Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 17

< May 16	May 18 >

May 17

File:American peach schnapps.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uploader cannot release the copyright since they do not own the rights ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took this photograph, released it into the public domain, and uploaded it to Wikipedia (as stated in the JPG's information). It has never been published anywhere else. As stated in WP:IOWN, "Copyright is automatically assumed as soon as any content (text or other media) is created in a physical form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist." There is no reason to delete this photograph. Wahrmund (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem, Wahrmund, is that the image you took a picture of is copyrighted in the US. That label required artistic expertise and retains copyright status. It doesn't matter if you took the picture or I did. Our works are derivative in nature and retain the copyright of the original design. So, no matter what you do, you can't make this a "free" photo unless you take a picture of something that cannot attain copyright. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately this is a straight out derivative work and merely inherits the copyright status of the image it reproduces. It's a common misconception, both on and off Wikipedia. Check out Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative_works for more information on this. Dreadstar ☥ 05:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If any of the above is correct, then you guys ought to get busy and delete all the other pictures of logos and products that are seen everywhere in Wikipedia. See, for instance, Coca-Cola, Smirnoff, Jagermeister, Eau de vie, Calvados (brandy), Budweiser, and countless others. All of these logos and labels required artistic expertise and are copyrighted. What gives these photos their special status? Wahrmund (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, but WP:WAX isn't a valid argument in XFD discussions. Please feel free to nominate any images you find problematic in the same way as this one is. And please be aware of WP:NFCC, which is the image policy for non-free images such as this one. Dreadstar ☥ 18:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wahrmund, I'd be happy to discuss the intricacies of copyright and trademark law with you on my talk page if you have any questions on the subject (stop by any time!), but the short response to your comment is that some of those logos are copyrighted and some only have trademark protection. Those that are copyrighted are ONLY used in conjunction with an application of Fair Use or are used in a de minimus context. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:FAQ/Copyright#What is fair use? and it seems that the picture ought to be allowed under the fair use provisions because (1) It's not a for-profit competitor, (2) The original is a relatively unoriginal work, (3) All of the original label is copied because it would be useless to copy only a part of it, and (4) It does not hurt or help the original author's (DeKuyper's) ability to sell it. Wahrmund (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The issue here is that this image is being used for Schnapps. If it were used in an article for the product itself, "(Insert brand name) Schnapps" there might be a stronger arguement. If you want a free image for Schnapps, take the Schnapps out of the bottle/can, pour it into a clear glass, and photograph the beverage in the glass, without the brand name or product name showing in the image. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, it might be ok to use under fair use in the article about the product depicted. Dreadstar ☥ 18:43, 20 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:Deangelo's Inner Circle.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Same article had one randomly chosen decorative screenshot nominated just yesterday (see File:Deangelo's accident.jpg); today the same uploader just went and replaced it with another equally random one. This needs to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure what the old one was, but since this image actually illustrates the inner circle as discussed in this article, I think it's helpful to the readers' understanding and should stay. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All that's here is a number of seemingly established characters. Can/should be described by text alone. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:30, 19 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:Clock showing 9 to 6.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 G7 by Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, not useful (low quality). I believe commons has enough of that. Damiens.rf 10:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Was used on my user page and now no longer is. Delete at your leisure. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:30, 17 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:Azerbaijan circa 1920.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 as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never used and probably inaccurate map. Damiens.rf 11:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where do you get off on that? It WAS used prior and, near as I can tell, you can't make such a claim. It was offered as an alternative image to another one up for deletion on its talk page (which has since been deleted). — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:28, 17 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:OSU flag fix.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 as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, low quality (should not be jpg). Since it has no description, it's hard to tell how it could be useful (plug for bashing nominator). Damiens.rf 11:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think I know what it is, it's probably a marching band formation flag order. That being said, this will never be used, it is severely limited in that it only is correct for one university and for one type of march. I doubt it would be justified in the text, so even if it goes get stuck somewhere, it's not going to really contribute anything. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Illustration no longer needed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:29, 17 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:Beat army.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, withdrawn by nominator after updated information added to the image. Dreadstar ☥ 20:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, incomplete source. Damiens.rf 11:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Complete source added and image is now used on WP. If you don't like where it is, you can certainly move it to commons. Perhaps you should consider looking even once for the file yourself (a la tineye or google). BTW, there's no need to list any of those images here. You could have simply asked me on my talk page to look at them and I'd have nominated them for deletion or fixed any errors. Again, this violates WP:DEL. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the sourcing. All is good now. I think we can keep it so. --Damiens.rf 16:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool, I'll close as keep since this seems uncontested. Revert if uncomfortable with my closing. Dreadstar ☥ 20:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with BQZ's addition of more information and now that the image is being used, definite keep. Dreadstar ☥ 04:55, 18 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:Parks and recreation rock show.