Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 June 5



File:Kevin Cadogan.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 as F7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  04:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Kevin Cadogan.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Laurenthian ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Serves no purpose in identifying the subject as it's too small. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 5 June 2014 (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:NC 209 Shield Old.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * File:NC 209 Shield Old.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Gooday.1 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

PNG superseded by SVG File:NC 209 1957.svg on Commons. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:28, 5 June 2014 (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.

Two files

 * 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: All fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 02:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * File:911memorial.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])
 * File:Cheltenham High School Memorial.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs])

A messy case to clean up.

File:911memorial.jpg contains two files: Therefore, User:Peetlesnumber1's upload should be deleted due to lack of licence, and only User:Offisgreat's upload should remain.
 * 1) A file uploaded by User:Offisgreat. This one is free, see Special:PermanentLink/111761091.
 * 2) A file uploaded by User:Peetlesnumber1. This one has a source (given in the edit summary) but lacks a licence.

File:Cheltenham High School Memorial.jpg is an attempt by User:Cube00 to split the file File:911memorial.jpg, but this was done incorrectly (using reupload instead of delete-undelete some revisions-move undeleted revisions somewhere else without leaving a redirect-undelete remaining revisions). Therefore, delete File:Cheltenham High School Memorial.jpg per WP:CSD once File:911memorial.jpg has been fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The template for split media only requires an "experienced editor" to split however the sequence you describe would mean only administrators can split media (since normal users can not delete/undelete). If that's the case the template must be changed to reflect this. Cube00 (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, only administrators are "experienced editors" (except when some of the revisions can be transferred to Commons). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Why do we need a processed split media template to notify administrators that the split is complete, why not change change the first template to administrators only (I don't know if everyone is aware that only administrators are "experienced editors") and not even require the second template? Cube00 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2014 (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:Promicin.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 ⚡  04:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Promicin.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Travisl ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC: looks like any other injection and doesn't help anyone understanding what promicin is. Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2014 (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.