Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 23

< July 22	July 24 >

July 23

File:SM001-02.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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn -FASTILY 06:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (Wikipedia is not an image repository), no foreseeable use FASTILY 00:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the file (and the one below) potentially be used for Manuel Poggiali (current image celebrates 2003 title), or potentially for the 2001 125cc World Championship? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:31, 28 July 2017 (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:SM002-02.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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn -FASTILY 06:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (Wikipedia is not an image repository), no foreseeable use FASTILY 00:36, 23 July 2017 (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:AlignTrex450SE.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

probable copyvio, see commons:COM:TOYS Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2017 (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:Allan Park Goalmouth.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

too blurry to be of encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2017 (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:Alicallig.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

image with no foreseeable use Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2017 (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:Insignia, staff superintendent (Toronto Police Service).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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

too low resolution to be of encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2017 (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:Allen Road.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no foreseeable encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2017 (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:Black Desert Online Game Screenshot.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 ⚡ 03:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#5, WP:NFCC#8: Its presence does not even slightly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission is not detrimental to that understanding. The image is of a character class which is mentioned once in the article (noting only its introduction to the game) and is otherwise irrelevant, and only being used for decorative purposes. Neil S. Walker (t@lk) 11:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image outlines the graphical capabilities of the game engine, and hints at the overall designs. prokaryotes (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not persuaded that a screenshot of someone standing in the dark in a YouTube video is sufficient to indicate the game's visuals; wouldn't a screenshot taken directly ingame be more useful for that? I'm not opposed to an image highlighting the game's (critically acclaimed) visuals, but the image under discussion isn't right for that. Neil S. Walker (t@lk) 20:02, 23 July 2017 (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:Louis9 profilebust.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced, probably unfree, per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louis9 profilebust.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:32, 23 July 2017 (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:Dan Antopolski.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dan Antopolski.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:34, 23 July 2017 (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:Dana Data.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 1#File:Dana Data.jpg. ℯ xplicit 01:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dana Data.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Presuming the line-drawing of the majorette passes the originality threshold (the text does not), the record label is in public domain since 1974 per {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Trademark may still apply, although the company is no longer in existence. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:26, 27 July 2017 (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:Short-SC.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the license is not acceptable for Wikipedia; archive URL to source - https://web.archive.org/web/20071009080637/http://www.free-picture-graphic.org.uk/the-short-sc1-aircraft.htm XXN, 21:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the original site is down, but as you can see from the URL, the image was considered a "free" image. Perhaps, a new replacement can be found. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the restriction on commercial use makes this image insufficiently free. -- Whpq (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2017 (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:StreetSignSeal.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality photo, the subject is unclear. Also the seal might be copyrighted and thus this image it's not absolutely free. XXN, 23:05, 23 July 2017 (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.

Files from Wynnster8

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: Deleted -FASTILY 06:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced these images are own wok as claimed. This editor has made the same claim for other images which were clear copyright violations. This include deliberate outright fabrications. For example, the editor uploaded File:777-200ER OF AEROMEXICO.png with a source of "Found it at LAX". The image is in fact available on Commons in a higher resolution as File:N774AM (8154584727).jpg. BTW, it's not at LAX. Whpq (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2017 (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.