Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20

File:24590.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image does not appear relevant to an article and in OR and unused since 2007. Is of low quality and does not add EV Calmer Waters 10:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It could possibly be de-orphaned and used in Enchilada but I think it is too low quality. Also, it is possibly an unfree file: see this page. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:52, 20 January 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:2007-07-21-11279.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image does not appear relevant to an article and in OR and unused since 2007. Is of low quality and does not add EV Calmer Waters 09:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. (Question: how do you tell whether a currently orphaned image has been used in the past? I've never known how to do that.) Jheald (talk) 10:34, 20 January 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:DannyMangold2009.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DannyMangold2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JazzCarnival (notify | contribs).

Subject of this non-free image is active in the music business. Was tagged for semi-speedy deletion, uploader untagged and added a note that the artist isn't currently touring. That doesn't seem to be enough to make this non-replaceable. Fails to meet WP:NFCC#1 I am sure. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Angus. Jheald (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the need to protect the integrity of the image display guidelines, I feel that editors such are yourself, seem to take a perverse pleasure in overarching the application of the guidelines, to the detriment of Wikipedia as a whole. I had originally illustrated the article (which I did not create) with a photograph which was over 30 years old, and did not portray a contemporary image. The subject of the article himself, respecting the "don't edit your own page" etiquette, contacted me and asked me to post a more contemporary image. I already had the subject photo, which I had used for another article, and I requested permission to utilize that, which permission was granted. I am attempting to obtain a contemporary replacement image, however the current image does meet Widipedia guidelines in that it acts to identify a subject of public interest, and (as far as I can tell), no adequate replacement image is immediately available.

JazzCarnival (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, standards are standards; if the subject wants a more contemporary image, he can release it under a free license. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 26 January 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:Laurell-headshot.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laurell-headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tokyogirl79 (notify | contribs).

Was tagged for semi-speedy deletion (non-free image of a living person: WP:NFC#UULP). Uploader untagged with edit summary "not only does this show the author, but since there are multiple accusations that LKH looks like her character Anita Blake, it is important to keep it attached to the article". Doesn't seem like that this would meet WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that it shouldn't be that hard to get a clear photo of Ms. Hamilton, she makes book signing appearances from time to time. Crypticfirefly (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is alive; the image is replaceable. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, living person who shouldn't be hard to photograph. Nyttend (talk) 05:29, 22 January 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:Jerome Elston Scott.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 have deleted the above file as a duplicate and note that the other one (File:JeromeHeadshot222.JPG) is currently under discussion as a possibly non-free image. The reason I've done it this way rather than keep the better named one is to minimise the number of pages I need to edit here. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerome Elston Scott.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Extracare4u (notify | contribs).

OR, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate (though of the two it may have the more preferable file name). Whatever the image is, it's certainly not LQ. Please think about the alphabet soup first, Fastily, before you slap it on. Anyhow, the image is a duplicate of File:JeromeHeadshot222.JPG uploaded by the same user, and is used on Jerome Elston Scott. Both copies have EXIF data. Jheald (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't WP:NFCC#1 exist any more? Delete this and File:JeromeHeadshot222.JPG as well. Non-free images of living people, particularly the sort of people who have official publicity pics, are replaceable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the image has been uploaded as free, all rights released, not fair-use. Jheald (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I blame cognitive dissonance. Why would official images from IMDB be relicenseable by the uploader? This poses a problem: either the uploader is fibbing about the license, or there is a case of autobiographical editing in progress here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's unlikely the image is correctly licensed. If we are going to just AGF and accept the license, (which, as noted, I do not think we should) it's a pretty obvious keep. Delete File:JeromeHeadshot222.JPG, though, as a duplicate file with an inferior filename, and replace it with this file on Jerome Elston Scott. ÷seresin 00:30, 28 January 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:Ikorta church.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ikorta church.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kober (notify | contribs).

