Wikipedia:Files for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcuts: WP:FFD WP:IFD

Files for deletion

Files for deletion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them or no objections to deletion have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created — see burden of proof." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

Examples of what you may request here

Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality - The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright.

What not to list here

I. For speedy deletion candidates, do not use this page; instead use {{db|reason}}. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.

II. Files that have no source, or have an unknown copyright, or are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:

{{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated
{{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information
{{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but isn't used in any articles
{{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but could be replaced by a free file
{{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed
{{subst:frn}} if a file has no non-free use rationale

If the source or licensing information of an image marked as being freely licensed is disputed, please list the file on Possibly unfree files

III. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use

{{isd|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
{{subst:ncd|image name on Commons}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{subst:ncd}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)

IV. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}

V. Suspected copyright violations shouldn't be listed here.

If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
For other suspected copyright infringements or licensing issues, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.

VI. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.

VII. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criteria 8 for files.

VIII. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for deletion

To list a file:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{ffd\|log=2010 July 29}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:ffd2\|File_name.ext\|Uploader= \|Reason= }} ~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:ffd2a\|File_name.ext\|Uploader= \|Reason= }}`
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:fdw\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:fdw-multi\|File:First_file.ext\|File:Second_file.ext\|File:Third_file.ext}} ~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{ifdc\|File_name.ext\|log=2010 July 29}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted. Some common reasons are:

Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name (often abbreviated OB)
Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} . (often abbreviated OR, not to be confused with original research which generally doesn't apply to images)
Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos). (often abbreviated UE)
Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. (often abbreviated LQ)
Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright. (often abbreviated CV)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to delete a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

Since abbreviated deletion reasons will not be familiar to most Wikipedians, especially newbies, please consider using full words. A few extra keystrokes now can save paragraphs of explanation to a panicked uploader wondering what's wrong with their image.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions

Deletion today Articles • (today, in closing) Templates • (today, in closing) Files • (today, in closing) Categories • (today, in closing) Redirects • (today, in closing) Stub types Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review Speedy deletion • (candidates) Proposed deletion • (books) Deletion log Policy \| Process \| Guide Administrator guidelines

To force the server to update this page immediately, purge the cache.

Instructions for discussion participation

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Wikipedia:NFCC#1 - Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8 - Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 - Unacceptable image use

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Instructions for closing discussions

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps at Deletion Process.

Old discussions

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
This notice is automatically updated by AnomieBOT (talk) and will no longer be displayed when the backlog is cleared

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 19 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 20 - 1 remaining
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 21 - 2 remaining

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 22 - Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

Recent nominations

July 23

File:Accept your doom.PNG

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 06:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

File:DavidJaffe.jpg

Subject is not dead, he is alive and kicking. As such, this image fails WP:NFCC #1. One can still take a photograph of the subject and upload it here under a suitable license. Jappalang (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Copy of Redcrossonblue.PNG.svg (delete)

A better version of this file is available. No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. Please delete this media. --Amit6 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Moneybomb.jpg

Non-free screenshot of a TV program displaying the use of a word in a headline, used to illustrate the statement in an article that "news media such as CNN began widely reporting the term". Merely illustrative use of a generic example, not a particularly noteworthy program; illustration not needed to understand the sentence in the text, therefore failing NFCC #1+8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Crown cover.jpg

File is being used in a biography, the the article of the book. Fails WP:NFCC#8. — ξ ^xplicit 22:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

July 24

File:6xhh4e8.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 G3 by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Decision was I don't think we need to waste time on this user, whom I have blocked indef

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was I don't think we need to waste time on this user, whom I have blocked indef.

