Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21

< March 20	March 22 >

March 21

File:Tilghman House 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; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:10, 3 April 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) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same as with the Hodgenville Lincoln marker below - historical marker showing full text with no verifiable claim the text is not copyrighted. This marker also contains some images which seem to be recent and there is no clear indication they are free from copyright. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:31, 21 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:High Grove Grocery.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 Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, and poor quality (obviously taken from a car). SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We need it for when we write the article or the community, and it's definitely better than any shot you would take.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 11:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford: Please remain civil, and comment on the content rather than the contributors. Comments like, "it's definitely better than any shot you would take," are personal attacks, and are not permitted on Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Unused and not sure if it is really encyclopedic. It could be moved to Commons, but I would see no valid reason to retain it here simply under the presumption that someday it might be useful. A service such as Flickr is for hosting images, Wikipedia is not a repository of images. If editors were allowed to upload images of every building in their town/city/state with a tag to not delete the "local" copy because someday there might be an article on the location or the building Wikipedia would turn into a personal webhost...and Wikipedia is not that either. (Nor is Wikipedia a Chrystal ball "for when we write the article or the community"). Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - freely licensed and potentially useful. Thparkth (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: (And this is a serious question for you - not an argument) What would happen if every single image (and every single article deemed no acceptable in mainspace) at Wikipedia was kept because it was "potentially useful" and the uploader says, in essence, I am licensing this for free use but you can never delete it (I just came across a user sandbox with a notice on the top that nobody can delete anything there)? If Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, is not a personal webshost, is not a repository of images - where does "potentially useful" fit in? (keep in mind I did say "weak" delete above - but I said that based on the fact the uploader requested to not delete the image from here.) If the image is moved to (or exists at) Wikimedia Commons (Which *is* a free image repository) and is kept here than it makes seem like Wikipedia *is* a crystal ball (someday it might be useful), a personal webshost (uploader has dictated it can not be deleted), a repository of images (because if it exists at Wikimedia Commons it really doesn't need to be here too). Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will restrict my answer to images because the situation with articles is more complex. What would happen? The Wikipedia mission would be advanced. A well-described. decent-quality free image is an encyclopedic resource in its own right, even when not used in an article. People wanting to use images in articles would more often be able to find one easily. Not one byte of extra disk space would be consumed. I generally don't have an objection to moving things to commons, even against the author's wishes, but what is being proposed for these specific images is not that, but outright deletion.Thparkth (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say, this is the perfect argument for why we have Commons, and why free media needs to go there, and not here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better here than deleted, IMHO. But yes, commons would be the natural repository for this image. Thparkth (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's just move it over there and do away with it here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file is now on Commons with the same name. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:31, 6 April 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:Twitter wikimedia.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 BigDom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted Wikimedia logos, and after a year and a half since the problem was resolved, we don't really need to hang onto this non-free image anymore, do we? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused, and from what i can see it was only uploaded to ask a question about clearing a local cache. Also, beyond the Wikimedia logos, the screen grab contains a lot of other logos as well. As it was never properly used there is no need to retain this (or the one below this) Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the uploader is seeing this, could I suggest they consider tagging it for user-requested speedy deletion? It's obviously not needed any more. Thparkth (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As SchuminWeb up there has spent the past week trying to delete as many of my pictures as possible off Wikipedia, I am in no modd to do such things. Talk about a bad admin. He needs to get over the fact I'm better than him, as I don't feel the need to attack people like he does.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 14:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're wrong. Wikipedia is not your average "my stuff" database. We only keep what's needed and what's eligible to keep, regardless if the author demands anyone to stay away from their stuff. No offence meant. Reh man 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now redundant, per nom. Reh man 02:31, 27 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:Leno wikimedia.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 BigDom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted Wikimedia logos, and after a year and a half since the problem was resolved, we don't really need to hang onto this non-free image anymore, do we? