Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

October 24

File:Athens Tram Logo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A free equivalent (File:Logo of the Athens Tram (icon only).svg) has replaced this image on Athens Tram, the only article that the file has a fair use rationale. However, I would not dismiss the possibility that this file could be retained because of the simple geometry and text, so therefore the possibilities are Delete or Relicense under {{PD-textlogo}}. Marianian^(talk) 02:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upload the other one locally and delete this one. These aren't the basic shapes that are meant by {{PD-shape}}, so both should be marked as nonfree logos, and this one should be deleted because of its inferior quality. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 26 October 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:Rruuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no author, no description. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete time of upload edits/comments show obvious vandalism -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The uploader sources the image to Flickr, but it isn't there. No source and no licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The man appears to be Shon Pace, not Usher. I searched to see if Shon Pace is notable but found no significant evidence. Additionally, the title is not appropriate. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 27 October 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:Gabbar singh cd cover.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost identical to File:Gabbar singh poster.jpeg. Fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The other photo has better resolution. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 27 October 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:Rebel cd cover.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost identical to File:Rebel poster.jpg. Fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although both images aren't sufficiently clear to read the words, the other photo is slightly better. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 27 October 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:Daruvu cd cover.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost identical to File:Daruvu poster.jpg. Fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above three files uploaded by me don't fail WP:NFCC#3a because both are different above one's are film poster's and below one's are album covers. They don't contain equivalent significant information. so deletion is unnecessary. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 13:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed fail WP:NFCC#3a. Quoting from WP:NFC: "If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, referring to its other use is preferred over repeating its use on the list and/or including a new, separate, non-free image." In this case, a link to the top of the page could be included, stating that the image is very similar. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts How to add a link to the top of the page in this case. Can you guide me to any tutorial (or) please show me an example because i don't know how to do it.

(or)

Can updating one of the images in these three articles can solve the problem? Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 12:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated I have uploaded new versions to all the opposite image files to the above images in those particular articles. So FfD discussion is unnecessary. No equivalent significance problem and no chance of failing WP:NFCC#3a. So the problem is solved and i have removed the FfD templates from above three images. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete WP:NFCC#3a tells that you shouldn't use multiple images if you can achieve the same thing with just one image. The existence of the old deleted revision of File:Daruvu poster.jpg shows that you can present all necessary information with just one image, so there's no need for multiple images. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete Why ???? For the three images File:Gabbar singh cd cover.jpg, File:Rebel cd cover.jpg, File:Daruvu cd cover.jpg how can i add this : "The cover looks similar to the other image elsewhere in the article." Because all the opponent three "Film poster" versions in those particular article's were updated and deleted the old revisions. Still you have stated that "Still delete". After this how is it possible to delete the above three images man. Because significant versions existed in those articles only and i have updated them and older revisions were deleted by admin also. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 19:05, 27 October 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:Fortress of Solitude New 52.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed critically. Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 24 October 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:Wollongong Wolves FC.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 24 October 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:Wollongong Wolves FC logo.svg

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. See File:South Coast Wolves FC.png. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 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:Winona-Ryder-Edward-Scissorhands.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 24 October 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:The Juppy Baby Walker.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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is easily replaceable by a free image of the same device (WP:NFCC 1). It's tagged as a PR image, but also as "self-made"; if that is so, the creator can reupload it to Commons under the correct free license. Sandstein 19:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "self-made" claim is unverified. That claim was added by User:Wilhelmina Will, but the file was uploaded by User:Tmursch who provided no source at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 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:Red Dwarf - Series 10 Episode 3 Screenshot.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 ⚡ 00:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly random image of a few people sitting around a table. Doesn't help the understanding of the article, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I made a mistake in not cropping the image closely enough. The specific character illustrated is the principal focus of the episode (Lemons) in question, and critical understanding of the episode is aided by a screenshot of this figure ("Jesus of Caesarea"). I have uploaded a new cropped image to focus on this character. It should now "help the understanding of the article" since the image now specifically focuses in on this one character. Pasicles (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But now it is just a zoomed in picture of a person. That clearly doesn't help understanding the subject of the article at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although the episode is called "Lemons", the episode is specifically about this person "Jesus of Caesarea" – the plot revolves around him. I would argue that he is, in a very real sense, "the subject of the article". I don't know what else to say except that I think the image increases the readers' understanding of the article, and thus deserves inclusion under the rules of WP:NFC. But I'm not going to argue any more on this, I will leave it to the admins to decide. Pasicles (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, he's just standing there, so the image doesn't really tell anything about the episode, and moreover it doesn't help you understanding the episode. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 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:Pharmascience founders, Morris Goodman and Ted Wise.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8. There is also no evidence that the men on the photo are dead, so it might also fail WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 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.