Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 7

< January 6	January 8 >

January 7

File:Rotating Ntitan (large).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very low-resolution photo of a modified Nissan Titan. It is orphaned and would not serve any foreseeable use being transferred to Wikimedia Commons. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:20, 7 January 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:ChevySSR-2005.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very low-resolution, orphaned photo of a Chevrolet SSR. Many more high-resolution photos of this vehicle exist at Commons. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:42, 7 January 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:Wolfe-NWM-Pearson-CP.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. Wizardman 05:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in article section about a TV adaptation of a literary work. Apparently random scene, no explanation in what way the visual presence of the scene is required for understanding the text; apparently purely decorative use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not a random scene, and an explanation is present both in the article and the image summary. In the article, the image caption states that the scene from which the image is taken is available only in the international version of the episode. This image is unique to the international version of the episode, which is the subject of paragraphs four and five of the "Adaptations" section, where the image is presented. The scene is not present in any Region 1 DVD release and was not broadcast in U.S. and Canada (the A&E version), but it is present in broadcasts and DVD releases outside North America (Pearson version distributed by FremantleMedia Media). This is also explained in the image summary. Further, this image was deliberately captured to display subtitles from the Dutch Region 2 release, to illustrate the quote which is lacking from the A&E version. Those who are familiar with the Rex Stout novella will recognize the quote — "I like to be wise" — which is part of a significant exchange at the conclusion of "Christmas Party" (chapter 9). — WFinch (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Easily fails WP:NFCC#8. Text alone describes this scene, and a non-free image is entirely unmerited. — ξ ^xplicit 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image validates the text and prevents arguments about different versions of a TV series being available in different countries. The "Downton Abbey" entry experienced bitter, interminable edit warring on the subject of whether the Season One that aired in the UK was cut for the US, which it was and could easily have been proven with a screenshot or two of the deleted scenes. Mirawithani (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a photo of a person in a sofa with Dutch subtitles. This can easily be understood by text alone. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 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:Wolfe-NWM-Pearson-EMMM.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. Dianna (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as with File:Wolfe-NWM-Pearson-CP.jpg above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not a random scene, the image is not meant to be decorative, and an explanation is present both in the article and the image summary. In the article, the image caption states that the scene from which the image is taken is available only in the international version of the episode. The international version of the episode is the subject of paragraphs four, five and six of the "Adaptations" section, where the image is presented. The scene is not present in any Region 1 DVD release and was not broadcast in U.S. and Canada (the A&E version), but it is present in broadcasts and DVD releases outside North America (Pearson version distributed by FremantleMedia Media). This is also explained in the image summary. Further, this image was deliberately captured to display subtitles from the Dutch Region 2 release, to illustrate the quote. Those who are familiar with the Rex Stout novella "Eeny Meeny Murder Mo" will recognize the line — "You're pie-eyed" — from chapter 2. The A&E version lacks this scene, which explains an otherwise confusing exchange in the scene immediately following. The international version of the episode has the full context. — WFinch (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in what you say answers the question of why this visual illustration is needed for the reader to adequately understand the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Easily fails WP:NFCC#8. Text alone describes this scene, and a non-free image is entirely unmerited. — ξ ^xplicit 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The image validates the text and prevents arguments about different versions of a TV series being available in different countries. The "Downton Abbey" entry experienced bitter, interminable edit warring on the subject of whether the Season One that aired in the UK was cut for the US, which it was and could easily have been proven with a screenshot or two of the deleted scenes. Mirawithani (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free images are never used for "proving" facts or for "preventing arguments" among Wikipedians. For that purpose, we use reliable sources. If people want to know whether there are different versions of this thing and what scenes were cut from them, find a reliable source that talks about it and cite it. If there are no reliable sources that talk about it, it doesn't belong in the article in the first place. Nothing in all of this is in need of a visual illustration to be understood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paradigmatic NFCC#8 failure. Illustrating a scene added to fill out the running length in some markets adds exactly zero to the reader's understanding of the point that scenes were added to fill out the running length in some markets. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got it exactly backwards. This scene was not "added to fill out the running length in some markets," it was cut from the original to accommodate the A&E network's commercials; it was also a scene critical to the understanding of a subsequent scene where the character drinking in the scene that was cut is shown inexplicably staggering to the front door of the house. Why you feel competent to weigh in when you are ignorant of the facts is beyond me, but never mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirawithani (talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 February 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:동방신기 미샤 Advertisement.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely unnecessary illustration of a contemporary commercial advertisement. Article contains several free images of TVXQ. 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 09:44, 7 January 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:Chandler 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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned image of an unknown dog that is not being used anywhere on Wikipedia (see "What links here" in the toolbox on the file's page). The file also has no description on the summary section of the file page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