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused, and from what i can see it was only uploaded to ask a question about clearing a local cache. Also, beyond the Wikimedia logos, the screen grab contains a lot of other logos as well. As it was never properly used there is no need to retain this (or the other one) Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now redundant, per above. Reh man 02:25, 27 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:Hodgenville Lincoln 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; deleted by BigDom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:21, 28 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) 01:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A few issues with this - as it is a derivative the underlying material is not free, and there is no solid disclaimer on if the text that appears on the plaque is free. Perhaps the images from 1909 are and the letter is but not the rest. Past discussions on such historical markers that contain a lot of text have established that, unless the text itself in verifiable as being free than the image is considered not free enough for Wikipedia. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:19, 21 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:Jack Black on Take Two with Phineas and Ferb.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 ⚡ 06:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a needed fair-use image. One already exists for the show. JDDJS (talk) 01:41, 21 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:Japanese officials check for radioactive material on residents living near the Fukushima station.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: speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F7b. Commercial news agency picture, textbook case of what #F7b is intended for. Also fails NFC#8, because we can understand the situation based on text alone, without seeing an image (NFC#8 is unrelated to how important the situation is, only how necessary the image is for understanding the situation). Also replaceable, since such checks are certainly still ongoing, and anybody present could take a photo of one (though I appreciate the people present in the situation probably have other things on their minds than providing pictures to Wikipedia). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is from Reuters, so technically speaking it is immediately speedy deletable under WP:CSD#F7. I cannot imagine we can't find either a) a free alternative showing a similar situation, or one that isn't free but doesn't run afoul of WP:NFC#UUI #7. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - An irreplaceable historic image documenting the events of the Fukushima nuclear accidents. This image also represents the security measures taken by the government of Japan to ensure the safety of its citizens. Jessy ^T^/^C 03:48, 21 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:Wawa Chocolate MILK.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 ⚡ 06:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of copyrighted label design. As fair use, it would fail WP:NFCC#8, as it is not the subject of critical commentary in the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly a derivative. It would fail (does fail) the NFCC policy, the most obvious is that it is simply used as an illustration for "products" the company makes. There is no need to see a bottle of milk (or water or soda) to understand what it is. As an aside the article on the company already uses a lot of image, almost too many and the addition of this one does nothing for the article itself other than add more clutter. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:48, 21 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:Lucena City Skyline.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely low quality, object undiscernible. Also possibly a copyright problem (known serial copyvio uploader) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Though I rarely, if ever, have said this - but "ewww!". I see no need for this blurry, out of focus, image to be retained. On a more policy based note - Use of a "self" license tag does not meet the Image use policies requirements for listing a source and an author. Summary simply says "Lucena City" and the uploader has been blocked for serial copyvio image uploads despite warnings. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only now understood it's a deliberately blurred version of [1], which makes it a blatant copyvio, so I've speedied it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 21 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:Jose Ortiz el Buen Samaritano.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 Gfoley4 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a copy of File:Jose Ortiz el Buen Samaritano.PNG with an incorrect aspect ratio. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: As a copyvio. Source website says © 2011 More Vision LLC. Todos los derechos de autor reservados. Queda prohibida la reproducción total y parcial de este sitio. Para entretenimiento solamente. (Rough translation: © 2011 More Vision LLC. All copyrights reserved. No part of this site can be reproduced. For entertainment purposes only.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:09, 21 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:Hawaiian tree.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 ⚡ 06:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook-like self-promotion by someone who may well be a minor John of Reading (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would almost be prone to speedy as blatant advertising/spam via using image space for a pseudo article. Non-notable, not encyclopedic, user only upped this image and contributed nothing more. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Reh man 02:22, 27 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:Vinod.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 ⚡ 06:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality picture, only uploaded to illustrate his CV John of Reading (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same as above image. Uploader created their account, upped their image and used the image page as a personal web-host to create a pseudo article about themselves. Wikipedia is not a personal webhosting site nor is it a repository of personal images. "Fake article" might be seen as applying as well. Even though written for a user page the same concept should apply to an image page however. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Reh man 02:24, 27 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:Air India Express Flight 812 crashed.