Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 19

< March 18	March 20 >

March 19

File:Jonathan Jennings.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. Big Dom 09:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, lacking source information. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No source. Speedy? —innotata 01:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The no-source speedy has a week's waiting period as well, so whether it's here or under deletable-image is kind of irrelevant at this point, because it must wait a week in any case. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:10, 20 March 2011 (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:GRC Home Site Marker.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. Big Dom 09:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted sign (work of state government, not federal). Image of sign not necessary for understanding the concept, so fails fair use as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:26, 19 March 2011 (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:Bardstown Basil Duke marker.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. Big Dom 09:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted sign (work of state government, not federal). Image of sign not necessary for understanding the concept, so fails fair use as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:27, 19 March 2011 (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:Union Monument Louisville M2.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. Big Dom 09:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted sign (work of state government, not federal). Image of sign not necessary for understanding the concept, so fails fair use as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:33, 19 March 2011 (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:Union Monument Louisville M3.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. Big Dom 09:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted sign (work of state government, not federal). Image of sign not necessary for understanding the concept, so fails fair use as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:33, 19 March 2011 (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:Louisville Apr 18 2008 Earthquake damage 2.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: keep. Big Dom 09:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, and not sure what damage this is supposed to be showing in the first place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was damage in Louisville caused by the 2008 Illinois earthquake. If you ever tried to add stuff to Wikipedia instead of urinating on other people's efforts, you might know this stuff.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 13:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Public domain and potentially useful. Merely being orphaned is not enough justification to delete a high-quality public domain image, in my opinion. I find the title suitably descriptive of the content, and the damage is obvious enough. Thparkth (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2011 (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:Louisville Apr 18 2008 Earthquake damage 1.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: keep. Big Dom 09:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, and not sure what damage this is supposed to be showing in the first place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was damage in Louisville caused by the 2008 Illinois earthquake. If you ever tried to add stuff to Wikipedia instead of urinating on other people's efforts, you might know this stuff.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 13:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as with the first of these three images. Thparkth (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2011 (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:Louisville Apr 18 2008 Earthquake damage 3.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: keep. Big Dom 09:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, and not sure what damage this is supposed to be showing in the first place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was damage in Louisville caused by the 2008 Illinois earthquake. If you ever tried to add stuff to Wikipedia instead of urinating on other people's efforts, you might know this stuff.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 13:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as with the first of these three images. Thparkth (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2011 (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:DSC00608.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 ⚡ 04:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low quality and easily recreated. Thparkth (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The uploader described the summary as "Sony z520a," which I later found out is the model for a cell phone. I originally assumed it was the model of the television set this image came from. ----DanTD (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2011 (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:DSC00757.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 ⚡ 04:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, user's only contribution, possibly using Wikipedia as a free webhost. Acather96 (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with an immense effort of the imagination, I can't come up with a scenario where this image would be useful, given that it has a complete lack of context. Even if this gentleman some day becomes world famous, we would not know that we already had a picture of him. Thparkth (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2011 (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:My-lover-my-wife nadine-marco-luis-maxene.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. Big Dom 08:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot or promotional photograph of a TV show. Redundant to another image in infobox which also shows three of the same four characters. No explanation why this additional image is needed. FUR is non-existent. Fails NFCC on minimality of use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't want to just parrot the nominator's argument, even though I agree with it entirely, so here are the key points in badly-translated Latin. Nullam rationem reddiderunt quare accedit pictura est opus. F.U.R inexistentes est. Deficit in minimality N.F.C.C usu. Thparkth (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2011 (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:GRADUATION.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. Big Dom 08:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic personal photo. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fairness, this may actually be an encyclopædic image, but since we have no way of knowing who or what it depicts, and no one will ever find it using any kind of search, it has no value to the project. Thparkth (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2011 (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:EEUU 453.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: moved to Commons, and now located at File:Red Ford Mustang hardtop.jpg. While we may very well not need this file on en.wiki anymore, it's really good quality, and so worth keeping around on Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad picture but it doesn't link to anything and has been on WP for 4 years. I contend at this point its not needed. Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2011 (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.