Rodhull andemu 01:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic, inflammatory, obvious trolling from a user who has made no other contributions besides this image. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Stonemason89 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|- |}

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:HPIM0317.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 MGA73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No encyclopedic value. Described as "a typical sight", and we have only the uploader's personal opinion for that, and objectively, it could be anywhere. In short, it doesn't tell us anything much. Rodhull andemu 01:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

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:Toronto-dvp-route.png

Replaced by free equivalent File:Dvp_proposed.svg ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

File:The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship.jpg

When uploaded, the image was automatically tagged with {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}} and deleted a few days late, which the uploader contested. Brought it here for further input. — ξ ^xplicit 05:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep This is a very low resolution of a very, very unique, one of a kind image. It was taken in Antarctica by the members of mixed Israeli-Palestinian expedition team. This image cannot be replaced with a free equivalent, and it adds big value to the article it appears into.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Rocketmail.png

Unambiguous violation of Wikipedia Non-Free Content Criterion 3a (“Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.”) . File File:Rocketmails.png is more than sufficient to replace this file, especially since both these files are used in the same article only. Fleet Command (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

File:20100502 005950 CandidaAlbicans.jpg

This looks nothing like Candida albicans. The image has a poor provenance and has chromatic and optical aberrations. Graham Colm (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep You don't think my image that is clearly of a neutrophil looks like a neutrophil; you don't think my image of Gram-stained bacteria look like Gram-stained bacteria, and you don't think my image of Candida albicans looks like Candida albicans. I have to wonder what qualifications you think you have to make the claims you have about these images. This one, I have to admit, is under some small amount of doubt. My identification is based primarily on knowing where it came from (a woman who was known to be suffering from a “yeast infection” that was subsequently treated successfully with an over-the-counter medication specifically intended to treat Candida albicans infections), together with a comparison of this sample with what information and images I was able to find on the Internet of Candida albicans and similar fungi. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  - This is not Candida albicans, the quality of image is very poor but it looks more like a species of Penicillium. Wikipedia is not a repository and because it is impossible to identify this specimen it has no parent article and should be deleted. It is not accurate to base the identification on the source of the specimen being a women "suffering from a yeast infection". Graham Colm (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Diamonds are forever japanese album cover.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3 as multiple non-free files are being used when one would suffice. This alternate album cover is not significantly different from the main cover to require or justify its use. — ξ ^xplicit 20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

File:20100417 024116 Conidiophore.jpg

This is a very low quality image with an unacceptable provenance. It is not possible to correctly identify the object shown. Graham Colm (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'll concede on this one. It is exactly what I say it is, but I am not sure what kind of “provenance” you think it needs to establish that. It was a fuzzy green mold (That's nearly always Penicillium, right?), growing in a Petri dish, and I took this picture by putting the entire Petri dish on my microscope, which makes it considerably more difficult to get a good image compared to looking at something on a proper slide. In any event, I admit that the image quality leaves much to be desired. I'm still trying to figure out how to get good pictures of mold. The trick seems to be in getting the mold out of the Petri dish and on to a slide without destroying, in the process, the structures I wish to observe and photograph. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  - No it's not "nearly always penicillium". If that were the case my job would be much easier. There are numerous species of fungi that have a green pigmentation, Aspergillus flavus for example. This is an encyclopedia, we can't just guess. Graham Colm (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    - PS. Try sellotape, gently apply it to the fungus and then stick it on a microscope slide on which a drop of stain has already been added. Graham Colm (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:20100404 205709 BacteriaFromKitchenSponge.jpg

This image has little value. It suffers from optical and chromatic aberrations. It does not resemble a preparation of Gram-stained bacteria at all. Graham Colm (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree that this image has no value. The Sponge_(material) article has a section about sponges harboring bacteria, so it seemed obvious to me that an image of bacteria from a sponge would be relevant to this section. I do not know on what basis Mr. Colm is asserting that this “does not resemble a preparation of Gram-stained bacteria at all”; but it is, in fact, a preparation of Gram-stained bacteria, and that is exactly what it looks like. This image was taken using a dry-objective optical microscope; and the quality is about as good as one can reasonably expect of such an instrument. It's certainly good enough to make the point that it was intended to make; which was to illustrate the bacteria found growing in a sponge. I could possibly see a case to be made that there is no need for the Sponge_(material) to have the section on “Harboring bacteria”, in which case, there'd be no need for this image either; but this doesn't appear to be what Mr. Colm is asserting. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  - The quality of this image is so poor that it is not possible to say what these particles are - they could be dust. The Gram stain is not specific for bacteria; it will stain almost anything. What the Gram stain does do well is differentiate bacilli and cocci with a clear morphology into their Gram-positive and Gram-negative varieties. The morphology of the particles shown in this image cannot be clearly seen. To produce micrographs of Gram-stained bacteria oil immersion objectives are needed, it is not a valid argument to say "the quality is about as good as one can reasonably expect of such an instrument". This is like taking a photograph of the moon with a mobile phone and saying that it is best that can be done without a telescope. There is also a concern regarding original research. Graham Colm (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    - “The morphology of the particles shown in this image cannot be clearly seen.” I disagree. The image very clearly shows spherical particles, uniformly approximately 1¾ to 2 µM in diameter. Dust is not that uniform, nor that consistently spherical. I think it is obvious that what are shown in this image are cocci-type bacteria
      