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 ⚡ 04:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image twice tagged for deletion as not having a FUR and/or failing NFCC policy. First "declined" by an admin who implies non-free content doesn't need a FUR (Not a valid criterion) and than, when it was retagged with {{di-orphaned fair use}} and {{di-no fair use rationale}} the tags were removed by another editor who added a minimal FUR and re-added it an article. However the image still fails the cirteria. FUR claims it is being used "as identifying the crash scene" and "Identify Aircraft and the amount of damage around the plane." - however the text conveys the facts that the plane crashed and that there was damage. Also it should be noted the image is still unused and has been twice removed from the article "because it was the Polish Air Force - Tupolev TU-154 crash not Air India Express Flight 812" Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, per [2] it's the Polish air force crash. It's certainly disconcerting that the news agency itself has mixed up its own images here [3], but the matter should be clarified by the fact that even on that page, the actual file name refers to the Polish accident, not the Indian one. (About deletion process: the original speedy decline was arguably procedurally correct, because the deletion argument about the factual error was in fact not a speedy criterion, but the NFC concerns would lead to deletion even if it wasn't for the mix-up.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the final clarity I have been looking for in this where someone has actually said that it's not the image and why. Seeing that this is not the right file, you could just delete per author request now as the wrong image. If I knew this was the wrong one, I would not of uploaded it. But re. it still being deleted for NFC, is it the fact that I didn't explain it enough or what's missing, because it is to identify the crash site and the actual plane (since there is no other picture in that article). DQ.alt (t) (e) 14:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's moot now since we seem to have consensus it's the wrong picture, but about the NFC thing, the crucial issue would be an assessment of how much visual detail is actually necessary to understand the facts discussed in the article, and how well these details could also be covered by a textual description. It's my impression that the article currently does a decent job at describing what needs to be described, and can live decently without this image (or a comparable one from the correct site). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image. mechamind 9 0 05:36, 22 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:Mustafa Merlika-Kruja.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 BigDom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image's copyright term cannot be verified as such the license is incorrect. feydey (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems odd that an image from 1940 is marked as Author: "Unknown, to old" yet carries a tag suggesting it is PD because that "unknown" author has died ("life of the author plus 70 years"). If the person was born in 1940 they would be 71 years old now - but let presume they did no come out of the womb with a camera. If, in 1940, a 20 year old took it they would be 91 now. That is not so far fetched, I have relatives older than 91. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:45, 21 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:Thomas Hines.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. Even public domain images require a source. There is no copyright holder but a URL or other source needs to be provided. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images -Nv8200p talk 02:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would normally be a speedy deletion as an F4 for no source, but the uploader has repeatedly removed the deletable-image tag. I will repeat here what I did in a previous reinstatement of the tag, that just because an image is public domain due to its age does not obviate the need to provide a source for that image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless a verifiable source (And author) is obtained/provided the image must go. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SchuminWeb, How is this image different from the smaller and more original versions of the same one that you moved to Commons recently. Peripitus (Talk) 09:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing out those two places where I transferred something that I shouldn't. Will be nominating both of those for deletion at Commons in just a moment... SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And done. Both nominated for deletion at Commons for lack of sourcing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The caption in the Thomas Hines article states that the portrait of Hines, from which this looks to be cropped, was "taken for his wife while he was in Canada" (apparently 1864x1867). It therefore seems strange to be saying that there is no source Is there some reason not to believe that the captioning is accurate? The article appears relatively well-referenced, so I would be inclined to take the claim at face value. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on this page and my talk page, you will see that Schumy doesn't care; he is on a power trip. I ask for my images to remain on English Wikipedia, and he deletes them to commons, if not just delete them anyways. I make a few complaints, and he threatens to block me. Definitely an admin who is out of control and if I thought it would do any good, I would have reported him already. I've backed up as many of my pictures as I can so, when Schumy eventually finds someone else to pick on, I will replace the images.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should put that on the file description page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the caption in the article, this image was created when he was in Canada; that would've been the 1860s or earlier. Per this, works created pre-1891 are PD. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exactly per Fetchcomms. This photograph is in the public domain. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:22, 1 May 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:Francis Shoup.