Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < January 8 | January 10 > |
|---|
January 9[edit]
Nancy pelosi.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Living person, replaceable image; fails criterion one. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Orphaned fair use image. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete free images of US federal government figures are easy to find. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:35, 13 January 2009 (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.
Teresa heinz.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Living person, replaceable image; fails criterion one. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:41, 9 January 2009 (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.
SugarhillGangRappersDelight7InchFrenchSingleCover.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. No commentary on the alternate album cover. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -Nv8200p talk 03:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SugarhillGangRappersDelight7InchFrenchSingleCover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tchernomush (notify | contribs).
- Superfluous non-free image in an article that already has one in the lead. There is no sourced commentary, nor commentary of any type, about the image and it is simply decorative. Image fails WP:NFCC#3 as excessive use and WP:NFCC#8 as failing to significantly increase reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 05:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It represents a foreign version of the album, and should be used in a "Foreign Market" section. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Representing something is what all images do. For Wikipedia to host a copyrighted image it must meet all 10 of the non-free content criteria and in this case the image does not meet criteria #8. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It represents a foreign version of the album, and can be used fairly in a "Foreign Market" section. It is acceptable use of a non free image on Wiki, which is correctly licensed and provide with required rationale. Deleting it would harm not improve the article. Archivey (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article has no commentary on any foreign or alternate versions of the cover so cleary fails the significance criteria. Also the rationale only state that it's low resolution, no mentino of purpose, significance or any other points of the policy. --Sherool (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sherool. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (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.
Rappers Delight Scandinavian single cover.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. No commentary on the alternate album cover. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -Nv8200p talk 03:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rappers Delight Scandinavian single cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IbLeo (notify | contribs).
- Superfluous non-free image in an article that already has one in the lead. There is no sourced commentary, nor commentary of any type, about the image and it is simply decorative. Image fails WP:NFCC#3 as excessive use and WP:NFCC#8 as failing to significantly increase reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 05:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It represents a foreign version of the album, and should be used in a "Foreign Market" section. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Representing something is what all images do. For Wikipedia to host a copyrighted image it must meet all 10 of the non-free content criteria and in this case the image does not meet criteria #8. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It represents a foreign version of the album, and can be used fairly in a "Foreign Market" section. It is acceptable use of a non free image on Wiki, which is correctly licensed and provide with required rationale. Deleting it would harm not improve the article. Archivey (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the (copy & paste) rationale states that the purpsoe of this image is "to show the primary visual image associated with the work", this is clearly not the case, it's just one of two alterantive covers stacked up in the infobox, and I there is no Foreign Market section or any commentary for this cover anywhere at this time. --Sherool (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sherool. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (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.
Rasmus-Dead letters2.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Sandstein 18:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rasmus-Dead letters2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mathias-90 (notify | contribs).
- Superfluous non-free image in an article that already has one in the lead. There is no sourced commentary, nor commentary of any type, about the image and it is simply decorative. Image fails WP:NFCC#3 as excessive use and WP:NFCC#8 as failing to significantly increase reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 05:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Providing an image in context of the article in order to improve it and increase understanding is acceptable. It is doing no harm as the copyright holder is not going to question its use in this context. Deletion would harm the article not improve it which will expand with further work. Archivey (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Stifle; no value in multiple identifying images here. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:36, 13 January 2009 (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.
Complicated.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Sandstein 18:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Superfluous non-free image in an article that already has one in the lead. There is no sourced commentary, nor commentary of any type, about the image and it is simply decorative. Image fails WP:NFCC#3 as excessive use and WP:NFCC#8 as failing to significantly increase reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 05:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Providing an image in context of the article in order to improve it and increase understanding is acceptable. It is doing no harm as the copyright holder is not going to question its use in this context. Deletion would harm the article not improve it which will expand with further work. Archivey (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Stifle. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:37, 13 January 2009 (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.
Lostprophets-Start Something.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Sandstein 19:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lostprophets-Start Something.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ShaneKing (notify | contribs).
- Superfluous non-free image in an article that already has one in the lead - an image that is close to identical to this one. There is no sourced commentary, nor commentary of any type, about the image and it is simply decorative. Image fails WP:NFCC#3 as excessive use and WP:NFCC#8 as failing to significantly increase reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 05:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Providing an image in context of the article in order to improve it and increase understanding is acceptable. It is doing no harm as the copyright holder is not going to question its use in this context. Deletion would harm the article not improve it which will expand with further work. Archivey (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the above. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's virtualy identical to File:Lostprophets Start Something.jpg, only slightly different hue or color balance or whatever it's called, can't see what significant information it adds next to the "main" cover image. "Doing no harm" is not sufficient to pass the criteria for inclution in Wikipedia. --Sherool (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2009 (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.
DSCN0255.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 15 January 2009 (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.
1792to1796ColumbiaRoad.JPG[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1792to1796ColumbiaRoad.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Volcycle (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned personal photo. Doubtful use to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 17:14, 9 January 2009 (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.
1 - 3 boats starting crpd -55.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1 - 3 boats starting crpd -55.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kevin Murray (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned personal photo. Doubtful use to the encyclopedia. Quality is a concern also; small size, blurry. rootology (C)(T) 17:14, 9 January 2009 (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.
Wurttembergflag1896.gif[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Wurttembergflag1896.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grutness (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned; Superceded by Commons:File:Flagge Königreich Württemberg.svg; — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:25, 9 January 2009 (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.