Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 13

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

File:Contestsite.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Savidan (notify | contribs).

• Violation of terms of use, does not "maintain in unmodified form all copyright and other proprietary notices (such as trademark legends) contained in any such Content that is downloaded and provide proper notices and attribution to the extent that no such notices are contained therein." ViperSnake151  Talk  00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's marked as fair use, which we allow, but lacks a copyright tag at present.
  talk) 22:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete: besides the lack of a copyright tag, it may well still fail
  WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use because with this there are currently two non-free images being used in World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 13 June 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.

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

File:SPC4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tarun2k (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, needs fundamental cleanup.
  ZooFari 00:23, 13 June 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.

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

File:Wsil harrisburg.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Abric (notify | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic excessive file which does not help the article WSIL-TV as it is sort of a duplicate of File:WSIL logo.jpg with only a few differences which are not enough to demonstrate an actual logo change. Please take note that I have orphaned this image as I do not see a reason for it to exist and added File:WSIL logo.jpg back after it was orphaned for around 48 hours or so. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 June 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.

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

File:51b2 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mariaflores1955 (notify | contribs).

• "I was given permission by the individual to post it on my and any other web-sites at my discretion" is certainly not the same thing as permission to license the image under the GFDL and CC-BY. This is clearly a promotional photo (of a living person) that the uploader has no authority to license in this way. +
  gr 10:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Open discussion with the author about contacting the copyright holder and releasing copyright under a free license (i.e.
  WP:PHOTOSUB). If discussion over releasing the copyright is refused (or the copyright holder denies the request), proceed with deletion. ^blurred_peace ☮ 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The owner of the copyright (the author of the photo) released this photo for public use. Consequently, this discussion is no longer needed. Regards 78.105.93.142 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The copyright holder needs to send an e-mail to [email protected] to verify that the image has been released under a free license. "Released for public use" isn't good enough - it has to be free for others to use commercially and make derivatives from. +
      gr 12:27, 20 June 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.

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

File:Princefranzofbavaria.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bolekpolivka (notify | contribs).

• Clearly a promotional photo (of a living person) that the uploader owns a copy of but has no authority to release into the public domain +
  gr 10:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The owner of the copyright (the author of the photo) released this photo for public use. Consequently, this discussion is no longer needed. Regards 78.105.93.142 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The copyright holder needs to send an e-mail to [email protected] to verify that the image has been released under a free license. "Released for public use" isn't good enough - it has to be free for others to use commercially and make derivatives from. +
      gr 12:27, 20 June 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.

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

File:SophieLiechtenstein.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Petepetepete (notify | contribs).

• Website given as source says nothing about licensing under the GFDL. Source website is probably not the copyright holder of the image either, but is just using it under a "fair use" assumption. Since this is a living person, Wikipedia doesn't have that option. +
  gr 10:16, 13 June 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.

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

File:StKitts Xmas 1983 MS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fayenatic london (notify | contribs).

• Delete: This 1983 stamp fails
  WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence, per the rationale, is described quite well in the prose and its omission will not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Naturally (as the uploader) I'm disappointed, but the rationale seems watertight. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:03, 14 June 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.

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

File:Skerjancstamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr. Blofeld (notify | contribs).

• Delete: This stamp fails
  WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use. ww2censor (talk) 16:32, 13 June 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.

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

File:Skalkotas Mitropoulos stamp 1985 .png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lourakis (notify | contribs).

• Delete: This stamp fails
  WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose but is not discussed in any way. ww2censor (talk) 16:35, 13 June 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.

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

File:Singapore stamps festival.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vsion (notify | contribs).

• Delete: This stamp fails
  WP:NFCC#8 because the topics of the stamp and its existence can be described quite well in the prose but there is no discussion of the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 16:38, 13 June 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.

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. +

File:Simpsons stamps.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scorpion0422 (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 2009 stamp fails
  WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator's excellent rationale. —
  =/\= | 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Stop ruining Wikipedia.--ISEETRUTH (talk) 12:31, 20 June 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.

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

File:Simon Kimbangu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rbraunwa (notify | contribs).

• Delete: This stamp fails
  WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose without the reader's understanding being diminished by its omission. Also missing a fair-use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 13 June 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.

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

File:She's So Fine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt (notify | contribs).

• Delete: This stamp fails
  WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the reader's understanding is not diminished by its omission. ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 13 June 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.

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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Shetty Brahmavar (notify | contribs

).

• Web resolution, no metadata, looks a bit like a press shot. I suspect this image has been taken from elsewhere without permission. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - uploader copied from DNAIndia news website -[1]. Mugur Chandra (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and also delete all this user's uploads per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Navin Shetty Brahmavar. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:37, 15 June 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.

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

File:Ufp-emblem.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gav235 (notify | contribs).

• As a Star Trek logo, a plainly copyrighted image belonging to
  =/\= | 20:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Is it the same as the copyrighted emblem, or is it just a similar image that claims to be the UFP logo? (ie, is it substantively different enough to not encroach?) 70.29.212.226 (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When compared to the same at Memory Alpha it's neigh identical; but if it weren't, that fact itself would be reason to delete for not being legitimate to its claim. —
    =/\= | 13:05, 15 June 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.

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

File:HypotrochoidCurve.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sam Derbyshire (notify | contribs).

• Superseded by
  ZooFari 20:56, 13 June 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.

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

File:Tafi roubaix.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Julius.kusuma (notify | contribs).

• This image is currently only used in two articles. One has at least 30 other images and would be unaffected by this image's deletion, but more importantly is the other, the article on the subject. The image is being used there simply to show what the subject looks like. As I understand it, that's not to be done. Since Tafi is retired, we're not likely to get a free-use picture of him on his bike, but it's still entirely possible to get some free image.
  break my slumber 23:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: The image has no fair-use rationale and having competed for about 16 years in many events and countries, it should be possible to find a freely licenced image to replace this one. ww2censor (talk) 03:34, 14 June 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.