Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 July 3

< July 2	July 4 >

July 3

File:Rent Greece.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either this is a false own work claim or it's not official, and either way we can't host it. I'm erring on the side of false own work claim, considering the uploader's other three uploads. The article looks like it's going to be merged, with the discussion trending 3-0 in favor of that, and this image won't meet NFCC 8 post-merge irregardless of if it's copyfraud or not. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:09, 3 July 2012 (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:Nuns.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information as to date or place of first publication so it is impossible to tell when this will become PD. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here via a related deletion discussion on Commons, and my comments from that discussion apply equally here: No information about source, so no way to know whether it's PD or still copyrighted. If anyone wants to do some digging, I found a couple possible leads. It may have been included in the Nuns Having Fun calendar, possibly in 2003 or 2004, and so the calendar publisher or authors might have some information about the original source. Also, there's a comment on this blog post from someone who claims to know about the origin of the photo (and to have known the nuns in it). Based on what we have here and what I've found so far, I have to say delete, but if someone wants to do some digging and can find out more information about the original source, I can certainly reconsider. cmadler (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2012 (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:Divya bharti in 1992.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket was received from someone who has sent incorrect OTRS tickets before (including for other people's flickr images) and therefore the ticket should be invalid. —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also originally uploaded as Non-free [1] and OTRS was sent after non-free rationale was not accepted. —SpacemanSpiff 05:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter actually.?? I'm not getting 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^ϟ 05:34, 8 July 2012 (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:Alexander Rozhenko.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox of an article that consists entirely of in-universe plot renarration. Just a generic headshot of one protagonists, otherwise a random scene, not the object of discussion, not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary for understanding the article. Purely decorative use. Entirely uninformative bottled pseudo-rationale with no specifics. Obvious NFCC#8 failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 3 July 2012 (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:Ds9rocksshoals.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox of an article that consists almost entirely of an overblown plot renarration. Apparently random scene, a generic headshot of two characters in a nondescript situation, not embedded in analytical commentary, not the object of discussion, not even a recognizable link to any particular point in the plot. Purely decorative use. The only possible function this image could have is to show the physiognomy of the alien species exemplified by these characters, but for that we already have a dedicated article (Jem'Hadar), with another image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to contest this, but can I ask why these images are being nominated for deletion and not any of the other Star Trek episode images?Euchrid (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I happened to see these in the recent uploads list. There are far too many poor non-free TV episode images across this whole topic area, so it's impossible to clean it all up at once. But I try at least to prevent new additions when I see them. That said, there has actually been quite a spade of Star Trek image deletions lately, with several series of nominations in June. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 3 July 2012 (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.