      As for “Original Reasearch”, see wp:OI. Quoting therefrom:
      
      Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments…
      
      Think it is clear that neither this image, nor any of the others for which you've made the “Original Research” argument, “illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments.” — Bob Blaylock (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:20090808 163802 NeutrophilGranulocyte WhiteBloodCell.jpg

This is a very poor image of a "neutrophil." It is described as a composite image that has been substantially manipulated by editing software. It has little resemblance to the white blood cells of this type. Graham Colm (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep “Poor quality” compared to what? It appears to me to be at least of comparable quality to the other neutrophil image in the Neutrophil granulocyte article.
  
  And I don't see what the objection is to it as a “composite image that has been substantially manipulated by editing software”. It'd be one thing if there was evidence that the image had been manipulated to alter its appearance in a deceptive manner, but I think it is clear enough that this is not the case here. Not to admit that I think I'm always obligated to do so, but in this instance, the file description contains a very detailed explanation as to exactly what was done with this image, and why. The purpose was to produce a better-quality image, with better resolution, than what I was able to get from a single image.
  
  And as for the claim that this image “has little resemblance to the white blood cells of this type”, I think anyone who compares this image with the other extant image on the Neutrophil granulocyte article can see that both images are of exactly the same type of cell; with the most significant difference between them being different coloring, as a result of different staining methods being used; mine was stained using Wright's stain, while the other was reportedly stained with MayGrunwald Giemsa. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia is not a repository and this image is obsolete. It is out of focus and has chromatic aberration. We have quality images of polymorphonuclear leukocytes and there is no need for this poor one. Graham Colm (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

July 25

File:Skif Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Organization of Scouts.png

I am the original uploader, superseded by better SVG at Commons (Ukrainian law so ok) which was the original goal, so image has served its purpose and is unused, speedy was declined as different format Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Austinorielly.jpg

Not in use. Out of scope. multichill (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:RocketMailLOGO.png

A duplicate copy of File:Rocketmail.png. Both are non-free images. The latter is already nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 24#File:Rocketmail.png. I believe the uploader is attempting to evade deletion. Fleet Command (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like the uploader was acting in good faith, although without proper knowledge of Wikipedia policies. I appreciate uploader's co-operation; however this image, which was in violation NFCC#3a is now orphaned and merits speedy deletion. Fleet Command (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Instantsig.jpg

Orphan, Unencyclopedic nlapierre 16:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:BEOT!!!.jpg

Not used - not usable? MGA73 (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:20100117 0048SS EscherichiaColi.jpg

Delete - This image is an orphan, it looks nothing like coliform bacteria let alone Escherichia coli. It is out of focus and has severe chromatic aberration and is impossible to verify. Wikipedia is not not a repository Graham Colm (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep What do coliform bacteria—including E. coli— look like? They look like a bacillus, or “rod-shaped” bacteria, do they not? And when Gram-stained, they stain pink. Visually, what else is there to see about them? This image clearly shows about half a dozen bacilli, stained pink. How does this not look like E. coli? The only other optical image on the Escherichia coli article does not show as much individual detail as my image does. Even the electron micrographs don't show very much more detail than my image. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:20100224 010535 BasophilGranulocyte1024.jpg

Delete - This looks nothing like a basophil - where is the nucleus? The uploader says "I don't know what it really is" and neither do I. This image is an orphan and Wikipedia is not a repository. Graham Colm (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete For once, I agree. I initially identified this as a basophil, and posted it as such, and very soon thereafter realized that I was incorrect in my identification of it. I'd have deleted it myself, a long time ago, if I knew how. I figured that sooner or later, someone would get around to doing so simply because it was “orphaned”. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:20100115 021705 Bacteria 1007F.jpg

