Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 21

< May 20	May 22 >

May 21

File:Lexy Johnson 3.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 ⚡ 08:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the only reason I'm not speedying it is because it's been here for years but really it's a borderline-pornographic file of model whose article got deleted. It is currently being used for User:Jdvillalobos/beautifulwomen, which has been copied on to the user pages of several editors. I think that if this is here, others will think images of similar sultriness are acceptable. Laun chba ller 08:27, 21 May 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:Demi Delia 1.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

WP:MFD. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Unused fully pornographic image. A semi-bowdlerised version is available at File:Demi Delia 1a.JPG, which is used. Laun chba ller 08:27, 21 May 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:The Voice PH 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misidentified as the official logo. The logo is not used in the show itself neither on any promotions or events related to the show. The only official use of the logo is on the profile pictures of its facebook and twitter page which actually originates from a fan page [1]. Hollyckuhno (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually got this image from a TFC kapamilya website, of which ABS-CBN owns (I am still looking for the website though). I think most of the fansite got that image from the site I was referring to. I have removed the prints in that poster image, and I think others did the same.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got the image from here, but now its gone. The image I was referring to was something similar like this.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another note, since the image is posted by The Voice Philippines already, I think the image is really official.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion of onekapamilyago does not proved officiality either. An official logo (specially for a TV show) is something that is used or being use within the premise of the show itself. Beside, if we would just weigh the officiality of the show's official logo, this would certainly lose.[2][3][4][5][6]Hollyckuhno (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. You have a point. But anyways, the difference of all the logo we both sited are just the backgrounds... so we really don't know which is which. I think it would be better if we will upload a version of it with no background. Just like what is found in the official website where the background is not really part of the logo.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just actually the background, the hand, the microphone, the text, and even the color palette are different. Hollyckuhno (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry if I was not that observant. You are really right. Okay, I will be with your side now. I am supporting for the deletion of this image.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 17:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your urgent response. Hollyckuhno (talk) 00:04, 22 May 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:SpiritCaveMan.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The recreation appears to be an artist's guess and thus violates

Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment but we use Original Research in the manner of which you speak all the time, since we reference Newton's original publications, or Einstein's, or Darwin's. This would be no different on those grounds. This seems to be a scholarly recreation, and thus the same as any other primary research. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete again, the photograph is a commercial image from the Smithsonian. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete the "OR2 part of the nom is total nonsense, but it is a recent photo of a 3D object etc, & the reconstruction is copyrightable. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 24 May 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:Froggydarb's Userpage.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A userpage banner, only useful for Froggydarb's userpage, and he's not using it there. (He's only edited once in the last 7 years, and it was to blank all his pages.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one is in use on
Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 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:Aurora Tigers RBC 2004.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what purpose this non-free image of random game action shows which couldn't be replaced by free text and/or image content in

Royal Bank Cup 2004. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:17, 21 May 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:Li Jing.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Originally brought to PUF by User:Lonelydarksky who said this: "A copyrighted image. The description in the fair use rationale is inaccurate. Ji Ling was a historical person and there are no known depictions of him. Besides, very little was mentioned about him in history. It is inappropriate to use an image from a video game to represent him in a Wikipedia article." I closed that PUF discussion as it was in the wrong forum but am relisting it here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:21, 21 May 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:Volunteers ppcrv.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to illustrate Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting with images of work being done, surely this can be achieved without a nonfree image. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you are correct, and

don't call me Sherley. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:26, 21 May 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:Algrt.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log

).

Seems redundant to the free image File:Algonquin Round Table.gif. I don't know what this nonfree image does for the article that isn't already covered. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unhappily, delete This is a case where the requirement for free-ness hurts us, because a real encyclopedia would surely license this. But much as this does illustrate the fame of the group, there's no way in hell we can justify a Hirschfeld caricature through fair use. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 22 May 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:CG1.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, contains a watermark which makes it inappropriate for use on Wikipedia, if we need one of these, it should be an SVG. B (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, aside from the nominators rationale, it doesn't explain what it is actually for. Does it describe sad people in London and happy people in St. Peterburg [sic]?

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:Chi_chi_larue_00072916.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 ⚡ 21:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

204.8.33.206 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This Chi Chi LaRue photos is very old and she looks nothing like that anymore. She's dropped over 100 pounds, but this photo continues to float around from Wikipedia and was recently used on a press release which sourced Wikipedia.

Please have this photo removed.

Thank you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chi_chi_larue_00072916.jpg

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:Xbox One Controller.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 ⚡ 05:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Copyrighted photo from a media outlet. Cannot use as fair use. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually that it's from a media outlet really doesn't effect whether we can use it or not.
  Wha? 01:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete For two reasons. First: it fails NFCC criteria 1 - "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." - That there is no free version now does not take away from the fact that as late as the day of release or as early as E3 in a few weeks, there are going to be opportunities to take pictures of this and release them under free licenses. Just as we don't use non-free images of living people while we wait for someone to take a free one, we should not use non-free images of products while we wait for a free one. Second: It is entirely redundant to
Wha? 01:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep To quote verbatim AussieLegend: The big difference here is that while there is a reasonable expectation that it is possible to obtain a free image of an individual now even if none are available now, it's not possible now to to get a free image of the Xbox One [controller] as there simply aren't any available. After release or E3 that will be different but, for the present, there is no possibility of getting a free image so, right now there is "no free equivalent available, or that could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". --Jasca Ducato (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image as educational value in that its shows readers what an Xbox One controller looks like and their is no free image of it at this time. I'm sure someone will a eventually make a free image of it, but their not reason to wait until that time to have images in the Xbox One article. The non-free images can simply be removed when no longer need. Icedog (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but this file is still going to be redundant to
  Wha? 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

delete, obviously redundant with the other image at the top of the article, which also shows this controller (supposing that image will likely be kept temporarily). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jasca/AussieLegend. -Kai445 (talk) 18:17, 24 May 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:Marlonrabenreither2.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image with no description. Unclear encyclopedic value. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The licensing is surely incorrect, and this surely a commercial image for which we have no apparent use. Mangoe (talk) 13:19, 22 May 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:Rabenreither.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No description, unclear encyclopedic value. Google Image search isn't helpful either. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unlikely to be usable and licensing is doubtful at best. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 22 May 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.