Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
July 7
[edit]- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article it was on was tagged for CSD and deleted. This image serves no purpose, and is unencyclopedic. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Took me a while to find the page that it was used on. As best as I can tell, this is it. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:08, 7 July 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:ProfessionalRebet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Horlo (notify | contribs).
- Inadequate source information. PhilKnight (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm a bit confused: the source is linked to in the information for the file. I think a bigger problem is that it's orphaned fair use, but you're the one who tagged it for fair-use. Any clarification would be great. Thanks. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 08:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there's a link. However, information needed to determine whether the image is copyrighted, such as who took the photograph is missing. I agree if the image is deemed to be non-free, then it's orphaned, and so deletable. I added the licencing tag, but that wasn't intended to confuse anybody. :) PhilKnight (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, that's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there's a link. However, information needed to determine whether the image is copyrighted, such as who took the photograph is missing. I agree if the image is deemed to be non-free, then it's orphaned, and so deletable. I added the licencing tag, but that wasn't intended to confuse anybody. :) PhilKnight (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - orphaned fair use, copyright indeterminable. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:11, 7 July 2009 (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.
- 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 by nominator. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale does not state why sample is significant to the reader's understanding in any particular article Papa November (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have updated the rationale to justify use in Big Star (band). There is also an article for the song itself but the band article is more developed and is currently where the sample is important. I will remove the use of the sample from the song article. If it moves back there instead eventually, once the song article is developed, then the rationale can be updated as it is equally justified in either place for the reason given. PL290 (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work! I'm very happy with your rationale and I have tidied it up a bit to avoid repetition of boilerplate text. I'm happy to withdraw nomination. Papa November (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No license, not enough information to verify source, no reason to use it if it's non-free. Damiens.rf 14:49, 7 July 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Puebla1944copa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puebla82 (notify | contribs).
- Copyright holder not identified. Source is an image-hosting website. No reason to use this as a non-free image. Not an "unique historic image" by any account. Damiens.rf 14:50, 7 July 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Inconsistent reason provided for this image being in PD. It's supposedly a picture taken in 1946 by a photographer dead since 1909 (100 years ago). Damiens.rf 15:07, 7 July 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright holder not identified. Source is a blog. No reason to use this as a non-free image. Not an "unique historic image" by any account. Damiens.rf 15:08, 7 July 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:EuropeCupInMoscow.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alex Bakharev (notify | contribs).
- Image copied from some website probably belongs to some news agency. Damiens.rf 15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is used under fair use, hence keep. --Russavia Dialogue 04:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFCC#2. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:COIMBATORE-AIRPORT.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Saravanaprabhuk (notify | contribs).
- Google maps image. Violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2, and possibly WP:NFCC#8. Tagged with {{Non-free web screenshot}}, but this is not a screenshot of a Web page used to illustrate the Web page in question. —Bkell (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sydney Carton Drawing.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lea the Firebender (notify | contribs).
- This self-made drawing by the uploader is absolutely unneeded for Wikipedia, and at worst, misrepresents and tarnishes the subject it seeks to portray. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:48, 7 July 2009 (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.
- 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence that the copyright on the book has expired. Durova273 23:10, 7 July 2009 (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.