Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 27

< June 26	June 28 >

June 27

File:The Grand Crus Of Chablis with its vineyards.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 ⚡ 01:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this image myself to test how things work. I was unaware of not having the option to delete my own uploads... Please remove. Mrjane (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2012 (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:Rupenmiss.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the September 2008 image loss; hasn't been recovered in almost 4 years and unlikely that it ever will. Judging by the uploader's comment, it appears to have been a rugby ball with a red X overlaid. It could be easily recreated, but I simply don't think it is needed any more. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The file was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_June_25#File:Rupenmiss.png. --MGA73 (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2012 (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:Indiancard1.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. A few notes: the lighting effects in a video game probably showed enough creativity that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. doesn't apply. See commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. It could go either way, but in general we like to be careful. Secondly, as a non-free image, this failed WP:NFCC#1; there are probably relevant cultural works out there that are now in the public domain (e.g., ones published before 1964 who didn't renew their copyright) which could have illustrated this same thing. This image may be reuploaded without prejudice (and also renominated for deletion without prejudice should someone disagree) if it can be satisfactorily shown that there are no free cultural derivatives of this work, although personally I'm skeptical that none exists (especially as most movie stills do not have lighting effects which show enough creativity to be copyrighted). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image to simply demonstrate that the test card was modified and used in the game fallout 3. Text alone can convey this adequately - image fails WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable with a free alternative (text) and WP:NFCC#8 as it does not signficantly add to readers understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 12:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian head test pattern is public domain, the RCA TK-1C test pattern generator produced this image without a copyright notice. See File:Radio TV News Jan 1949 pg39.jpg. The one in this image is a derivative of the 1940s original -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2012 (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:Fontstruct text preview.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image with a mistake in (Wikipidia instead of Wikipedia) and thus unusable. mabdul 12:58, 27 June 2012 (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:Bedtime.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 WP:CSD#F2 No need for a page for a nonexistent file containing only {{restricted use}}. If someone wants to properly apply {{Protected generic image name}}, I have no objection. Anomie ⚔ 16:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bedtime.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Bedtime.jpg qualifies for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F2 as a file description page for a non-existent file, yet a few users have unclear points on why this file description page should be kept (see history). -- SLV100 (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2012 (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:IRA Volunteers 1979.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free close-up picture of two masked men is more of a decoration than an informative illustration for a reader interested in the Provisional Irish Republican Army or its activities between 1969–1997. The image is unnecessary/replaceable-by-text in the sense that it conveys no unique relevant information that is not already contained in the article, and serves just as an infobox adornment. damiens.rf 15:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't how the image is informative either. Its just a generic picture of 2 masked men with guns. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2012 (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:Douglas 1956 still-updated.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status uncertain: "Created in 1956. However, source of previous publication unknown. If first published between 1978 and 2002, photo may be still possibly copyrighted until 2047. If unpublished as of 2003, 120 years from creation. [1]". This is used to say the file can not be moved to Commons, which makes no sense. —innotata 16:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence to support Public domain claim - vague assertions only. Youreallycan 17:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per uploader: Obvious publicity photo and in the public domain. A source of publication can be anonymous, and production and distribution of such stills became publication. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - There must be another photo to identify this person. Also, evidence of copyright status is required. --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the photo, Dr. Macro, says that his uploads from original publicity stills have no copyright notice. What kind of "evidence" are you referring to? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The {{PD-US-no notice}} tells that it was published before 1978 without a copyright notice. However, the {{Do not move to Commons}} template tells that the uploader does not know whether the photo has been published before 1978 in the first place, so we have a contradiction. Thus, I take it that the uploader isn't aware of any exact publication, and in that case, the uploader hasn't been able to verify whether the publication (if any) has a copyright notice or not. The image looks like a standard publicity shot, so I don't doubt that it has been published, but we need some evidence that the publication was without a copyright notice. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2012 (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:Institutesleep2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE, no reason to maintain Skier Dude (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2012 (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:Oneshowsmall.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE, no reason to maintain Skier Dude (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2012 (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:Ty2006.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR, data should be presented in wiki-table Skier Dude (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2012 (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:Interceptor body armor.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interceptor body armor.jpg because it is disputed that the photo was actually taken by a US Army person. MGA73 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2012 (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:Kaisershirt.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR, LQ, no need for a t-shirt's picture Skier Dude (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (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:USX LOGO.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR, LQ, doubtfully a legit logo for anything Skier Dude (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2012 (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:Kappa Psi Phi.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR, LQ Skier Dude (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2012 (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:Kisg0.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR user-created logo, no need to retain Skier Dude (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2012 (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:A Main building.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR: Source unclear - "Peng, the author of this photo agreed to donate the image"... .who is Peng? Skier Dude (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same person has also uploaded other images which are claimed to be works by Peng or Peng Zhang. All other photos from this uploader show places in China, but this photo shows a building in Sweden. Delete since it is unclear who Peng is. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2012 (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:Fig6.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file uploaded by User:Louderthansatan has neither source nor licence. The file uploaded by User:Mneser is probably not useful. Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How is this image useful or informative? What was the uploader thinking? --Leoboudv (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2012 (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:Matrix-36.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2012 (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:Nice to Meet You Tour.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a promo picture for the tour. Not a poster. Statυs (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2012 (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:Nox.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowed Commons file is enough. No need for this one. Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2012 (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:Andreasyan Beckenbauer 1975.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a generic scene from a 1970s football match, used for decoration in a highly general article (Football in Armenia). Image is not the object of specific discussion. While the game from which it is taken may be of some interest in the context of the article, the point of interest is merely that the match happened. The image is not needed to make this simple fact understood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 27 June 2012 (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:DecayChain Ununseptium.svg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the fair use rationale, this is a copyrighted work made by the US government. This claim is wrong; works made by the US government are in the public domain, see {{PD-USGov}}. However, I can't find any evidence that this is a US government work, so it seems to be replaceable fair use, if copyrightable. It also fails WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although tagging changes can be necessary) I'm not in common with U.S. copyright laws (and, to my disappointment, the corresponding Wiki policy), but this is not a piece of intellectual property or something people are restricted to know or something one can make money of. AFAIK, we don't delete chemical formulas (skeletal also require images) regardless the source, copyright or not, as a scientific fact, thus public domain. Something similar should apply here. It is very likely not a U.S. government work, paper's author list is headed by a Russian scientist. We could use the re-tagging, though.

