Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

February 19

File:Rhynochocyon udzungwensis.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the BBC without permission. Doesn't qualify for fair use. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (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:Death of Shane Todd

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 ⚡ 02:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic but fails WP:VICTIM. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL]] also apply.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ...William 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this listed in the right place? It's an article, not a file...

Note: I haven't finished writing the article, and probably won't have time tonight, but this isn't just a victim memorial, and it's not a biography. It's about an event that is way more than some passing news item. Instead, it's a significant event involving a Chinese telecom company's possible acquisition of dual-use American technologies with significant military applications, and serious allegations of misconduct by Singapore authorities. It's caused quite a stir in that country. When I finish writing the article all that should become clear. TheBlueCanoe 01:21, 19 February 2013 (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:Flashdance.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 James086 ^Talk 21:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is redundant to the film poster. Uploader is currently inactive, so notifying this user is less than necessary for now. This image has Jennifer Beals at the age of 20, but so is the film poster. The free image of her exists, and even adding information about casting her in the movie does not adequately justify the reason to keep this image. George Ho (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the disc cover seems to better illustrate the film than the film poster, since it includes a shot of the iconic oft-repeated/parodied sequence of the splash dance. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per WP:NFCC#8. Other cover/poster seems to cover the image, having two does not increase the readers understanding of the subject. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:47, 14 March 2013 (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:Douglas Oliver. A Solomon Island Society.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2013 (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:Douglas Oliver. Bougainville (1973).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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2013 (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:Douglas Oliver. Black Islanders.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2013 (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:Kulturkaufhaus in Chemnitz.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Available under the same name at the Commons (commons:File:Kulturkaufhaus in Chemnitz.jpg), except that the Commons version has had the big URL on the side of the truck removed. This URL appears to have been added to the photo after it was taken; it does not appear to be part of the original scene. —Bkell (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2013 (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:North Carolina Sterilizations.pdf

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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Looks useless. Should be changed into a wikitable if kept. Probably copyvio due to the text at the bottom. Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep as table data The linked-to copyright notice clearly states that state data is in the public domain, so there is no issue of copyright. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If needed turn into wikitable, if not Delete it, the image is really unusable unless opened in separate window, and if useful the content would be better presented in wikitable. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:35, 9 March 2013 (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:Littlemotel.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image for a band that is not notable (No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, redirected). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:07, 19 February 2013 (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:Mains Castle in April 2007.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image heavily edited now has no encyclopedic value. There are much better replacements on Wikipedia of Mains Castle that are not as edited. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:19, 19 February 2013 (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:Contestantshr.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#8. Image of contestants at dice table not necessary to understand topic of High Rollers. AldezD (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2013 (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:Highrollerstrebek.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#8. Another image of opening logo already present in article, and duplication/presence of earlier logo not necessary to understand topic of High Rollers. AldezD (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2013 (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:Wwe2013title.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that a non-free belt helps understanding the competition. Additionally, both images violate WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file does not violate any of the rules because the source is given. This is not wikipedia does. This file is in accordance with wikipedia rules. Kskhh (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader of the first image has changed the licence to "own work by the uploader". The uploader didn't design the belt. The original revision contains strange logos and looks like something taken from some site elsewhere on the Internet. For the second revision, the uploader has even provided the link to the page elsewhere on the Internet from which the image was taken. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copy-vio. No good use for non-free image of a belt in the actual championship article. If it were used in an article about the belt, then maybe. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:38, 9 March 2013 (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:Original WWWF Championship.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that a non-free belt helps understanding the competition. Additionally, both images violate WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Legendary Marvin Pontiac.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates the footnote to WP:NFCI §1. Stefan2 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now it doesn't, as I've added here the required commentary on the cover as reported by this reference. The footnote requires that the cover art is significantly discussed within the article - the fictional character in the photo is widely discussed in the section. Diego (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is only a statement that the cover shows a fictional character, without any discussion about what the fictional character looks like. You don't need a picture of a fictional character to know that there is a fictional character on the cover. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you need a picture to know how the fictional character looks like, which is relevant to the album - it shows the extent of the effort the authors made to give validity to the hoax. Significance is not measured in volume; and there are many sentences in the paragraph describing the character depicted in the cover. Diego (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article just says that there is a fictional character. The fictional character's visual appearance is completely ignored in the article. Thus, there is no need for an image showing the fictional character either. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that the character's visual appearance needs to be discussed in the article? The policy doesn't. The character depicted in the cover art is significantly discussed within the article, therefore the image is contextually significant and improves understanding of the topic. Diego (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The content of the image is not critically discussed, its only mentioned in the image caption. There is no discussion of image or the fictional character aside from that the album was to seem like it was written by this fictional character. No image is needed to relay this information. Also, no reliable sources discuss the image except that it was of a "troubled genius" which can be replaced by text. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're contradicting yourself there. If there is "no discussion ... aside from that the album was written by this character", it means that there is discussion; if no reliable sources exist except the one that mentions it, then it has at least one reliable source. The fact that a fictional character has a visual photograph can't be replaced by text, since text can't convey what is the look of that character, and the references are highlighting the importance of the image in the efforts made by the artist to give credibility to the hoax. Diego (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my text is confusing, let me try again: Discussion that the album was allegedly written by a non existent character is not critical discussion of what the image contains. Saying that a character exists is not enough content to justify a non-free image being used (see WP:NFCI) especially since there is no content about the character, his/her appearance, why that matters (it doesnt) etc. By your logic, something existing means we can have non-free image of it, and that frankly isnt the case. And simply put, every thing you've described is fantastic and should be added to the article. That being said, we dont need an image of this fictional character because it is replaced by the text and therefore fails WP:NFCC#8. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"My logic" is not that we have an image of the character because it exists, it's because removing the image "would be detrimental" to the understanding of the topic, since the visual depiction by definition can't be replaced by the text, and it is contextually relevant as recognized by a reliable source (not by you or me).Diego (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what possible way would removing an image of a fictional character be detrimental to anyone's understanding of the fact that there was one. The way the character looks in no way is important, because he is simply just a fiction character whose only relevance is to support the false notion that the album was created by a troubled genius. The cover is intentionally blurry and therefore there are no descriptive features worth noting. The entire image is easily replaced by: "The album included an intentionally blurry photo of the fictitious character Marvin Pontiac dressed in all white with his face covered. In the photo Pontiac is carrying a guitar." The character is not doing anything, he is just posing for a photo. How is removing the photo detrimental to your understanding that there is a photo with a staged character on it? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, removing the image of the fictional character would inhibit readers to verify how the artists managed to create an image of an subject that doesn't exist and, therefore, can't be photographed. The way the character looks in no way is important, because he is simply just a fiction character Because it's a fiction character with a photography, the way he looks is all important. It's your personal opinion that the looks are not important (something which is not relevant to how the policy is worded, BTW); but given that the reference used for verification does include the photography and explains its role in the hoax, there's no basis to claim that the image is not contextually relevant, since someone more reliable than you has decided that it is.