Delete It looks a little like an image of bacteria but it is impossible to verify. My main concern is WP:OR in the description. Graham Colm (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No WP:OR issue; see WP:OI. Currently orphaned (and looking back at the history, I see this to be your doing), but I had submitted it originally to include in the Bacteria article as an example of different morphologies; since this image shows some variety. If it survives your recent Jihad, I'll probably submit it to the Bacterial cellular morphologies article. It mostly shows cocci, some individual, some grouped in staphylococci-type clusters, and some in streptococci-type chains. There's also a nice chain of streptobacilli just above the area between the “5” and “6” tick labels.
  
  A common objection from you seems to be on the basis of image quality, and in this case, I have to admit that I would wish for better quality. But it seems that the important thing is that the image shows what I intended it to show, and that what I intend it to show is worth contributing to the article in which I put it. What standards actually exist on the Wikipedia for image quality? The only thing I can find on the subject is a neglected proposal at Wikipedia:Image quality requirements, which appears to be a good, albeit unsuccessful start of an attempt to begin a discussion that might have led to some objective image quality standard. It seems to me that the vast majority of my images to which you've objected on the basis of quality meet the strictest standard proposed at WP:IQR, which is that “An image must clearly be recognized as portraying what it is supposed to at the size provided in the article”. A few of my images, including this one, may not meet that standard, but still meet the second, less-strict proposed standard that “An image must clearly be recognized as portraying what it is supposed to at its maximum resolution to which it can be enlarged on the screen”. I do not think that there are any of my images poor enough that I'd have to go to the third, least-strict proposal of “An image must appear to plausibly be what it is portraying“ — at least not on image quality grounds.
  
  In a few cases, you've removed my images from articles, and tagged them for deletion citing image quality issues, while leaving other images of poorer quality than mine. What's up with that? My images are good enough to clearly show what they are intended to show, and lacking an official, objective image quality standard for them to violate, I don't see what your basis is on going after so many of my images, especially since you seem to be specifically singling me out for such treatment. Is there some sort of feud between us that I have somehow failed to notice until now? — Bob Blaylock (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:20100207 234732 SeanetteSnotFungus.jpg

Delete - This is WP:OR and not encyclopedic "My wife was complaining about green stuff coming from her nose". Wikipedia is not WP:NOTREPOSITORY. For goodness sake "Snot fungus",??? we are working hard building a professional encyclopedia here. Graham Colm (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In this instance, it looks like you're really desperate for an excuse to delete this image. Elsewhere, you've complained about “poor provenance”. This image has excellent provenance, and you're complaining about that — about my having given a detailed account of the source of this image. As with elsewhere, I dispute your WP:OR objection on the basis of WP:OI. I'm not making any claim about the content of this image other than what is obvious from the image itself and my knowledge of the source of the content of this image. I do not claim to know what variety of mold this is, but it is indisputably mold, and I think an excellent illustration of the conidiophores of this particular mold. It is certainly a worthwhile addition to the image gallery on the Mold article; I do not see any other image there that illustrates this particular structure nearly as well as this image does. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:20100208 002523 ShowerCurtainMildew.jpg

Delete - this image has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. It could be anything. The description says it is mildew but no fungal structures are visible. Wikipedia is not a repository. I also have concerns regarding WP:OR. Graham Colm (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No WP:OR issue applies; see WP:OI: “Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments…” This image does not “illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments”.
  You're simply wrong about it not showing any fungal structures. Hyphae are clearly visible in this image. If you look at the full-sized version, you can even see the individual cell boundaries in the hyphae.
  It is exactly what I say it is — mildew growing on a plastic shower curtain. I cut a particularly mildewy piece out of a mildewy shower curtain, put it under my microscope, and this is what I saw. I know what I was looking at. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I would second Bob Blaylock's opinion. As seen from the pages that used the picture (mold and mildew), the depiction of the corresponding object is fairly clear. WP:OR does not apply here. Yangqing Jia —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC).

