Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 7



File:2013WorldSeries.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:2013WorldSeries.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by BBallFan2013 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

LQ, already deleted before, see Æ AUSSIE evil Æ 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC) The thread with the image is still up. Did you bother looking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.2.6 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this logo is on sportslogos and is the official logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.18.215 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's only on the forums, and not on the official site. The news article that supposedly announced it was deleted. --Æ AUSSIE evil Æ 00:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The logo is NOT currently posted on SportsLogos' main World Series page, where it may be considered as a reliable source. Anything that is posted on the forums is NOT official and considered unreliable. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read Zzy's comment? The forum topic is not a reliable source! --198.189.141.254 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:LEON 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:LEON 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Sjhcq ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan image, low resolution, unknown source, resolution is web ready, possibly not owned by uploader -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 02:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment appears to be a shrink of http://www.pomip.ic.cz/nezarazeno/obrazky/leon2.jpg whatever that is sourced from -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, but the date from that site is 2010, the image was uploaded here in 2008. That image is larger though.  Unknown original source. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  03:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment it appears to be a T-55M2A1 Leon 2 Peruvian variant of the T-55 Soviet tank, driving down a Peruvian street. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

The Big Chill film soundtrack artworks

 * 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: Deleted by User:INeverCry. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Vatbg.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Fantailfan ( contribs | uploads | upload log)
 * File:Vatbg1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Fantailfan ( contribs | uploads | upload log)

These images are redundant in The Big Chill (film). The soundtrack is filled with oldies from 1950s and 1960s, so it is not inherently notable and would not be strong as stand-alone. --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:The bones of Miklabæjar-Sólveig moved to their final resting place.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:The bones of Miklabæjar-Sólveig moved to their final resting place.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by FASEnska ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violates WP:NFCC: you don't need a photo of the bones hidden in a chest to understand the article. You can't even see the bones on the photo!

PD in Iceland (see Commons:Template:PD-Iceland50) but http://www.skagafjordur.is/displayer.asp?cat_id=1447 doesn't tell whether it is a published photo or not and it doesn't look like a scan of a publication, so the copyright status in the United States is uncertain. USA law requires, amongst other things, that the photo was published somewhere before 1 March 1989. Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Auscoi.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. Diannaa (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Auscoi.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Bonus bon ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Decorative non-free image that adds no meaninful encyclopaedic value to the article and therefore breaches NFCC #8 Spartaz Humbug! 16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC) style="color:gold;">Legend ''']] ( ✉ ) 00:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment a picture of the document in the article about the document would seem to be non-decorative (otherwise, we'd delete every book cover, album cover, DVD cover) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, a similar image File:Us-passport.jpg is on commons as a free image, as is File:Russian ePassport.jpg, and about 100 others. Its use at Certificate of identity was inappropriate, as there was no FUR for use in that article and it has subsequently been removed. I do agree with the IP here, we could probably delete 99.9% of non-free images because they fail NFCC#8. It's a criteria that has to be applied with a modicum of common sense. --[[User:AussieLegend|''' Aussie <span
 * The US and Russian passports have licenses that are compatible with commons. Works of the US government are PD and Russian governement works can be reused with attributation. That's not necesserily the case with this and given the cesspit of false licenses and flickr washing that is Commons I wouldn't admit the argument that something is on commons is an indicator that all is well. The image is being used in a gallery for goodness sake so there is absolutely no value having it there and we have historically not permitted gallery use for Non-free images. Also its not being used on an article about itself (like the other images you refer to where at least there is the encyclopaedic value of showing what the subject of the article looks like. NFCC is a foundation mandate that we have to apply correctly, and this isn't it. Spartaz Humbug! 06:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The image was (past tense) being used in a gallery. As I indicated above, it has been removed from that article as there was no FUR. You probably should have done that yourself before nominating. It most definitely is being used in an article about itself, at Australian Certificate of Identity, and it has an FUR for that article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This image would be public domain as too simple to copyright. The Australian coat of arms is public domain due to age (pre 1946 Australia means also public domain in US).  The rest of the picture elements are either simple text or simple shapes, so non-free use should not be relevant.  The picture itself is encyclopedic, educational and having potential use in an article on these kind of documents. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, image is useful and serves a non-decorative purpose at Australian Certificate of Identity. As Graeme Bartlett has pointed out above, it's even questionable as to whether the image is actually copyrightable at any rate, essentially being a blue piece of paper with a public domain image on it and a few words.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep per the IP above. It is an image of a document in an article about the document. We allow articles about paintings to contain an image of the painting, and this seems to be the same situation. If this representation of the coat of arms is in the public domain as User:Graeme Bartlett suggested, it should of course be retagged as PD. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to Commons if everything people say is true. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:HKeDOIcover.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: Kept as fair use for the article about the document. I was unalbe to determine the status of the crest on the document as it is not the official shield of Hong Kong. Diannaa (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * File:HKeDOIcover.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Bonus bon ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

decorative non-free image that adds no encyclopaedic value to the article. Breaks NFCC #8 Spartaz Humbug! 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC) The US and Russian passports have licenses that are compatible with commons. Works of the US government are PD and Russian governement works can be reused with attributation. That's not necesserily the case with this and given the cesspit of false licenses and flickr washing that is Commons I wouldn't admit the argument that something is on commons is an indicator that all is well. The image is being used in a gallery for goodness sake so there is absolutely no value having it there and we have historically not permitted gallery use for Non-free images. Also its not being used on an article about itself (like the other images you refer to where at least there is the encyclopaedic value of showing what the subject of the article looks like. NFCC is a foundation mandate that we have to apply correctly, and this isn't it. Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment a picture of the document in the article about the document would seem to be non-decorative (otherwise, we'd delete every book cover, album cover, DVD cover) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, a similar image File:Us-passport.jpg is on commons as a free image, as is File:Russian ePassport.jpg, and about 100 others. Its use at Certificate of identity was inappropriate, as there was no FUR for use in that article and it has subsequently been removed. I do agree with the IP here, we could probably delete 99.9% of non-free images because they fail NFCC#8. It's a criteria that has to be applied with a modicum of common sense. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As per File:Auscoi.jpg, the image was (past tense) being used in a gallery. Also as I indicated above, it has been removed from that article as there was no FUR and agin, you probably should have done that yourself before nominating. Like File:Auscoi.jpg it most definitely is being used in an article about itself, at Hong Kong Document of Identity for Visa Purposes, and it has an FUR for that article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The use in Hong Kong Document of Identity for Visa Purposes looks perfectly fine: an image of a document in an article about that document. I'm not sure what gallery you are talking about. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it confused me too until I figured it out. This and other images were being used in a gallery in Certificate of identity, without FURs for use in the article until they were correctly removed by another editor. I get the impression that the nominator wasn't aware that they were being used appropriately in other articles when he nominated them, based on "its not being used on an article about itself", which was clearly not the case. He only appears to have been aware of the gallery in Certificate of identity. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Yes, the use in Special:PermanentLink/553926590 is clearly inappropriate. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, this image is arguably PD just like the Australian one, in that the only element that meets the threshold for creativity is the emblem, which according to File:National_Emblem_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg is itself in the public domain. Even if not, the remaining use is not decorative.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC).
 * 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:MCA 3rd Year.pdf

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:MCA 3rd Year.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Sumantdiwakar ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No encyclopedic value that I can see. Eeekster (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment it can be used to illustrate what a transcript looks like. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Copyright violation (derivative image, the seal is most likely protected) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.