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Generic, apparently random scene, just showing two persons in a nondescript situation, not embedded in analytical commentary, no crucial contribution to understanding the article. Fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely generic shot. --Damiens.rf 11:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ (Unstruck my Keep vote due to new replacement of image, see below) This actually isn't an "apparently random shot" but rather a pivotal one in the development of the show, and of Leslie Knope's character in particular. It was mirrored also mirrored in the second season finale when Mark's character departed from the show. However, this isn't currently expressed in the fair use rationale, and in fact the article itself needs some updating, so I'm going to work on that in the next day or two and then comment again here when I'm done. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't the pivitotal shot it needs to be to meet the NFCC. Get the kissing scene or something that can be better justified by the text, and try again. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good suggestion, I'll do that. I just need a few more days to get the DVD disc in the mail. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Before you waste any energy on that, what exactly in the article is hard to understand due to the current lack of this upcoming image? --Damiens.rf 02:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per the "Contextual significance" portion of WP:FUC, the question isn't whether it's easy or hard to understand something with or without a picture, but whether or not the picture adds to the understanding of the reader. The scene in question is a turning point in the series, and an illustration of the scene contributes to the readers' understanding, even if it can also be explained in words. For example, the article Meet Kevin Johnson (an FA) isn't hard to understand without the image, but the inclusion of that image nevertheless contributes to the readers' understanding on many levels (by illustrating the character's desperation, for example, and illustrating a scene that was widely discussed by critics). — Hun ter Ka hn 19:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I have replaced it with a new image (you can see the different versions on the file page) and significantly expanded the fair use rationale to explain why the image is appropriate and how it relates to the critical commentary within the article. I believe this image is much stronger, provides much better understanding to the reader and is justified through WP:FUC. Any thoughts? — Hun ter Ka hn 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's just an image of a couple kissing! There's no way its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. --Damiens.rf 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No opinion on whether to keep or delete, but just wanted to point out that an entity can only be fully identical with itself, so "just an image of a couple kissing" is merely RAD. :) Dreadstar ☥ 16:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If Damiens has any argument specifically against the fair use rationale, I'd love to hear it. This image of "just a couple kissing" provides illustration for the setting, the characters, and a pivotal moment in the development of both the series and the character. It's helpful for the reader to be able to see this visualization, and by extension, would be harmful to their understanding not to have it. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Further, I want to point out I think the argument that it's "just a couple kissing" represents a misreading of WP:FUC (in my opinion) on Damiens' part, that I've also described here: it seems no matter what fair use rationale I provide that cites examples of why the reader's understanding is aided by this image, he replies that it should be deleted simply because it can be described by text. Anything can be described by text, so that logic alone is not a legitimate reason for deletion, or else nothing would be allowed to be used under WP:FUC. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not asking the article to describe the kissing. Your argument reflects the second most common misinterpretation of NFCC8-compliance we see on deletion discussions (the first one being an image is worth a thousand words). --Damiens.rf 18:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You're still not addressing the fair use rationale. You're simply trying to leave it at "it's two people kissing" and hope that will be enough, completely ignoring the value this image provides the article as described by the rationale. — Hun ter Ka hn 18:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No. What' I'm doing is exactly contesting what the rationale asserts. I believe the reason stated there for why would the omission of this image be detrimental are not supportable. For instance, that reasons would allow the use of non-free screenshots for almost any scene mentioned in the article's text. It's at least unreasonable to claim the reader would have an impaired understanding of the current article's text without this image. --Damiens.rf 19:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not some random scene that is mentioned in the plot summary alone. This is the most important scene in the episode, and one of the most important in the series. WP:FUC requires it be part of the critical commentary of the article. So I can't just upload some random scene as a decorative infobox image, I have to limit it to something that is of critical commentary, which is what I've done here. And I'm not claiming the reader would have an "impaired understanding" without the image, but their understanding is better if the article is present, and therefore that understanding is less so if it's not. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:49, 23 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:Parks and recreation harvest festival.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 - Consensus is that the image fails WP:NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, showing an areal view of a festival venue which is featured at some point in the episode. FUR claims that the image is necessary to support the statement in the article that this areal photograph was the most expensive shot in the production of the series. While this may be true, it still fails NFCC#8, because we don't need to see details of what the festival area looked like just in order to understand that taking an areal photograph of it was expensive. A verbal description would be fully sufficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't need to show the specific aerial view shot to convey the information that the shot was expensive due to it being an aerial view. I believe the reader can understand what an aerial view is (even if it was not the case, we could illustrate that with free alternatives) and there's nothing special about this shot besides it being an aerial view. --Damiens.rf 11:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator already admits that this image is the subject of critical commentary within the article, but claims it nevertheless fails NFCC#8 because the image serves no function that a verbal description does not. This is not at all the case. The article can (and does) say that the aerial shot is the most expensive of the series, but the article serves no other descriptive purpose other than the fact that it's a shot of the harvest festival. The image actually illustrates for us the size and scope of the festival (the cars, for instance, provide that sense of scale), the corn maze (also critical commentary within the article), the specific amenities within the festival (roller coast, Sweetums tent, among others), and other elements that are not currently within the article. To remove them would be detrimental to the readers' understanding, and thus per WP:FUC, it more than meets the criteria for a non-free screenshot. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Justified though the text. Yes, it could be described better, but most images can be described better. However at this point it meets, weakly, NFCC8. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd appreciate if you actually explained how it does so, and how it is "justified through the text". Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image illustrates the fact that shot was aerial, and not that it was expensive. Saying the removal of this image would be detrimental for the article would allow the use of non-free images on any article mentioning aerial shots, either expensive or not. --Damiens.rf 16:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the actual aerial shot what's expensive, or is the image of what is the most expensive Set construction of the series? IOW, is it the picture itself that's expensive or is what the image captured what's expensive? Dreadstar ☥ 20:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point, if I was clear enough, is that the still shot itself does not shows it was the most expensive scene. It show it was aerial and arguably that it included this and that stuff (I honestly can't distinguish much on that picture). Since the important information (according to my interpretation of arguments above) is that the shot was expensive, the image itself is not really significantly increasing my understanding of the matter. --Damiens.rf 21:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand your point and I mostly agree with you, my question was really to the uploader. Sorry for the confusion. If it is indeed the most expensive image of that series, then it would be very interesting to know why - it might even be encyclopedia-worthy information. If it's a picture of the most expensive set construction of the series, then that's another matter - how does that shot show it? Dreadstar ☥ 21:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - From what I gather from the article, there was no set construction at all. They just took a shot of a real-world festival somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's ok and thanks for fixing the indentation. --Damiens.rf 22:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The source states: "Co-creator Mike Schur said at PaleyFest last week that the aerial shot of the carnival was the most expensive one they've ever done", so I believe it refers to the shot itself, not any kind of set construction. That same sources, and others, claims the actual carnival itself was an actual one at the Pierce College in Los Angeles. The infobox image is meant to illustrate both this setting and the shot. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is likely to bring ILIKEIT votes here. The closing admin is respectfully reminded to vote counts and judge the arguments according to our policies. --Damiens.rf 19:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Damiens asked me to remove that talk page message because he believed it was canvassing and, to be better safe than sorry, I've done so. However, my understanding was seeking input from a WikiProject talk page was not canvassing, but simply an effort to get more voices involved in a discussion? (Right now, only the same people are weighing in on these discussions, and since those people are the people who typically spend time at WP:FFD, the votes are of course going to be skewed toward deletion without bringing in outside opinions.) I had made clear that I wanted input whether it was on my side or not, and it's not as if I went to specific user talk pages and asked them to vote. Perhaps the closing admin could give me a bit of guidance as to whether that was canvassing or not? — Hun ter Ka hn 19:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please, actually read WP:CANVASSING. Asking for more people to participate in a deletion discussion is o.k. as long as you use a neutral wording, instead of summoning them to vote for your expected result. Thanks for reverting that. And don't worry about the number of people taking part on each side of the discussion. It's the arguments that count on the end of the day. --Damiens.rf 20:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per your comments and those of Dreadstar on my talk page, I've put something on the WikiProject Television talk page with neutral wording. If you have any problem with what I just put up, please let me know ASAP. Thanks, and sorry about the earlier wording. — Hun ter Ka hn 01:46, 24 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:American flag vertical shorter.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 as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, not useful. Damiens.rf 11:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No longer in use. Superseded. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful. Dreadstar ☥ 04:55, 18 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:American flag vertical.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 as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, not useful. Bad quality (should not be jpg) Damiens.rf 11:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No longer in use. Superseded. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not in use; other, better images available. Dreadstar ☥ 04:57, 18 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:Igoogle logo1373113586-iaza.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Damiens.rf 11:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Higher quality version already resides on commons. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Orphan is not a reason for deletion. Delete per discussion below...+my own addition to the deletion nomination. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphan is a reason for deletion. See bellow. --Damiens.rf 16:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per below discussion. Question, is there policy on orphan free image retention? I know that Wikipedia is not an orphanage and there is an orphan image template which recommends deletion if the image is "not useful or it has been made obsolete by a higher-quality or higher-efficiency image" or moving to Wikimedia Commons if it is useful, but unused.[1] Dreadstar ☥
Anyone can create a template. What is important is what policy/guidelines say. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a free image, it's a 'free' image with caveats. PD-textlogo or not, this is a trademarked item we're dealing with. Keeping it and not using it is just begging for trouble. Besides, if we really really need this later, which I seriously doubt, Wikipedia doesn't really permanently delete anything anymore. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly disagreeing here, but there are LOTS of options other than deletion if an image simply isn't used. WP:DEL specifically mentioned you SHOULDN'T delete something solely because it is orphaned. Include it somewhere. Send it to Commons. Use it in a userbox.