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 ⚡ 09:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would normally be a speedy deletion as an F4 for no source, but the uploader has repeatedly removed the deletable-image tag. I will repeat here what I did in a previous reinstatement of the tag, that just because an image is public domain due to its age does not obviate the need to provide a source for that image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:29, 21 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:Basil W Duke 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: Delete. Even public domain images require a source. There is no copyright holder but a URL or other source needs to be provided. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images -Nv8200p talk 02:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obviously the consensus here was Keep; I cannot understand the closer's reasons for believing that one person is consensus for deleting and five people are not consensus for keeping. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would normally be a speedy deletion as an F4 for no source, but the uploader has repeatedly removed the deletable-image tag. I will repeat here what I did in a previous reinstatement of the tag, that just because an image is public domain due to its age does not obviate the need to provide a source for that image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boardgames are generally very well researched, and I would rather trust them than the average website. ^walk victor falk^talk 10:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - source is not hard to find. Say here or even better here where it is stated that the image is from while he was a POW at Fort Delaware which dates the image between July 19, 1863 and August 3, 1864. While it would be great to know the photographer's name etc...- Peripitus (Talk) 09:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't consider Flickr a reliable source in this case. Whether the other one is sufficient is up to the community, I suppose. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sometimes logic might play into this but the two "sources" given are both unclear. One is for a game that contains other images, which *do* give the source, and the other just offers a description of the image. Both sites carry "all rights reserved" notices as well. If you offer up those websites as valid sources than we also have to take the copyright notices as valid too. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specific source statements trump generic copyright claims. ^walk victor falk^talk 03:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a picture from the Civil War, hence PD. It is clearly a picture of Basil Duke, by comparison of other images of him. If its origin cannot be ascertained, then simply label it "author: unknown". ^walk victor falk^talk 10:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that unless we can ascertain the source, it's hard to tell whether something is authentic, or a really good actor portraying the subject that was taken, say, last year, and then treated with Photoshop to make it appear old. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And the moon could be made of green cheese. As explained by Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, facts are ultimately not verifiable, only falsifiable. Unless you have the barest smidgen of suspicion to doubt its veracity, the attribution "unknown" should suffice to alert readers and editors that it is not wholly reliable; perhaps write a request for sourcing in the summary or on the file's talk page. If you do have a doubt consult relevant talk pages, like "Talk:American Civil War" or "Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History" ("Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"). Deletion should be a last resort when all other venues have been exhausted, because if deleted it is certain that with zero eyeballs no editors will be able to judge its authenticity. We must maintain a reasonable candidness, otherwise we'll remove more good material than eliminate bad, antagonise contributors, create default bad faith assumptions, and generally disrupt the project. ^walk victor falk^talk 03:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. As Peripitus notes, the date and place of creation are known, which provides more than adequate "source" information for an image of this age. The author's name is not relevant in these circumstances. SchuminWeb's comment of 2011-04-03 appears ridiculous to me, while Soundvisions1 appears to be ignoring the foundation policy set out on {{PD-art}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This appears to be a photograph - not "art" as it would relate to the tag you suggested be used here. And the implication I am ignoring what the Wikimedia Foundation says is absurd. There is reason Wikipedia has a policy about sourcing material - including images. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whaat?! Phototography not art?? Simply ridiculous. Ludicrous. ^walk victor falk^talk 03:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I interpret the sources given as confirming this image's PD status. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The time and place of creation of this Civil War-era photograph are known, and it appears to be in the public domain. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:22, 1 May 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:George Ellsworth.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would normally be a speedy deletion as an F4 for no source, but the uploader has repeatedly removed the deletable-image tag. I will repeat here what I did in a previous reinstatement of the tag, that just because an image is public domain due to its age does not obviate the need to provide a source for that image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:31, 21 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:Basil Duke older.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would normally be a speedy deletion as an F4 for no source, but the uploader has repeatedly removed the deletable-image tag. I will repeat here what I did in a previous reinstatement of the tag, that just because an image is public domain due to its age does not obviate the need to provide a source for that image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:31, 21 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:Maurice Thompson.