Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_August_25 References

< August 24	August 26 >

August 25

File:AugustVollmer.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 ⚡ 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Photo is tagged as PD-US but claimed to be from 1925. — howcheng { chat} 00:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment - It could possibly be either "Works published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice" or "Works published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 with a copyright notice but without later copyright renewal" but I don't see evidence to support either of those.-- Rockfang ( talk) 04:11, 10 September 2013 (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:Soda Lime.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 F1 by Chris 73 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

This unused jpg version has been superceded by a svg version at File:Soda-lime glass, typical transmission spectrum (2 mm thickness).svg. Diannaa ( talk) 01:53, 25 August 2013 (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:Shudhu Tumi soundtrack.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 F5 by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Violates WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 ( talk) 15:25, 25 August 2013 (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:Miley Cyrus Bangerz (Album Cover) - Deluxe.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 F5 by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, see File:Miley Cyrus Bangerz (Album Cover).jpg. Stefan2 ( talk) 15:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose – Several albums have other covers showcasing their deluxe state. I don't see how this one would be in violation? Go and attack other artists who have other covers for their deluxe editions. I don't see that being done! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Other alternative covers are deleted all of the time. See other discussions elsewhere at WP:FFD. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:55, 25 August 2013 (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:Drew Garrett as Michael.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. This article already has one non-free image of Garrett in character, another is not required to demonstrate how the character looks. Fails NFCC#3 Nthep ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

There is already a different image of the character portrayed by a different actor. This additional photo violates WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose Soap articles have always included pictures of other performers in a role, usually the most significant past performers. Drew Garrett is one of the performers. I replaced other picture because it did not meet the appropriate guidelines for pictures as it was a promotional photo, instead of screen shot of the character.-- Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 20:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

When there has been more than one photo, the extra ones tend to be deleted if taken to WP:FFD. The character already gets identification from the first image in the infobox. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

That's not always true when it comes to soap characters with more then one notable performer.-- Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 04:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose. I agree with Nk3play2. This should not be deleted for the same reason as him. — SoapFan12 ( talk, contribs) 12:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose An additional image is absolutely necessary to depict a very notable portrayal of the character. Garret's portrayal received significant story lines, praise, and media coverage that has nothing to do with the current portrayer. Caringtype1 ( talk) 18:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I'd love to know who started making up these new rules? From American soap characters, to European soap characters; pictures of alternate performers have always been included; this is NOTHING new. What is with this random challenging of regular practices?-- Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 23:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose per all the reasoning above— Ar re 06:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Can we close this discussion now, it's been resolved for months now. Uses have chosen to keep the image.-- Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 02:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete, this is an obvious violation of WP:NFCC#3, regardless of how many people like the image or are opposed to the rule's application in this instance. – Quadell ^(
talk) 17:45, 29 October 2013 (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:LOGO 365 NL.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

LQ Jeroen.callebaut ( talk) 20:35, 25 August 2013 (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:LogoToeristischeAttracties.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

LQ Jeroen.callebaut ( talk) 20:37, 25 August 2013 (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:Charminar Old and New Photographs by The Hindu.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 – Quadell ^(
talk) 17:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply

At least the photo to the left violates WP:NFCC#1, and presumably the left one too. It seems to be an important landmark, so there are presumably lots of photos of it published before 1941, so there should be photos which are in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

There is no other authentic photographs in the public domain which shows the difference between the old Charminar and New Charminar. Even if it is there, Due to controversy, They may have been removed from the public domain. So according to WP:NFCC#1 Non-free content can be used where no free equivalent is available. This photograph helps illustrate the difference as discussed in the article. Irfannaseefp ( talk) 03:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Why do you need a composite image? You could just find an old photo with an angle similar to a recent photo. And how would you remove from the public domain? That sounds impossible. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 07:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

The building obviously existed "last Friday^when?" since someone from the newspaper was able to take a photo of it at that point. Why can't a new photo be taken next Friday? Also, this seems to be a widely photographed building, and more or less all Indian photos published before 1941 should be in the public domain in the United States, so it seems unlikely that no free old photo exists. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

"last friday" was 31st May 2013. If a free alternative of acceptable quality is available, this Non Free content can be replaced with that. How can you state WP:NFCC#1 is violated ? Irfannaseefp ( talk) 18:07, 13 September 2013 (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:OUATS01E18.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 – Quadell ^(
talk) 17:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Just a random picture of two people looking at each other. Violation of WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

you could argue that with all episode infobox screen captures. It helps illustrate the episode article. You may not watch the show but it is specific to audiences of the show. OUATFan ( talk) 20:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

What you are mentioning are purely decorative purposes, but non-free images are not permitted for such purposes. See also WT:FFD#Non-free images of a specific television episode. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:51, 25 August 2013 (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:Lightlrxiii.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 F5 by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Replaced by a higher quality, lower-res PGN image. ProtoDrake ( talk) 22:30, 25 August 2013 (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:RadioStar logo.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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The page RadioStar was deleted, so we probably don't need this image any longer. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete per lack of licensing. I can't find a ticket in OTRS. DMacks ( talk) 04:32, 6 September 2013 (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:BBC Radio 5 Live logo 1994 animated.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: Kept non-animated revisions; old revisions deleted. Diannaa ( talk) 00:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Animation violates WP:NFCC#8. A copy of the logo without any animation would satisfy {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Uploaded new version of the image without animation, hopefully this will be suitable. -- PhilipB ( talk) 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm still seeing an animation. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

It seemingly seems to keep coming back when I revisit the file page, but when I refresh it's static, I'm going to try and reupload it under a different name since the file name is obsolete anyway. -- PhilipB ( talk) 23:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Although Commons seems to have caching issues with new versions of files showing up as the old one, in this case I suspect that the previous version *was* the original inadvertantly re-uploaded, as it had the same file size. I've replaced it with another version which definitely doesn't have the animation (and is clearly smaller). But I agree that it should be renamed anyway. Ubcule ( talk) 12:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

(Side note): There is also another copy of the same Radio 5 logo. Although that one is larger, it looks like it's been messed about with; the bars under "BBC" aren't slanted and the typeface of the word "radio" is wrong. Compare it to this upload and you'll notice the difference (particularly the right-hand leg of the letter "R"). This version is correct as can be seen in an accurate scan of the previous Radio 5 logo here.

Therefore, we should keep this version now that the problems have been addressed and nominate File:BBC_Radio_Five_Live_1991.jpg for deletion instead. Yes, it's higher resolution, but it's not accurate. Ubcule ( talk) 17:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks Ubcule for uploading the correct version of the GIF, I should have known something was up when the file size was the same. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get around to doing anything about it (and that I didn't fix it properly in the first place). My upload was intended to replace File:BBC_Radio_Five_Live_1991.jpg because my upload was from an accurate and official source, rather than File:BBC_Radio_Five_Live_1991.jpg which is obviously a recreation because of the reasons you pointed out. -- PhilipB ( talk) 16:26, 3 September 2013 (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.