July 26

File:RH-Fedora logo-nonfree.svg

Bad SVG (traced), and SVGs are not permitted for mass distribution under Fedora's trademark guidelines. PNGs are perfectly fine, but SVGs may not be hosted on Wikipedia (for much the same reason that Wikipedia logo SVGs cannot be freely redistributed). --Ian Weller (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Patio2.jpg

Orphaned, unidentified, uploaded over 4 years ago, and of doubtful use on Commons. Rodhull andemu 20:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Ramp.jpg

Orphaned, unidentified, of little value to Commons. Uploaded over four years ago. Rodhull andemu 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Vb130.jpg

Orphaned, unidentified, of little value to Commons without. Rodhull andemu 21:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Vb140.jpg

Orphaned, unidentified and of little use on Commons without. Shame, because this user has uploaded good images, but it helps if we know what they are. Rodhull andemu 21:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

July 27

File:FairlyOddParents.jpg

The file was created from a Deviantart user and is not an official logo but an edited one. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Jose 1990s.jpg

Screen capture. Obviously not the work of the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Kimiko Matsuzaka.jpg

Probable CV. First, does not meet NFCC requirements. No basis for claim that image is "highly relevant to the subject's career" and "contributes highly significant information"; nothing in article indicates that subject's appearance is appreciably more distinctive than that of other performers in visual media. Fact that subject is retired does not create an exception to NFCC, and the claim that subject is "hiding from publicity" is entirely unsupported; in any event, the fact that a subject may shun publicity is not recognized exception to NFCC requirements. Second, image fails NFCC attribution requirements. There is no reason to believe that the image is a publicity photo or comes from a press kit, as is required; it was taken from a retailer site of undetermined reliability which provides no attribution for the photos it uses when hawking products. Third, there's been no attempt to secure a free equivalent; assuming that publicity/presskit photos do exist, NFCC principles require that, at a minimum, a good faith effort be made to secure a freely licensed photo from an authorized, as has often been done with other subjects. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep Fair use is the law. CV does not apply. Matsuzaka was a model/actress whose appearance could not possibly have been more relevant to her career. She has been retired for nearly 20 years and zealously guards her privacy. Clearly meets the exception given at Wikipedia:NFC#UULP, "...for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Dekkappai (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, the claim that nothing in the article claims her appearance was noteworthy and relevant to her career is false. Reliable sources in the article indicate that she is the model who set "on fire" the "Big Bust Boom" (巨乳ブーム, "Kyonyū Boom"^?) which is still going in Japanese adult entertainment 20 years later. I took some pains to select a publicity photo which showed her assets without purposely breaching good taste. Dekkappai (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete As long as the subject is alive, we can't say that we can not obtain a free picture of her. Which is the main point of fair use law of US.--AM ^(talk) 13:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Does anyone of you deletionist guys even read WP:NFC#UULP?! Or was the addition just made for fun and has actually no meaning? Also see here what strange arguments have already been discussed. Testales (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete: Fails NFCC#1 (replaceable) and NFCC#8 (as knowing the details of her appearance is not necessary to understand that she is a porn actress or what being a porn actress entails).—Kww(talk) 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. This shoulda just had a {{subst:rfu}} slapped on it. howcheng {chat} 03:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Pluto2.JPG

Uploader claimed that the source image is in PD, but it is not. This image used only in userboxes and may be replaced by commons:File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-b90.jpg or so. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Nikonos sekonic meter.xcf

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: Speedy delete per G7 (NAC) Fleet Command (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

wrong format, jpg uploaded as Nikonos housing sekonic meter.jpg John Bessa (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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:WLHome.png

This image is in violation of the following:
1. Wikipedia:Non-Free Content Criteria clause 10: Image description page: This image lacks a proper fair-use rationale.
2. Wikipedia:Non-Free Content Criteria clause 3b: Minimal extent of use: This image is too high resolution while contains very little significant information.
3. Wikipedia:Non-Free Content Criteria clause 3a: Minimal usage: There is already one File:Windows Live Home.jpg which is uploaded before and has none of the problems mentioned above.
Fleet Command (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete: the image is now orphaned so needs to be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Comics geronimo and his apache murderers.jpg

