Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 19

< March 18	March 20 >

March 19[edit]

File:1763-cerne-abbas-giant-anonymous.jpg[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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, lower quality than File:1763-cerne-abbas-giant-anonymous.svg :Jay8g^{Inspect-Berate-Know} _{WASH-BRIDGE-WPWA-MFIC} 00:54, 19 March 2013 (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:Dollydesign.jpg[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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. No evidence that it was made by the British government as currently claimed. Stefan2 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails WP:NFCC#1, there are two images in the article. Diego (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2013 (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:Daya Shetty as CID cop Daya in a CID episode of 2002.jpg[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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Free images available of this actor. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:32, 19 March 2013 (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:DVD cover of Los Querendones.jpg[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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2013 (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:Family Guy Volume 4.jpg[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: Keep per information provided by uploader. Dianna (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really late here, so maybe by brain is a little fuzzy, but I don't see how this violates anything. I have provided a clear and concise rationale for the usage in the article as a means of primary identification. The image is doubled with a similar image (Family Guy volume 3) because the season of Family Guy (season four) was divided into two separate DVD releases. It seems strange to have double images used on all the other Family Guy articles and not on this one. Why is this image being singled out? If this violates any rules then surely all the other images (none of which were uploaded by me as far as I can remember) violate the same rules and would have been considered for deletion? Deleting the image can only damage the article, which seems pointless to me. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2013 (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:Guanin of Chief Orocobix.jpg[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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFLISTS. FUR is not for the article in which the image is used. Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2013 (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:Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani Official Trailer.jpg[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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a poster as claimed. It looks more like a magazine article. Commons:Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama probably doesn't apply: the copyright holder is presumably not that website. Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2013 (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:Kalanikethan.jpg[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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work and/or licensed under {{cc-by-3.0}}: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysterious watermark Gunnex (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2013 (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:Coronation of Pope Paul VI.jpg[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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be other images showing papal coronation (for example File:Coelestin V.jpg), so this image seems to violate WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose for Papal conclave, 1963 as the end of the conclave, pope selected and coronated, so should be there. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That article doesn't even mention the coronation itself, so no, it isn't critical to the user's understanding of that topic. --B (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This image fails WP:NFCC in several ways. For one thing, we have several free images of popes being coronated and don't need a non-free one. The copyright holder is not named, so it fails NFCC #10. Seeing this particular pope crowned isn't critical to the reader's understanding, so it fails NFCC #8. --B (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2013 (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:LA Ducks Unlimited Projects.pdf[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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free map showing areas that Ducks Unlimited projects are active in Louisiana. Oddly, it isn't used in Ducks Unlimited where one might be able to argue for it being fair use, but, rather, in North American Wetlands Conservation Act where it is not at all important to the reader's understanding of the topic. B (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2013 (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:Clifton College Biology Lesson.jpg[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 Secret (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that a photograph of clearly-identifiable schoolchildren adds any value to Wikipedia. There are rules in UK schools about taking photos of minors and this picture gives me cause for concern. We would be better off without it. Bob Re-born (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if evidence of permission is supplied. Eeekster (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A technically poor photograph with inappropriate subject matter that does not convey what the title purports adds nothing to the subject. Richard Avery (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an unencyclopedic vanity pic. It has no place in an encyclopedia article. Just because it's free doesn't mean we ought to use it. --B (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided that evidence of permission can be provided (I have now asked for it in a clearer manner, and explained to the uploader how to provide it). The pupils are not "clearly identifiable" because they do not have name badges. The photographer is the teacher conducting the lesson, and if that person chooses to freely license the photo for use on Wikipedia, he's certain to be far more knowledgeable about "rules in UK schools" than we are. I am neutral on whether the image would be appropriate in the article about the school, but it is certainly arguable. Wikipedia does not exist to provide reproductions of school brochure marketing images taken promotionally to show their beautiful architecture and neatly dressed pupils walking through grassy campuses on pleasant summer days - a little realism is no bad thing. The picture does indeed appear to show pupils working on science equipment in a science lab, so "does not convey" is not correct. As for "technically poor", this is not a proposal for it to be Featured Picture on Commons; that's an irrelevant argument. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is technically poor an irrelevant argument? Neither Wikipedia nor Commons are free web hosting. If an image has no legitimate use in an article, it gets deleted. There is no legitimate argument to be had over whether this image is appropriate for an article - it is clearly and unambiguously unencyclopedic. Just because it exists and is free doesn't make it a good idea to use. --11:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete A boy smirking at the camera giving a thumbs up gesture in a room that may be a laboratory, and does not show any evidence of a "biology" lesson is not demonstrating anything. I agree that carefully posed 'advertizing' shots are equally to be deplored but surely this is little else than, as mentioned above, a vanity photo which would add little to the article on Clifton College. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2013 (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.