P.S. I added the file to ununseptium, as it was intended--R8R Gtrs (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not US-Gov work - it was made by contractors (which generally have non-commercial licenses). The question to discuss is whether such image is copyrightable graphically, i.e. whether something like {{PD-shape}} applies. I think it is not copyrightable. Materialscientist (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I am the uploader of the diagram in question. I made it in reply to Wikigraphist request and because it was a .gov top domain I assumed it was created by the US Government. Apologies, I would appreciate if someone with more knowledge into these kind of things could put the correct copyright notice and source in the file description. Thanks in advance. --Shandris^the ^azylean 11:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file can be manually recreated as with File:Ununoctium-294 nuclear.svg so it doesn't ahve any copyright issues. Nergaal (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a rather complex diagram, and I most certainly do not think that we can consider it public domain for its simplicity. Other than that, it's clearly repleaceable. The data can be used to create another image, but that does not mean that any image created using said data can be used as we see fit. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely it is OK as fair use, in the worst case? I tend to think of it as rather simple, in fact – some boxes, arrows, and numbers, in the usual layout for decay chains (like the Uuo-294 diagram Nergaal linked). So I think it is not copyrightable, like Materialscientist. I also agree with R8R Gtrs that this is like a chemical equation, with a specific format and specific data that is necessary, and should stay in the ununseptium article. Double sharp (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is obviously replaceable, so fair use doesn't apply. See WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is deleted, it definitely should be recreated with an image-editing software. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be recreated with an image-editing software without too much difficulty. String Theory¹¹ 02:02, 4 July 2012 (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.