Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 24

< June 23	June 25 >

June 24

File:Reed-College-Eliot-Hall-fall-lrg.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 – Quadell ^(talk) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permission quote on the file description page does not explicitly release the image under the free content licenses listed. Blurpeace 03:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contact the school again, and clarify the permissions. If the person from 2006 is still in a position for reauthorizing use, so much the better. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This predates OTRS, so if you were nominating it for deletion based on the lack of OTRS, I'd say keep — we routinely grandfather images that don't meet our proof-of-permission standards if they met the standards that existed when they were uploaded. For this reason, I'll try to figure out whether images with WP-only permissions were permitted in 2006. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in a little bit. See what people said at WP:MCQ section "2006 permissions standards" (current revision) about this situation. Apparently this permission has never been accepted here, but I agree with the IP that we should wait until someone's contacted the school. Closing admin, if you can't find evidence that anyone's done it, let me know and I'll do the contacting. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a free-use photo of the same building present in the article: File:Eliot-hall-in-snow.jpg -- Diannaa (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And File:EliotHallReedCollege.jpg. Per discussion with Nyttend, we can go ahead and delete this. If the OTRS permission-request process happens later, we can undelete. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:50, 26 July 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:Arasp Kazemian.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 DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image. The file has been used in Arasp Kazemian which was speedy deleted as an unremarkable person. Farhikht (talk) 11:18, 24 June 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:Google Violation.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 Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Unused image. The file has been used in Arasp Kazemian which was speedy deleted as an unremarkable person. Farhikht (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons can be used for a variety of purposes, including cheques from Google, Iran sanctions violations, Google violating sanctions against Iran. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely to ever serve any encyclopedic purpose. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this image is not useful. If it is kept and moved to Commons, I don't believe it will ever be used by any project. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:00, 25 July 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:SaidiExp.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 F9 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader of this and other similar road photos did not understand our copyright policy at the time. He tagged these photos as public domain, though he found them various places online and there is no evidence they are actually free. See my question to him here and his answer here. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to File:Shahid Gomnam.jpg and File:Tabriz-Tehran.jpg. (All the rest are now on Commons, and are nominated for deletion there.) – Quadell ^(talk) 11:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All three deleted as G12. Any others? Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 24 June 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:Foodonclick.com Official Logo.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 ⚡ 20:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No use for it anymore Faruk Shaban 12:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete, no point in keeping an orphaned nonfree image, but what's the point of the nomination? Faruk Shaban, if you'd simply tagged it with {{orfud}}, it would have been deleted in seven days without the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. I am a new user to Wikipedia, I just followed the steps that I found for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faruk Shaban (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. There's nothing wrong with coming here; it's simply that you could have saved yourself some work. Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 25 June 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:Product 500 days of summer 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guidelines at MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, the non-free image of a soundtrack cover is not contextually significant. The film poster is used for identification, and secondary non-free images need to have a rationale stronger than identification for inclusion. If the album can be established as notable independent of the film, it can have a stand-alone article with the cover used. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:06, 24 June 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.