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would normally be a speedy deletion as an F4 for no source, but the uploader has repeatedly removed the deletable-image tag. I will repeat here what I did in a previous reinstatement of the tag, that just because an image is public domain due to its age does not obviate the need to provide a source for that image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:31, 21 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:Killerklowns 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: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Killerklowns 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Frame grabs from a movie - but not really needed overall because it is/was only being used to show one of the killer klowns and a scene from the film. There are no FURs, but one could argue that "april is afraid of clowns" is a valid FUR for File:Killerklowns 1.jpg. (Being silly). Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:34, 21 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:Knut polar bear cub german vanity fair.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 ⚡ 04:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary use of a non-free image. It's a magazine cover image being used just because the magazine issue is mentioned. We don't need to see the specific cover to understand the relevant fact (that the bear called Knut was featured on the cover). Damiens.rf 15:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Absolutely fails the NFCC. This falls back on the entire cover art RFC that happened recently - use of such material in an article about the product (in this case the magazine) is allowable in the main infobox, however any use in other articles requires sourced/critical commentary on the material itself - not the subject that appears on/in the material. Use of cover art simply to illustrate a mention of a product does not meet those requirements. File:KnutbookcoverEng.jpg suffers the same flawed reasoning. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, reliable sources exist regarding Knut's appearance on the cover of Germany's Vanity Fair, as well as Hatkoff's book. Are you saying that more sources with critical commentary are necessary to facilitate the FU of these images at Knut's article? If so, they can be added. María (habla conmigo) 16:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It is not enough that sources mention who appeared on the cover. What is needed is discussion about the cover, not the subject who appears on the cover. For example the Vanity Fair article is about the magazine, so use of an issues cover art is fine. The More Demi Moore article is about the cover itself, so use of that specific cover is fine. We can not use that cover in the Demi Moore article, even if numerous sources discussed her on the cover. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for taking the time to clarify. It's a shame, really; this article passed FA more than three years ago with these FU images in place, but it seems image-usage has become more restricted. I witnessed similar deletions regarding FU images used in Flocke, and argued needlessly for their inclusion. Seeing as how there are now more free images depicting Knut, these book/magazine cover images are not that necessary now. María (habla conmigo) 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, were you really using those non-free images due to the unavailability of free ones? --Damiens.rf 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Flocke's article, yes. In the case of Knut's article, the FU images were initially included to better show the publicity storm surrounding his widely distributed story and image. I meant to say that seeing as how there are so many more free images of Knut available, I don't think the article is in want of illustration. However, these free images won't be as fitting as the magazine/book covers that depicted him in the height of his fame. María (habla conmigo) 01:50, 22 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:VanityFairApril1986Cover.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 13:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image. A magazine cover image being used just to illustrate the mention that the specif cover existed. Damiens.rf 15:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same as the above Vanity Fair cover. Use of cover art in an article that is not about the product - in this case Vanity Fair. Simply being used to illustrate someone on the cover of the magazine who appears as Marilyn Monroe in a play about Marilyn Monroe. The article is about a play, not about the magazine. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:00, 21 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:Jarrell Randall.gif

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: speedy delete as F9. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to believe this was put on public domain. The source claims copyrights. Damiens.rf 15:55, 21 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:StrawheadScriptPage.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 13:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image. We don't need to see a scan of a play to understand an article about it. Damiens.rf 15:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While it is interesting to see it is only a decoration in the article and is not really adding to overall understanding of the article. I am also a bit disturbed that the Wikipedia image is re-purposed to remove the copyright notice (original). Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:28, 21 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:MOE party.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 ⚡ 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sufficient discussion in the article to warrant use of a non-free image. The only discussion of the event that this image depicts is, "Among the guests were the development team of Murder on the Orient Express, and actors portraying the game's various characters." We don't need a non-free photo to prove that there were people there dressed as characters from the game. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:38, 21 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:2-bromo-1-chloropropane.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. Big Dom 13:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buggy SVG, replaced by better versions in Commons:Category:2-bromo-1-chloropropane. Leyo 22:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good replacement here. Reh man 02:19, 27 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:March of the Canadian Forces Intelligence Branch.mid

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 G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, useless image Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 23:56, 21 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.