move to commons I'm not a dog breed person, so I can't say that this is a good or bad picture of the breed. (My sense is that the illustrations in cocker spaniel have gone downhill, though.) SO I can't say that it should be added back to the article, but I don't see anything preventing it being moved to commons. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 7 January 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:Chris and pete.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned image of unknown people that will likely never be used. There is no description present on the file page's summary section to ascertain who they are. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete This image was never used, and there's no way to guess who the subjects might be. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 7 January 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:Chris, Will, and Papa Haughey.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 ⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned image of unknown people that will likely never be used. There is no description present on the file page's summary section to ascertain who they are. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete This was part of Tegu which was deleted out-of-process; I've resubmitted it for a proper deletion discussion. That said, I'm not that convinced that there is any merit in a childhood picture of the founders of a company, and never mind the rights issue of a family snapshot of dubious provenance. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update and background information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: The result of this deletion discussion should coincide with that of Tegu, so this should remain open until then. — ξ ^xplicit 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, independently of the outcome of the article deletion. Even if the article gets kept, this would still be inappropriate and unencyclopedic in that context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio --Stefan2 (talk) 12:32, 24 January 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:Chrishenley.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned image of a non-notable person (per Wikipedia's standards) that will likely never be used. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not clear why this was uploaded, may have been intended as vandalism. Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 7 January 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.

