Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 15

< February 14	February 16 >

February 15

File:All I Ever Wanted Summer Fair Mini-Tour.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, fails NFCC #1, orphaned. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image that simply shows a living person performing. Could either be replaced with a free image of the same performer (and so fails WP:NFCC#1) or nothing as this generic performance photo does not significantly increase reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 06:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Free image that meets all the specifications of Wikipedia. Should not be deleted because it is vital to the history of the tours of Kelly Clarkson.*FranklinG* (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free image from a fansite, no valid proof of permission Alan - talk 23:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-free image that is easily replaceable.--Rockfang (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently fails WP:NFCC#1. –Grondemar 11:32, 21 February 2010 (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:-Logo of the 15 helicopter battalion and battalion of air transport.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, nomination uncontested. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no target article. — ξ ^xplicit 08:55, 15 February 2010 (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:Case 5 Diagram 3.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan Quibik (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2010 (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:Case 5 Diagram.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan Quibik (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2010 (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:Case 5 Diagram 2.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan Quibik (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2010 (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:Case 5 Diagram 4.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan Quibik (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2010 (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:Qatar Sea.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. I'd have copied it to Commons but I doubt its usefulness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Quibik (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2010 (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:Lindenmclean1994.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - no contextual significance to the image. Iconic moment =/= iconic image that's subject of commentary Mosmof (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The context of the image is with the prose along side of it describing the time during the 1994 playoffs. So it is an iconic image that is the subject of commentary in the page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. How can it be subject of commentary when the image isn't even mentioned in the article? Not to mention this fails WP:NFCC#10, since there's no source information, i.e. copyright owner or photographer, except for a dead article link? --Mosmof (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The event is the subject of the comentary, this image describes the event. And there is source information on the page.-DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're saying the image itself is not a subject of commentary, yes? And the text adequately describes the events, so the image fails WP:NFCC#1. Finally, who took the photo? Who owns the copyright? --Mosmof (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As uploader, it hurts to say it, but it doesn't pass the close scrutiny that images go through now. I was quite surprised when it managed to pass its FA nom back in 2008, and knew it would probably not last. To further help this debate, I'll offer a similar deletion debate: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_November_16#File:Hasek_hull_goal.jpg, specifically what User:Seresin wrote (paraphrashed to this situation): "even if this is kept, the rationale is invalid in [this article] because it is not necessary to understand the respective [subject, which is Linden]. I am not convinced that the rationale is valid for [the Linden article\ because the image is not necessary to understand the schematics of the situation ... so it does not meet our FU policy." Kaiser matias (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kaiser matias. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepOne can easily identify the badge on Maclean's jersey that this is during the stanley cup finals and not the playoffs, It could easily add to the article.But Agreed the cp and who took the photo are in question. So my keep is weekOttawa4ever (talk)

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:Trevor Linden draft photo 1988.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: No Consensus, leaning delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, decorative image Mosmof (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not decorative, it goes along with the prose on the page that is talking about the player being drafted. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8 as it doesn't increase the readers' understanding of the article. Text alone can adequately describe this. — ξ ^xplicit 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even as the uploader, I'll agree it fails WP:NFCC#8, and doesn't really help the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kaiser matias. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it gives the article historic perspective and does add to the article's prose expalining the event. I dont see it going against NFCC-8 Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2010 (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:Toronto puck.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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not subject of critical commentary, fails WP:NFCC#8, probably WP:NFCC#1 as well Mosmof (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Images of hockey pucks are remarkably easy to come by, even those with NHL team logos. No justification at all to take a copyrighted image off the net. Reso lute 18:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. -DJSasso (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could easily be replaced by a free alternative. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:10, 17 February 2010 (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:Osospecies.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, original research. — Bility (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2010 (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:New System Voting.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, watermarked, replaced by Image:New System Voting (recolor - small).PNG. — Bility (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2010 (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:Old System Voting.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, watermarked, replaced by Image:Old System Voting (recolor - small).PNG. — Bility (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2010 (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:Nambassa Festivals New Zealand 1981. Photographer Michael Bennetts.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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, watermarked, plenty of images at Nambassa. Withdrawn, moved to commons. — Bility (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd rather move the image (and the others from the same event you nominated) to Commons and add them to the Category:Nambassa. The watermark is easily removable, too. Quibik (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Where on the website does it show the Creative Commons license being used on the image's page? I'm not seeing it.--Rockfang (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that User:Mombas had contacted them and that was their response. He refers to the talk pages of images that have come into question before (now deleted, but could be verified by an admin) on his talk page. — Bility (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2010 (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:Nambassa 1981 Photographer Michael Bennetts.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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, watermarked, plenty of images at Nambassa. Withdrawn, moved to commons. — Bility (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (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:Nambassa 1981 Mother Centre Cookhouse..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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, watermarked, plenty of images at Nambassa. Withdrawn, moved to commons. — Bility (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (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.