I guess my point is that, on principle, you shouldn't nominate something for deletion solely because it is orphaned. I think we can all agree on that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides orphan, theres an implied "unuseful or seemingly unusable". Sorry for my laconic style on this instance; I'm not usually like that. --Damiens.rf 22:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Delete higher quality version already exists." should have been the nomination? Seriously, now I have to do the work to figure out deletions too? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to do anything you don't want to. This is a voluntary project. Just like you didn't search for unused images laying around, others will not search for higher quality versions of this image. Just don't worry doing anything you'll be bitching about later. We have enough volunteers. --Damiens.rf 02:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant policy is WP:NOTWEBHOST, where item 2 says:
  Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted."
  — WP:NOTWEBHOST
  . So, contrary to what is said above, orphan is a reason for deletion --Damiens.rf 15:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The implication of "will be used" is that the image is currently orphaned but will be used at a later time, so I believe your reading of that part of the policy is incorrect. I still believe it should be deleted, just pointing out that element of the policy... :) Dreadstar ☥ 16:09, 21 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:Tomio Aoki.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No source. Damiens.rf 11:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Wikipedia has a ridiculous number of images. Wikipedia is not Photobucket. Fortunately I neglected to include the source for this Public Domain image of a notable figure from Japanese cinema. This will enable the deletion of this image. I might have provided the easily-located source if asked civilly rather than threatened, but that would only delay its eventual deletion and disrupt Wikipedia by forcing good editors to create new policies to invalidate Public Domain images. Also, though this is not the proper place to discuss this, the article on Tomio Aoki should also be deleted. English Wikipedia is not Japanese Wikipedia, and two book-length sources on the subject are not cited at the article. Wikipedia is not and encyclopedia of Japanese cinema. There are projects which cover such subjects, and I have started an article at one of them Wikipedia is not one. Dekkappai (talk) 16:05, 21 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:1337 Toyota Auris.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyright status unclear. Is the dashboard of a car a copyrighted component of a car? Also, per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful and orphaned; and yes indeed, car designs can definitely be copyrighted, even interior details such as the dashboard indicators. Dreadstar ☥ 05:39, 18 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:Artie lange kimberly.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 16:09, 17 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:DSC02280.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to unidentifiable subject/location Acather96 (talk) 16:18, 17 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:Dumitru Crihan.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to unidentifiable subject, poor quality. Acather96 (talk) 16:28, 17 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:Dwblarge.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 16:29, 17 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:Earpic.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 16:30, 17 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:East1.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: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to unidentifiable subject, poor quality Acather96 (talk) 16:30, 17 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:Eastbound Platform at Bethnal Green.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to poor quality. Acather96 (talk) 16:31, 17 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:EddieGalanpic.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to unidentifiable subject Acather96 (talk) 16:33, 17 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:Elchopan.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to unidentifiable subject Acather96 (talk) 16:34, 17 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:Donnie.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: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to unidentifiable subject. Acather96 (talk) 16:35, 17 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:Voluntaryism.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, replaced by higher quality VforVoluntary_normal.svg Abel (talk) 17:13, 17 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:StatueLiberty1886-EMoran-modified.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, replaced by higher quality Minarchism.svg Abel (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The file was moved from File:Minarchism.png to File:StatueLiberty1886-EMoran-modified.png by Jafeluv (talk · contribs) at 09:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 23 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:Tonymorgan.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:53, 17 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:TotoBaggins-George-W-Bush.jpeg

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UE Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very stupid. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:05, 18 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:Tourism.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text is all wrong - it's an exact copy of the text from the File:BobWoodBarber.JPG page. Orphaned file. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No idea what it is. I'd also salt the name as too generic. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:54, 18 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.