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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nominated for deletion in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 December 19#Image:Cookie.png) but no discussion occurred, and it was not deleted.~~ Only two pages link to the file, the deletion discussion from 2006 and the notification from 2006 for the file's listing at FfD, located here: User talk:Taelmx. It's an orphaned image of an unknown person that will likely never be used. There is no description present on the file page's summary section to ascertain who they are. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The nomination is incorrect, and the previous discussion was for an earlier file which was deleted. That said, I see no indication that this file was ever used, and I cannot see where we would ever use it. Mangoe (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Previously another image was likely existent under the title, and then the red link became a blue link when this new one was uploaded under the same name. (Struck part of my comment above.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:01, 7 January 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:DarrenStyles.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned image of a non-notable person (per Wikipedia's standards) that will likely never be used. The only page that links to the file is User talk:Deancfc, within a File source problem template. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete? This was uploaded by a fan as own-work, maybe. It was then removed from the article in an attack of incompetent vandalism and replaced by a commons image which was then deleted. Given the manifest incompetence of the user in question I would have to doubt that they actually took this picture. At any rate I could not find a source. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 7 January 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:Drinking Chardonnay.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned image of an unknown person that will likely never be used. There is no description present on the file page's summary section to ascertain who they are. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Used very briefly to illustrate wine, it's a terrible picture for our purposes, and I cannot see what other use we would have for it. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 7 January 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:Georgina Bennett Warner, Crazy For You, 2004.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned, low-resolution image of a non-notable person (per Wikipedia's standards) that will likely never be used. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Never used, sole upload of a user with a not-clever punning rude name. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 7 January 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:Hode.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned image of an unknown person that will likely never be used. There is no description present on the file page's summary section to ascertain who they are. It could be an image of the user who uploaded it, but this is not clear. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete? it would be nice if people did some minimal research on these; the uploader's history shows perfectly well that this is a photo of Aaron Hosack. That said, there's the usual issue of whether the uploader actually took the picture. I did not find a source for it, but clearly the photographer had to have access to the Vikings' practice fields, which seems doubtful. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mangoe. I appreciate your investigative techniques, and I always research matters prior to nominating anything for deletion. While the image may very well be of Aaron Hosack, without any documentation to qualify this assertion, it's a rather moot point. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:24, 7 January 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:Holbooks Railway Line.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 Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An essentially orphaned image (the only page that links to this file is at User talk:Manfromcov in a License tagging template). The image is unlikely to ever be utilized on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Again it was a second's work to figure out that this was supposed to go in Holbrooks; is it too much to ask that nominators make the three or so clicks needed to check these things out? OTOH I don't see what use we have for a nondescript picture of typical British railbed of a certain age, so I don't see any reason to keep this around. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mangoe. Are you certain that this image is actually from Holbrooks? Sure, the file name has the name of article, but the image itself is rather ambiguous, and no description in the file to confirm the location certainly doesn't serve to clarify matters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader included it in a gallery in Holbrooks, which for whatever reason never displayed properly and was removed. Surely even if it is a picture of a rail line in/near the place, it doesn't tell us more than they have a rail line, and that only by association. As you say, this trackage could have been in any number or rural spots in England; even if the location is accurate there doesn't seem to a reason to use it. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons The location would appear to be here, approaching the level crossing over Wheelwright Lane from the west. I can sort of see a use for it in an article that discusses this freight-only branch line (better ones could be created), or as an example of rural track where ballast covers the sleepers. As it's under a free license, I suggest moving this to Commons as it might be just what someone needs to illustrate an article (I've spent time looking for similar sorts of things to illustrate articles and dictionary entries before) and the only similar images in Commons:Category:Rail tracks are File:トロッコ王国美深沿線風景白樺P6260564.jpg and File:22-es vonal pályarészlet.JPG, which are very different settings. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now at commons as File:Holbrooks Railway Line.jpg (correcting the misspelling). Mackensen (talk) 18:44, 12 January 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:Hwilliamsjamesslater.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 ⚡ 03:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An essentially orphaned image of ~~an unknown person~~ James T. Slater that will likely never be used. The only page that links to this image is User talk:Maxman732 in a file source problem template. There is no description present on the file page's summary section to ascertain who this person is. ~~It could be an image of the user who uploaded it, but this is not clear.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Superseded by File:Slater8x10.jpg. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Parts of the nomination above have been revised. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:49, 13 January 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:InaudibleHale.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 ⚡ 03:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned image of an unknown person that will likely never be used. There is no description present on the file page's summary section to ascertain who this person is. It appears to be an image of the user who uploaded it, but it's unlikely they're notable per Wikipedia standards, and a Wikipedia article about them is unlikely to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sole edit/upload of user. Mangoe (talk) 17:38, 7 January 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:LetBarlet.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 ⚡ 03:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this meets NFCC #8. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete The narrative never mentions this pad, or how this image is important. Mangoe (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete, would be exceedingly easy to cover this through a textual description alone, if indeed such coverage were necessary in the first place, which it isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 10 January 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:Trimethyoxysilane Structure.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 ⚡ 03:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality, {{badJPG}}, orphaned. Leyo 23:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's not the right structure for its name, and I cannot find any other chemical for which it would be appropriate. The uploader never used it. Mangoe (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incorrect chemical structure - that is not trimethyoxysilane. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 8 January 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:Trimethoxysilan.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect structure (hydrogen atoms are missing, but they should be shown in a 3D structure); orphaned. Leyo 23:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Never used by uploader; not really a good image for the purpose. Mangoe (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this image not a very useful depiction of the chemical compound. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:00, 8 January 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:Shinhwa-The Return-Thanks Edition.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates points 3a and 8 of WP:NFCC. The cover itself is not significantly different from the main cover to justify its use. Even if it were, the omission of the image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. Case in point, this is no different from the deletion discussion regarding the alternate cover of Lana Del Rey's Born to Die, where the deletion was also upheld at DRV. — ξ ^xplicit 23:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as addressed in the 'Purpose of use' of the 'rationale', "The use of this alternate cover is to illustrate the new white logo and re-packaged details, as discussed in the article and supported by third party sources. It makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the article by showing the two so users can quickly identify the difference between the primary and alternate cover, and the context in which the article talks about a new and different logo design which is difficult, if not impossible, to describe in words. Hence omission of the image would be detrimental to the understanding of the article". As stated in the abovementioned DRV, "if there is sourcing to show that this artwork is subject to external commentary in reliable sources, than there is a clear argument that the image would then pass the NFCC". Hence not the same as the abovementioned case as that did not have context in article supported by third party sources regarding the alternative cover.--Michaela den (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The differences are not outstanding enough to merit the use of an additional image. The logo design is not vastly different, there is simply a chance in colors. Same applies to the background. The difference between this alternate cover and the alternate cover that was used in the Born to Die article is that the latter's alternate cover was entirely different from the standard cover, which is why it required sourced critical commentary. — ξ ^xplicit 01:12, 15 January 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.