could find with a simple google image search, or amazon search, or ebay search, etc, etc, etc.. Like I said - nobody else here seems to be confused about what a fairy is, so just as soon as you give it up, we could be selecting a free-license "fairy" image for the article. We have a couple amazing ones already available to us in Wikimedia Commons, but I'm sure someone can come up with some reason why we couldn't use any of those either, bringing it all back my original rationale for the need of an indisputable pop-icon image. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much as you "over-estimating some editors' ability to use common sense", I over-estimated some editors' ability to not make personal attacks and not put words in other editors' mouths. You "don't see any other editors arguing that we need pictures of bats, or bears, or dragons, or fat old men, etc, etc"? I don't see other editors arguing that the tooth fairy is a Barbie doll. While there are "plenty of common sense editors who do know what a "fairy" is", I believe there are plenty of editors who can tell what the article did and did not say. You added a photo of one copyrighted representation of the tooth fairy. The photo did not reflect the sourced content of the article. Time to move on. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I readily admit I could have originally included sources explaining what the vast majority of iconography of the tooth fairy entails - As I said before, that was my mistake for over-estimating some editors' ability to use common sense to draw the painfully obvious conclusion that the tooth fairy was a fairy. I expected there to be questions about the unique rationale of a copyrighted image for this particular article, and quite possibly that the image was too specific, such as - "there's no overwhelming consensus about what she wears", or "what color hair she has", etc, etc.. I didn't expect anyone to need sources to know that fairies are most commonly represented in modern popular culture as flying humanoids with wings, wands, etc.. And again, you're right - I don't see any editors arguing that the tooth fairy is a Barbie doll (including me). I also don't see any editors claiming that a fairy is a selection of oil paints applied to canvas, but I don't see anyone making the argument that the images of fairies used on the fairy article need to be "sourced" either - it all goes back to my point about "common sense". Making the case that the image is copyrighted and is too singular a representation is one thing - claiming that the article doesn't adequately convey that the tooth fairy is commonly represented as a fairy (I mean, come on, the word "fairy" is in the title of the article for pete's sake) is just inviting others to question one's remedial logic. You might consider heading over to the Easter Bunny article - I don't see enough sources explaining in pre-school terms what a "rabbit" is over there either - without sources, who knows, a "rabbit" might actually be a bat, or a dragon, or a bear, etc, etc.. I'm sure someone could easily source some obscure image of a rabbit smoking a cigar - you better run over there and demand editors cite sources to disprove it. I mean, until we have a source specifically stating rabbits don't smoke cigars, how will we ever know for sure? --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You "didn't expect anyone to need sources"? Sorry, Wikipedia is built on sources. The tooth fairy isn't a tooth and guinea pigs are neither pigs nor from Guinea. Despite his name, Santa Claus is seldom depicted as a saint. And don't get me started on "Olive Oyl". Given the sources in the article at the time, there was no basis for assuming the tooth fairy was a female humanoid with wings. Heck fairy says, "Although in modern culture they are often depicted as young, sometimes winged, humanoids of small stature, they originally were depicted much differently: tall, radiant, angelic beings or short, wizened trolls being two of the commonly mentioned forms....Wings, while common in Victorian and later artwork of fairies, are very rare in the folklore; even very small fairies flew with magic, sometimes flying on ragwort stems or the backs of birds....Various animals have also been described as fairies. Sometimes this is the result of shape shifting on part of the fairy, as in the case of the selkie (seal people); others, like the kelpie and various black dogs, appear to stay more constant in form." You may consider it "common sense" that the current image of fairies would be reflected in something with "fairy" in the name. Wikipedia and oral traditions, however, are not bound by common sense. The image is gone. Time to move on. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The barbie doll in and of itself is not notable, and I believe that there are plenty of free images that exist or could be created that illustrate the same archetype of the tooth fairy. Therefore, this fails the NFCC tenant allowing non-free images only when there is no free replacement. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would agree, except the difference is any image by a non-notable/non-celeb artist/photographer will never be deemed acceptable. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a mythical character without a standard representation. If we can't agree on a representation to place in the article, leave it unillustrated. Arbitrarily picking one non-notable, copyrighted manifestation of the character is the worst possible solution. We could easily create a free image with the same characteristics as the Barbie image - pretty woman with wings and a wand. To the extent such a representation would be undesirable, what on earth is the copyrighted Barbie image doing in the article? It seems like what we need is a user-drawn collage of several typical representations. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "Barbie" is probably more internationally "notable" than just about every living celebrity of today, and aside from Dwayne Johnson's "joke" portrayal of the character, the image of the "Tooth fairy Barbie" is most likely the most notable image we're ever going to find, so I wasn't just "arbitrarily" selecting it to suit my own "personal" opinions (As a five-year-old, I imagined the character looked like the only "fairy" I'd ever seen at that time - the "Blue Fairy" from Disney's Pinocchio, which doesn't look anything like this image). However, I think you're right about one thing - without a copyrighted/celebrity image - the article will just be left unillustrated. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, per WP:ASTONISH, I think people will go to the article expecting to find either various images depicting the various appearances of the tooth fairy or to find no image at all. I do not think they will expect to find Barbie, especially not a depiction that doesn't clearly suggest a dental career. As Barbie dolls are mentioned nowhere in the prose, a depiction of one is irrelevant. Secondly, to have this image alone in the article is to favour this depiction to a degree suggesting this is the correct one, despite what is stated in the text. Simply, images are there to support the text. In this case, the text states there is no definite image. Therefore, there should be either no depiction or multiple different depictions. On those grounds, this image does not belong at Tooth fairy. It may be able to go to Barbie but that depends on its copyright status and the opinion of those editing that article. Claret Ash 23:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this was a Barbie dressed, styled and marketed specifically as the "Tooth fairy", which also coincidentally just happens to portray all of the key elements of 95% of "Tooth Fairy" depictions I've been able to find (the only difference being the Barbie doll is highly notable in popular culture). I've been unable to find any representations of the tooth fairy as having any "dental career" of any kind, nor as a bat or a bear, or a dragon. I've found a couple of airport souvenir teddy bears dressed as the tooth fairy and a couple of "joke" Halloween costumes made for overweight middle-aged men to be "funny". In total, these "alternate" representations I've been able to find make up roughly 5% to 10% (and that's being generous) of tooth fairy depictions - against roughly 90%-95% depictions of a female fairy, with wings, a wand, etc. In fact, the only "alternative" mythical tooth "creature" I can find any serious independent credibility for is a "tooth mouse" (which was a separate but similar myth traced back to Latin America). There are just as many (if not more) variations of what the "typical" fairy iconography looks like, but I don't see anyone suggesting the desperate need for a vast "diversity" of images on the fairy article (which uses images all depicting female humanoids with the exception of one statue of a child-like "pixie" which is too androgynous to discern obvious gender). I'm not insisting we should use the Barbie image (there are several world-class fairy images in Commons which I would much prefer), but I'm saying it's ridiculous that we should need to represent every obscure "tooth fairy" souvenir knickknack that was created between 1970 and 1997 (the time span when the Dr. cited started her collection and when the book citing her was published) before we can use an image of typical fairy iconography. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I approached this image and the (formerly) associated article as a casual reader. I went to the page, when the image was still there, and saw a barbie doll. As I explained above, this seemed irrelevant enough but, it didn't help that there appeared to be nothing "toothy" about this depiction of the tooth fairy. (That's what I meant by "dental career"). Again, I emphasise that this was only my impression as a casual reader. I don't really care what happens to the image otherwise. Claret Ash 09:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:1829 half dime v2 obv.JPG

