Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 9

< August 8	August 10 >

August 9

File:Akram Khan.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was uploaded as a user-space file, but is not currently used on any user page. I am also nominating File:AkramKhan At Conice.jpg for the same reason. I also noticed that articles at AkramK Khan and AkramKhan were deleted per CSD. Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2014 (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:Flag of al-Qaeda in Iraq.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For over four years this flag was used all over Wikipedia, and thus was even mentioned in other websites, books, and news articles, as the flag of al-Qaeda. Not only is this not the "Flag of al-Qaeda", it is not the "Flag of al-Qaeda in Iraq" either. This flag was uploaded in September 2004 to the Flags of the World website along with a report by a "Colonel Emerson Begolly", who claimed it was the new al-Qaeda flag. [1] The so-called Colonel claimed to "have seen the flag several times before" due to his "being in Iraq for the past 6 months". However, the organization al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) was not formed until October 2004, as a rebranding of Abu Musab az-Zarqawi's Jama'at at-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad (JTJ). It should also be noted that Emerson Begolly is the name of a Nazi-turned-Jihadist with mental health issues arrested in 2011, who in his teenage years posted in online message boards as a Nazi. In September 2004 he would have been around 14 years old. Begolly says, "The flag is being debated as either Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda (Ansar al-Zarqawi) flag or the al-Qaeda flag in Iraq". To my knowledge there is no such group called "Ansar al-Zarqawi". He further says "This flag was used in the backround of several beheading videos. I was given, and still have, a captured flag like this one from another soldier who raided an abandoned al-Qaeda safe-house in Fullujah [...] I know another soldier who has a flag like that one, but only the lettering and circle is white, not yellow like the other one. The videos are not clear enough to tell whether the lettering and circle is white or yellow, but it probably differs depending on who made the particular flag." Since Begolly was obviously not in Iraq in 2004, I think it is clear that Begolly based this flag on videos that he watched. I have created and uploaded several different flags of JTJ and AQI based on those displayed in different videos (the first three are JTJ and the rest are AQI): The flags always have the name of the group, either Jama'at at-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad or Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad ar-Rafidayn. Most probably this flag is based on the first flag of JTJ that I listed ([2]). However the words "Jama'at at-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad" were omitted from the bottom. This flag can neither be considered the flag of JTJ nor of AQI, and I see no reason for its use. Axiom292 (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2014 (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:Cal Murphy QB ca 1952.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlikely this is self made, no source given. 1952 works can still be copyrighted. Deadstar (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not seeing that it's that unlikely. It's a rephotographed print, it could very well be that the uploader found it in a box of his own old photographs and decided it needed to be here,
WP:SPA, which in this case actually makes it seem more likely to me, maybe someone who was a kid with a camera who happened to be there in 1952. XeroxKleenex (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, metadata is for a modern digital camera so this is likely to be a photo of a photo which the uploader didn't create. ✄ (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2014 (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:4 Para DZ.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't used and is a duplicate of commons:File:4th Para DZF.svg. User:GKFX^talk 17:06, 9 August 2014 (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:Herman's Hermits Wonderful World.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per

Stefan2 (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep: Notable cover version that is the highest charting version on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 at number four and was the highest charting version on the UK Singles at number seven for 23 years until the original was rereleased in 1986, thereby passing

WP:NFCC#8. I am confused, is Herman's Hermits the "seemingly non-notable side project?" I would hope with the number of top ten albums and singles that this is incorrect. Aspects (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Yet another deletion discussion is ongoing, and the file is gone. I see valid reasons above for a Keep, the discussion is open, where's the file? XeroxKleenex (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2014 (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:Los argentinos somos derechos y humanos.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are three different problems here. The file was originally copied from [3] with a note that it was "Created by Burston-Marsteller ad agency in 1979". However, another editor then added a FUR which is almost entirely fictional and seems to have been written without even the faintest understanding of this topic - saying that the image is a logo for an Argentine army officer (it isn't), that it can be obtained from him (he's dead), and that the army officer is an organization (he isn't). Also, the original image appears to have been put together clumsily in MS Paint rather than professionally created by some 1970s ad agency. What's the best solution here? I think deletion is the best solution. bobrayner (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone writes an obviously invalid FUR like this, then the file may be speedily deleted per

Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - I believe this is improperly categorized as non-free, it appears to me to be eligible for
Template:PD-logo status, I don't believe it meets the threshold of originality for copyright. XeroxKleenex (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I've changed the copyright tag on the image, and added it back to the Jorge Rafael Videla article. We can always take it back out if consensus is delete. XeroxKleenex (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The heart and its shading are not a "simple geometric shape". ✄ (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two joined curves, two straight lines, and a solid fill color are pretty simple. The Apple logo is ineligible, and it has more curves. The Best Western logo is ineligible, and it has more colors. And there are many more examples of logos that are ineligible and are more complex at Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright (logo). XeroxKleenex (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2014 (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:Minecraft monday pic.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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Used only in pages about a non-notable Youtube show, deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minecraft Mondays and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hackett33/Minecraft Mondays. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2014 (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:Akram awan 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be both free and unfree. If free, it is missing evidence of permission. If unfree, it violates

Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2014 (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:Akram awan 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be both free and unfree. If free, it is missing evidence of permission. If unfree, it violates

Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2014 (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:Batman Under the Red Hood (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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per

Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as per nom. XeroxKleenex (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2014 (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.