By your reasoning, all non-free images should be removed from Wikipedia, since any image can be described with text some way or another; but the NFC policy was crafted so that those images relevant to the topic could be included to improve the encyclopedia. How is removing the photo detrimental to your understanding that there is a photo? I rest my case. Diego (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What the character looks like is not discussed in the reference. The appearance of the character is insignificant. The image does not relate to the character's insanity, voice, the themes, or even the fact that he's African (it's of such poor quality that it could be anyone). It appears to be just decoration for the article. The painting is far more appropriate for inclusion. James086 ^Talk 21:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the character looks like is not one of the criteria used according to the image use policy. That "it's of such poor quality that it could be anyone" is actually relevant, because as the source discusses, it was purported to come from a real person, and the blurriness therefore is part of the intentional hoax. Frankly, the publishers invent a fictional character, pains are taken to create an album cover depicting it, a reliable source reports on the forgery, but it's all just decoration? Diego (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2013 (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:Serb ambitions.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-quality map in GIF format. It is unclear what this map is illustrating. No context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete was never apparently added to an article. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2013 (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:Margin Controlled Bread Loaf.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image, replaced by SVG file. File:Margin Controlled Bread Loaf.svg. File is no longer needed. This file was previously nom for deletion but that was prior to SVG file. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:57, 19 February 2013 (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:Mark anthony canete port.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image is unused personal photo -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:58, 19 February 2013 (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:Markdeep.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan personal photo, no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:01, 19 February 2013 (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:Cebu mod mark.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan personal photo, no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:04, 19 February 2013 (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:Markfr.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan personal photo, no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:04, 19 February 2013 (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:Hydraulic torque wrench.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I request deletion, due to a lost password, and am unable to login and place speedy delete (db-G7) request - OTRS request #2013021810010276 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are higher resolution images elsewhere on the Internet[1] although they all are later than the Wikipedia file. This could maybe mean that the image is a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2013 (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.