According to Commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet, pictures of coins has its own copyright. So unless this photo was taken by the original uploader, this image is a copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the unnamed photographer gets copyright of photos of public domain coins. Otherwise, I wouldn't have copied it to Commons. Delete on English Wikipedia unless the photographer is found and consents. In my opinion, English Wikipedia shouldn't have a non-free (fair use) photo of this coin since it would be possible for someone to take a free photo of the same coin instead. By the way, I also copied a few other photos to Commons which may suffer from the same problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an 1829 coin which is not in public use today. So I guess, this picture can be kept with a FUR. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: I posted a list of other coins which suffer from the same problem at the corresponding Commons deletion request: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:1829 half dime v2 obv.JPG. I suspect that action is needed here too. All images mentioned on Commons are also available here under the same name. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't be much help here; 2007 was a long time ago and some of the rules have changed. It's unlikely I just "found this on the Internet" -- I strongly suspect I got this and a few others like it directly from the U.S. Mint, making them "works of the Federal Government" in more than one way. But I've no way to confirm this 5 years on; coinage isn't my area of expertise: I just uploaded this on a lark. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hagoole haggle-search.png

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haham Gershom.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerşom Qiprisçi) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haider mullick headshot1.jpeg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haight lift sunkist06.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haik (Haik).jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haikouichthys.png

Orphaned, superseded by higher-quality representations such as File:Haikouichthys NT.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haiku tea.jpg

Orphaned, Low quality, theoretically depicts copyrighted packaging (though so low-quality we can't really see it) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hail hipforums2.gif

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hair2 059.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hairdryer Secret Agent.JPG

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HairDyeGoneWrong.png

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, semi-attack image Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haireball.jpg

Orphaned, photo of copyrighted packaging Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hairstylewings.png

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sparks from.JPG

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Hakan erkam) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hakan Erkam.JPG

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Hakan erkam) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haji.JPG

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value, looks like a screenshot Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haj-more 034.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (tourist pic) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hakansukur102 0609.jpg

Orphaned, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:South Bend Airport Route Map.PNG

orphaned outdated airport route map, no need to maintain Skier Dude (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winston at Brewery Bay.jpg

orphaned user pic; no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Db web.JPG

orphaned user's image/banner; no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dev B.jpg

orphaned user pic; no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Davina-Reichman-at-one-of-her-fashion-shows-in-Waldorf-Astoria.jpg