Non-free photograph of a medieval building in Georgia. Was speedy-tagged as being obviously replaceable. De-tagged by a fellow administrator (User:Fastily) with the argument that since Georgia has no "Freedom of Panorama" all images would be non-free anyway, on the mistaken assumption that the law would restrict photographs even of old non-copyrighted objects. This is obviously wrong: since the building isn't copyrighted, FoP or lack of FoP never comes into play here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FPAS. Fastily going bonkers again. Clear fail of NFCC #1. Jheald (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jheald. Could you at least try to lay off the snotty comments for once? Or is that so difficult for you to do? I don't believe this is the first time I've told you this. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the italicisation perhaps made the comment a bit stronger than I meant. But I have real concerns that you're consistently not exercising the due care and attention required, given the volume of tagging you're doing. And I'm sorry, but the way you responded to FPAS on your talkpage demonstrated a level of cluelessness and arrogance which is staggering, but I'm starting to fear may not be so uncharacteristic. At the moment you're making too many bad nominations and too many bad calls, and using too much cryptic alphabet soup like UE and LQ on images where those tags simply aren't accurate. Please try to get more of a grip. Jheald (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see the related discussion which led to this discussion at [1]. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that FPAS has taken the liberty of changing The commons page that I refer to (see Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Former Soviet Union), making my keep of File:Ikorta church.JPG unwarranted. Please see WP:CSD#F3. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I took the liberty of clarifying the text paraphrasing those FoP laws so as to exclude the misunderstanding you acted under. If you wish to argue that my clarification misrepresents the laws cited there, you are free to read the laws and point out how that is the case. Up to now, nobody on Commons has objected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, by definition, FoP only applies to subjects that are eligible for copyright for some reason or another, and mediaeval buildings aren't eligible for copyright; therefore, this is replaceable. Nyttend (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a copyright excemption of course can only apply if something is copyyrighted. This church from the 12th century is no longer copyrighted and in the PD. Thus, replaceable fair use as one could simply go to that location and take a picture of the church themselves. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:00, 22 January 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:Metallicar-Supernatural.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a black 1967 Chevrolet Impala. Not evident how this meets WP:NFCC#1 as it is readily replaceable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't need to see a picture of this particular prop car when the same info can be conveyed by a textual description and a link to the article about the car model (of which free images can presumably exist). It's described as a stock model in the text, so there isn't even anything special about this particular car that would need illustration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the fact that it's a television prop is irrelevant, and there's no reason that this can't be replaced. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 22 January 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:Meyerhoffer surfboards.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear that this image meets WP:NFCC#1, human subject is alive, the surfboards exist. Could be replaced by one or more free images. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even easier to replace than many images that are rightfully deleted as replaceable. Nyttend (talk) 06:40, 21 January 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:Microfueler.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't add much to the E-Fuel MicroFueler ~~advert~~article. Unlikely to meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, easily replaceable by anyone with access to one of these microfuelers. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 20 January 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:Miessence Product Range.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image adds nothing much to the Miessence article and doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8 I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:46, 20 January 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:Miev motor.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely that this non-free image could be replaced by a more informative free content diagram/drawing. Not at all obvious that WP:NFCC#1 is met here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:53, 20 January 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:Mikhail Suslov.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Suslov is well illustrated with possibly-free and maybe-free images, so that it's not obvious that this non-free one from late in his life is adding much to the reader's understanding, as required by WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question At upload, it was tagged with PD-RU-exempt; the tag was later changed to nonfree without explanation by the uploader. Why isn't this a "document of a state government agency", since this was produced by the Soviet government? Nyttend (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's not among the types of documents described in that law, which (as in most other countries) appears to cover only documents of an explicitly normative or administrative nature, "including laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions, other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character". Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 21 January 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:Whitney Young Birthplace.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there are no copyright problems, this is quite LQ, and it's been superseded by File:Whitney M. Young, Jr. Birthplace.jpg and is accordingly orphaned. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 20 January 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:MitsubishiSpaceLiner.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious to me that this non-free image adds significantly to the reader's understanding of the Mitsubishi Grandis, a production vehicle based to some degree on this concept car. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:50, 20 January 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:Mitsubishi ssu.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in the Mitsubishi Endeavor article, but not obvious this adds significantly to the reader's understanding of this subject as required by WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not like it's massively changed from the versions shown in the free images already on the article. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 26 January 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:Admiraljames-norrington.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 ⚡ 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violates NFCC#8. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to add nothing significant, given the non-free portrait image already used in the infobox. Jheald (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see a good reason to have two nonfree images. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 22 January 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:Methyl-chloroformate-2D-skeletal.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: Keep. The anonymous editors seem to be correct here - this is the accurate version of the chemical structure of Methyl chlorofromate. See als this image and also the parent page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LQ, OR, OB (see File:Methyl chloroformate.png. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons (Category:Chloroformate esters). It's not LQ, it's a SVG for goodness sakes! As to whether it's obsoleted by the other image, I would say no -- this one represents a different (but nevertheless widespread) convention, showing the carbon bond skeleton for hydrocarbon parts of the molecule, rather than depicting all the hydrogen and all the carbon atoms. Jheald (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jheald Take more care when !voting in deletion discussions. The file is not svg; note that alpha transparency is not svg specific. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The other one appears wrong, since it has a "CH3" plugged on the end, and that should not exist on such a skeletal diagram. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LQ, delete. The other is not "wrong" because of the CH3-group. Non-chemists have it easier, they donna think of a open "end". So on commons we have two pngs klick klick , two svgs klick klick, why keep that file as well? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They are all wrong, they all have spurious CH3s attached in place of a stick methyl group. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 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:Woodward pic of woodward.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: keep. Jheald's solution makes perfect sense to me, so I'll close this while I'm here. Thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt uploader is the copyright holder as claimed Infrogmation (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-tag? The image would appear to qualify for {{PD-art-life-70}} and probably also {{PD-US}} (before 1923?). Uploader is new here, and may just have thought it was his scanning that needed a declaration of copyright status. Jheald (talk) 00:45, 21 January 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.