Non-free comic book cover used without any discussion of the book or the cover itself. howcheng {chat} 19:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:GoldeneyewiiDam.JPG

This is a synthesis of two images that is merely comparing two scenes from two versions of this game. Argument has been advanced that a high resolution is needed for this arbitrary comparison. Image is really just gratuitous. Jack Merridew 20:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Rationales for NFC are only for use in article space and have nothing to do with the size of the image in file space. As such, any argument in favour of a size significantly greater than a size appropriate for article space is discardable. Oni's edit war over the file's dimensions is having no effect on the rendered size of the image in the article, which is the default thumbnail size. Given this, any image bugging together multiple images is an implicit attempt to evade our NFC policy. See also: WP:FANCRUFT. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep and Comment Image illustrates a comparison of the two versions which compliments description of the changes between this and the earlier title, aiding the reader in understanding these differences. Jack Merridew appears to be acting in bad faith, based on his hostile responses to friendly attempts at discussion and previous history of harassment. This deletion request is a retaliatory attempt with no merit, and attempts at discussion have been denied. The current resolution of the image is sufficient to convey the message, but is still significantly lower than the gameplay footage it was designed for and has no potential for copyright infringement or abuse. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep in some form. I think an image comparing the two versions can easily be justified under the NFCC - the article already includes some discussion of the differences. The primary problem here is that, the way the article is laid out, it's very difficult to include a copy of the image at high-enough resolution to actually appreciate what it's showing. The thumbnail in the article serves very little purpose because it's so tiny; but when you do click and view the high-res version it actually demonstrates the difference very clearly and encyclopedically. But, again, if we do include the image at a substantially larger size it completely won't fit in the article. A possible compromise solution here is to replace this landscape image with a portrait one - place the comparative images one above the other, producing an image that's perhaps ~250px across by ~400px high. This image will thereby fit in the article at a resolution sufficient to actually illustrate the point being made, while simultaneously allowing us to reduce the size of the actual image stored. ~ mazca ^talk 09:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Y Done, 250 × 347, although it's still a poor image. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the image actually does the job fairly well in that form; you can certainly see the point it's making on the page itself now without drowning the page in a massive nonfree image. In my view this solves the concerns raised. ~ mazca ^talk 10:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I forgot a detail 'upright'. The images amount to a sow's ear; dark, grainy, rainy... And how is this even needed? Scene-by-scene the different games would be different; so what? This is a job for wikia:goldeneye. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, as far as I'm concerned it appears to show these specific differences better than text would - perhaps different screenshots of a less grey level would do so even better, but it certainly seems a justified non-free image from my FFD perspective. Never been a fan of GoldenEye in either version, so I can't exactly say whether this could be shown better - but from my angle as someone who doesn't really know either game very well, it aided understanding. ~ mazca ^talk 14:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:MSN-2.0-anna-faris.png

Does little to add to the MSN article. Cloudbound (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

July 28

File:MickeysLogo.jpg

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. Target article was deleted via prod. — ξ ^xplicit 00:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:The Outcome.jpg

Orphaned file, target article was deleted via prod. — ξ ^xplicit 00:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:08OTTh.jpg

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Razvorot.JPG

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:06SByFire.JPG

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:06TBAJ.jpg

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:05DoTS.jpg

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:04NEGH.jpg

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:ShOfP.jpg

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Тамлин.jpg

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Folk-lor face.JPG

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Tamlin-band-poster.JPG

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Dr Robin.JPG

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:DuetTamlin.JPG

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Tamlin logo.PNG

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Bestof100.jpg

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Bill Porter - 1977 - Des Moines.jpg