UE. This was uploaded for and used solely on the deleted article Davina Reichman (deleted per WP:BLP1E). All other articles authored by the woman in the photo and this WP:SPA uploader have been deleted, so she's not particularly relevant to anything, and there are far better images of random people available on Commons. JFHJr (㊟) 10:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Orphaned, unencyclopedic. — Racconish^Tk 21:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was before the DRV. It makes sense to wait here for there.— Racconish^Tk 11:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article which included this image, Davina Reichman, is being discussed at WP:Deletion_review/Log/2011_November_21 with a credible (and so far supported) claim that the deletion of the article was out of process. When the article was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman the result was "no consensus" and the article was kept. Thincat (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. The WP:SPA claim was discussed at length at ANI. Thincat (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - also keep any related pics until the deletion review is resolved. Anyways - it doesn't want deleting even if is orphaned, it more wants a comparable commons license adding and moving to commons. Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note - I moved it to commons. Off2riorob (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halo Sig.jpg

Used only in a sig page, no encyclopedic value, contains copyrighted elements (Master Chief), information on where this came from is contradictory with that of the nearly identical image File:Halo Sig 2.jpg Sven Manguard Wha? 11:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halo Sig 2.jpg

Used only in a sig gallery page, no encyclopedic value, contains copyrighted elements (Master Chief), information on where this came from is contradictory with that of the nearly identical image File:Halo Sig.jpg Sven Manguard Wha? 11:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Habbo Sig.jpg

Used only in a sig page, no encyclopedic value, contains copyrighted elements (TinEye search indicates that the building was lifted from the game). Sven Manguard Wha? 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SIBBanner.jpg

Used only in a sig gallery page, no encyclopedic value, created from the screenshots of a copyrighted video game, and therefore non-free. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SIBBanner2.jpg

Used only in a sig gallery page, no encyclopedic value, created from the screenshots of a copyrighted video game, and therefore non-free. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SIS Sig1.jpg

Used only in a sig gallery page, no encyclopedic value, information on where this came from is contradictory with that of the nearly identical image File:Halo Sig.jpg Sven Manguard Wha? 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SIS Sig2.jpg

Used only in a sig gallery page, no encyclopedic value, information on where this came from is contradictory with that of the nearly identical image File:Halo Sig.jpg Sven Manguard Wha? 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green tick.jpg

Orphaned, there are dozens of other free checkmark icons, we don't need this one. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lumsdale pond 2.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: withdrawn. Requested speedy delete instead - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 23:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file was uploaded a long time ago. I have since uploaded a better quality image (File:Lumsdale pond.jpg - now at commons) that has superseded all uses of this file - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 12:09, 17 November 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:Lumsdale Falls 2.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: withdrawn. Requested speedy delete instead - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 23:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file was uploaded a long time ago. I have since uploaded a better quality image (File:Lumsdale Falls.jpg - now at commons) that has superseded all uses of this file - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 12:12, 17 November 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:Boston herald Front Page 09082011.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 F6 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the purported uploader but I did not upload the picture Bmu (talk) 12:44, 17 November 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:Climate screenshot.jpg

Orphan. Not useful. damiens.rf 13:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hugo Chavez uniform.jpg

We have a thousand free images of Hugo Chavez. We don't need this non-free headshot. damiens.rf 13:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - replaceable. --Xijky (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:LudmilaPavlichenko.jpg

I can see no evidence that this is public domain; it appears to come from a forum posting, with no appropriate licencing or original source Chzz ► 16:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:YoureInOilCountryLogo.svg

Does not add significantly to the article it is in, can be easily replicated with plain text. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halasalabutiquinie.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halbinsel logo copy.jpg

Orphaned, no source for public domain (according to uploader) images indorporated into coat of arms Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halex.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halfchilddiscuise.JPG

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Humanskin.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Half Salt.JPG

orphaned photo of copyrighted packaging Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HalfPhoto-01.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halifax Loons.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HALL OF FAMERS 2.gif

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goin' Haywire Promo.jpg

unencyclopedic - only used in userspace draft about non-notable artist Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Preface Deluxe Cover.gif

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Preface Cover.gif

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hallowed cover201.jpg

Orphaned, likely copyvio, unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul E. Kingston.jpg

This image of a living individual is claimed as fair use, and it is claimed that "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". As Paul E. Kingston is living, it would be possible to obtain a photograph of him, and license it under a free license. Xijky (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate request : KEEP- This has already been discusses and the result was Keep, per Administrator User:Explicit. It was tagged {{ffd|log=2011 November 17}} (ie keep) tag here, dispite nominators attempt to hide that fact, by removing it when I pointed it out. This image falls under the No free equivalent and An image of someone who remains alive, but could not be duplicated today rules. See File_talk:Paul_E._Kingston.jpg.

File:Halifax town seal.gif

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (appears to be a proposed seal, not the actual seal, which is different and can be seen in Halifax, Massachusetts) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hallpass360.JPG

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hallway2.jpg

Orphaned, not particularly good quality for a generic cat photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HIV Virion-en.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic DavoDavoDavo (talk) 21:35, 20 November 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.