Non-free image of a person used to show what he looked like at a certain time and with certain equipment. We already have a non-free image of the same individual. The small additional information conveyed by this image could easily, if required, be covered by text alone. Image fails WP:NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 21:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- That certainly does not sound like an impossible hurdle. The two images also show historic sound gear from two different places and times, containing the only photos of those places and that gear on en.Wikipedia. I will work to make them both useful to the article, so that both have a suitable rationale. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have beefed up the article and the rationale. Should be sufficient now. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  - To the closing admin: If you determine that the image must be deleted, please do not delete this one. Instead, please delete the other one in the Bill Porter (sound engineer) article: File:RCA Studio B - Chet Atkins, Bill Porter.jpg. That image has Porter's head shown partially out of the camera shot, and is much less of a good likeness than the image nominated above for deletion. Better yet, throw me a note and I will move one of the two images to another article—one completely lacking in images. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    - If you believe that the other image should be deleted instead, why don't you nominate that image for deletion? SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
      - I wish to have both in the article! I will not be nominating the other one for deletion because my aim is to keep this one and the other one. But if I had to choose between them, the one listed here for deletion is the one I would prefer to keep, as it has the better image, and I have more of an interesting story on it. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Ramprasad.JPG

Delete: Indian stamps are copyright for 60-years and as this is used to identify the subject fails WP:NFC#Images #3 s well as failing due to having a rationale which states no good reason for using the non-free image. Also fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no contextual significance. ww2censor (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

July 29

File:DesignedforWinXPlogo.svg

This non-free image is in direct violation of Wikipedia: Non-Free Content Criterion 10 because it lacks source and origin information and does not state why this should be needed in the article in question. In fact, I think this image is not needed at all: This logo and its use is not discussed in the article at all; at least I don't see it. Fleet Command (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I agree, the image is definitely not needed in the article. It's sort of thrown in there, but there is no reference to it other than a caption restating what it is. Additionally, there's already another version of that logo (just the Windows part, not the text) in the article, so this image is violating the minimal usage rule. If it's removed from the article, which it probably should be, it will be in violation of the one-article minimum rule. And it's definitely in violation of the contextual significance rule, considering there is none. GorillaWarfare ^talk 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Editworks single.jpg

Fair-use orphaned image. There is no article on Editworks, therefore the image is unnecessary and against fair use policy. Additionally, there are multiple versions of this file (that I've also nominated for XfD), which violates the minimal use guideline. GorillaWarfare ^talk 14:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:EW Tag.jpg

Fair-use orphaned image. There is no article on Editworks, therefore the image is unnecessary and against fair use policy. Additionally, there are multiple versions of this file (that I've also nominated for XfD), which violates the minimal use guideline. GorillaWarfare ^talk 14:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Editwork final linear version.jpg

Fair-use orphaned image. There is no article on Editworks, therefore the image is unnecessary and against fair use policy. Additionally, there are multiple versions of this file (that I've also nominated for XfD), which violates the minimal use guideline. GorillaWarfare ^talk 14:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Joseph Morris.jpg

The reason for this image's was upload in inaccurate. It fails WP:DEL#REASON #6 “Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.” The image was first added to Morrisite War and other Joseph Morris (Latter Day Saints) articles by TrustTruth (the uploader). However, when attempting to find a source in order to allow a move to common, I found this page. This page pretty convincingly names this image as “Joseph Morris Hunter” killed on May 30, 1864, not the Joseph Morris (Latter Day Saints) of the Morrisite War, who was killed on June 15, 1862. Additionally this verifable image of file: Joseph Morris (Latter Day Saints).jpg was found, was uploaded ,and replaced the uses of this image. This image now has no usages.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Glossary

Note: The following acronyms have traditionally been used by some editors on these pages. However, as they tend to be confusing to non-regulars, their use is deprecated; please consider spelling your argument out instead.

AB or AU (absentee uploader) - The uploader has not contributed to Wikipedia in a long time, and is probably unavailable to answer questions.
CV (copyright violation) - The image might be used in violation of copyright.
LQ (low quality) - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
OB (obsolete) - The image has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new image name.
OR (orphan) - The image is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. Please note: in this context, OR does not refer to original research
UE (unencyclopedic) - The image doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or any Wikimedia project).

Footer

Today is July 29, 2010. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 29 -- (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===July 29===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for deletion page (the one you're on now) work.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion

Wikipedia:Files for deletion

What not to list here

Contents

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations

July 23

File:Copy of Redcrossonblue.PNG.svg (delete)

July 24

July 25

July 26

July 27

July 28

July 29

Glossary

Footer