Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 8

< January 7	January 9 >

January 8

File:Magnesium oxalate line structure big 2.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor quality. Leyo 00:33, 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:Magnesium oxalate space filling model.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to depict a ionic compound using a space-filling model in this way. See e.g. Category:Oxalates for good examples. Leyo 00:34, 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:Brandi Chastain 1999.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: Speedily deleted under F7, point 2 as the reasons which call for immediate deletion still apply after having been listed here for over 3 days. The specific wording under that criteria for speedy deletion "the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary" is echoed closely by WP:NFC#UUI 7 "the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary".

As I indicated in my opening statement, I brought it to FfD specifically for more room to explain than could be fit into the deletion log. If using this space for that purpose was inappropriate or if I was unclear that I was still willing to speedily delete the image should sourced commentary regarding it not surface, I apologize. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#2. To be precise, I believe this image qualifies for immediate speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F7, point 2, as per the source it is an Associated Press photo but I am bringing this to FfD for more room to explain.

While the image is being used to illustrate an historic event, this particular photo is not the subject of sourced commentary, but rather the event as a whole is. Contrary to what one may infer from the article, this specific image was not one of those on the cover of SI, Time, or Newsweek: Here is a fansite with a gallery of those three covers. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending location of a suitable replacement. If the nominator had an image in mind to take the place of the current one, it would be easy to say, yes, substitute the image and delete this one. That's probably the best route: crop a commercial image and render it low-res to comply with #2 (so it can't substitute for the original image). However, the article would suffer without the image, so I'd rather have the replacement lined up before this image goes. —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe (though I may be mistaken) that either the Newsweek or the Sports Illustrated cover would actually be a suitable replacement image in this case. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure that the Sports Illustrated cover is not a suitable replacement, as it is being offered for sale. The image that the cover used though may be usable. It is incorrect to delete this image until it is established whether an alternative does exist though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Replaceability comes into play when considering WP:NFCC#1 and other unrelated issues (e.g., poor quality, incorrect content), but not an evaluation of commercial impact. If the image use is invalid for that reason then it is so regardless of any possible replacement. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you fucking kidding? Unless I'm wrong this is a historic, iconic photo. The historic event isn't that she took off her shirt, it's that the photo of her taking off her shirt became a worldwide sensation. This is the subject of sourced commentary (and was at the time of nomination), if This image was featured on the covers of Time, Newsweek, and Sports Illustrated,<ref name="autogenerated1" /> has anything to do with it. For what it's worth I've added another source for the proposition that this particular photograph is notable, probably enough for its own article.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandi_Chastain&diff=531892220&oldid=525194708 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 03:39, 8 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned above, now bolded for your attention since you seem to have overlooked it: "this specific image was not one of those on the cover of SI, Time, or Newsweek". Furthermore, the source you added doesn't include an image for us to be 100% sure of which photo they are discussing, but it does refer to the book Game Face, which includes a similar image but not this particular one. I am not trying to say that some image of the event can't be used, just that the particular one you uploaded belongs to AP, which is a problem without a source discussing this exact image. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BEFORE much lately? If you're not sure which image it is, or the question of possible multiple images of the same event, why not look into it? If there's a free image of this then why not find one? There's some precedent at File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did look into it, there are multiple images, and this isn't Tank Man. Are there any sources which are actually about this exact photo? I ask because as is the image still qualifies for immediate speedy deletion. VernoWhitney (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A photograph of this event would certainly qualify for fair use inclusion (if no free image exists), but I don't know whether this one does. Google image search shows it was not a single moment and it was captured from several angles. This isn't the one that was on the Newsweek cover [1] where her head is at a different angle, it was likely taken moments later by the same or an adjacent photographer though. Sport Illustrated used a photograph from a different angle for their cover [2]. Of the two sources used in the article to verify the claim "The image of her celebration has been considered one of the most famous photographs of a woman celebrating an athletic victory.", one is an NY Times article that is not illustrated. The other is from Sports Illustrated [3], who unsurprisingly use the photograph that was on their cover (although it is cropped much wider than the cover was). It is worth noting that reproductions of the cover (including the headline, etc) are being offered for sale, so we would need to make we didn't impact that if we use that version. If the image is kept, then it should probably be reduced in size. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article at blogher.com states It is a fantastic image, and TinEye seems to indicate it's the same image as that uploaded here. Unfortunately, for some reason I'm not getting an actual render of the image on the blogher.com page itself, in order to verify. -- Trevj (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The image in the blogher article is a dead link to http://thesportsunion.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/brandi-chastain.jpg. The Internet Archive didn't capture it and such a generic file name isn't going to help at all in locating it.Thryduulf (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - historically iconic image (even if the same is true of nearly identical frames, unless it can be shown that a free one exists). Seeing the image I immediately known who the article is talking about and why, without it, I'd probably never figure it out, and I expect that's a common reaction. WilyD 10:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of a free version would be WP:NFCC#1 which is not the issue at hand. Can you provide any critical commentary for this exact image or other reason why it does not qualify for immediate speedy deletion? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why this be subject to immediate speedy deletion when there is a debate about whether it is usable under fair use or not? In any case, why does the use of this exact image differ on NFCC#2 from any other image of this event? The use of a low resolution image such as we are using would not seem to me to be infringing the rights of AP to market a high resolution image of this event given its age and the extent to which it is extensively used in magazines, and in low resolution in many places online, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because the speedy deletion reason still applies. It differs in that there is a specific clause in CSD for commercial sources, which this particular image is and others (the Newsweek cover?) may not be. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Speedy deletion reasons only apply when it is clear that they apply. Given that there are good faith arguments here that this is usable under fair use, the fair use rationale is by definition not obviously invalid and therefore it is not speedy deletable. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That arguments are made in good faith does not mean that they necessarily address the points of policy in question. The reason for speedy deletion that I indicated does not require an obviously invalid FUR, merely a commercial source. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The image is necessary to explain the subject at hand. The only real questions are "Does it meet NFCC #1?" - the answer appears to be yes. And "Does it meet NFCC #8?" - here the answer is certainly yes - deleting it destroys the readers understanding of the subject matter. (Well, the other NFCCs matter, but I don't think anyone could even pretend to dispute the other ones). Wily D 07:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be an ambiguity between the non-free content criteria policy and the inclusion of the phrase the file itself within the criteria for speedy deletion policy. NFCC#2 doesn't apply because it's low resolution (it was already small, but I've just reduced it further). -- Trevj (talk) 10:37, 11 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:Hayward Unified School District banner.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Hayward Unified School District banner.gif.png (i know, bad name), as this one doesnt fit well in the article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:41, 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:11episodios.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--identical to CD edition —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 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:Grundon logo lowres.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Ciaran119 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is an uploader request. It is a corporate logo intended to go with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grundon Waste Management Ltd, which was not approved. Mangoe (talk) 11:13, 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:Chrissmithmagician.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned image of a likely non-notable person (per Wikipedia's standards) that will likely never be used. Furthermore, there's no entry for a magician of this name at the disambiguation pages Chris Smith or Christopher Smith. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It went with a speedily deleted article; I'm guessing that it may be the Las Vegas fellow with the magic shop but in any case this is not likely to be a free picture anyway. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 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:Complexity.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned raster graphic image that is superceded by the superior vector graphic image at File:Complexity subsets pspace.svg. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:42, 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:Darius.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned, low resolution and blurry image of an unknown horse and jockey. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Was never used and the quality is low. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 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:Charlesandcamilla1975.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary use of non-free material: We don't need to show our readers a picture of Charles and Camilla hanging around in the 70s, just to make the point that they knew each other at the time. There's no unique graphical information in this picture that is not already covered in the article's text. damiens.rf 14:26, 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:Rasta Du Clement.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low-res horse jumping picture of dubious utility. It has never been used in an article and has no description to give it context. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The resolution of the image is low, it's a small image, it's rather blurry, and it's unlikely to be utilized. Examples of similar images that are superior and being used on Wikipedia can be viewed at Horse jumping obstacles and Show jumping. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 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:Freddie Phillips.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned image of a likely non-notable person (per Wikipedia's standards) that will likely never be used. It could be an image of the user who uploaded it, but this is not clear. Upon spot checking articles, it is very unlikely to be Freddie Phillips, Fred Phillips (footballer) or Fred Phillips (makeup artist). Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It was uploaded for Freddie Phillips but it's implausible that this is a picture of the guitarist/composer. I also doubt its provenance given that I found the same image on the British social register site. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 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:Govgaryjohnson.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An orphaned, low-resolution, small and blurry image of Gary Johnson ~~a likely non-notable person (per Wikipedia's standards)~~ that will likely never be used. ~~It could possibly be an image of the person who uploaded it, but this is unclear.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's Gary Johnson, and it was briefly included in the article, but the current image is vastly superior and I see no reason to keep this poor quality image. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expect Gary Johnson is likely notable, but this has long since been replaced by the much-higher quality File:Garyjohnsonphoto - modified.jpg (and others in commons:Category:Gary E. Johnson). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've revised the nomination above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:55, 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:22 year old's flaccid penis.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality penis image. Wikipedia already has many high-quality images, this one is unnecessary. Zad68 17:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to offer anything other than what the Commons' collection of higher quality images like File:Flaccid human penis with pubic hair.jpg do. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just take it away because it is too low. 22dragon22burn (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thryduulf. Unused after removal from article. No disrespect to the uploader. Additionally (and this doesn't really concern us) the photo violates Cameroid's T&Cs (photos depicting genitalia). -- Trevj (talk) 00:01, 9 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:Ele-brain.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copy vio. No source information - completely own work is unlikely (collage of complex schematics). Uploader is blocked as sock account, so i can't give him/her due notice and ask for clarification (my first FFD, please fix any formal errors - thank you). GermanJoe (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this looks dubious. --99of9 (talk) 00:39, 11 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:W A Katzenmeyer.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

worse-quality cropped version of this image Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 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:W (New York City Subway bullet).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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, could easily be recreated if needed, I'm not even sure that a W line in the NYC subway exists/existed (see List_of_New_York_City_Subway_lines) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete superseded by File:NYCS-bull-trans-W.svg. Mangoe (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. For reference, the W was a service, not a line, and existed 2001–2010. Mackensen (talk) 18:17, 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:W endbreakwater.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uploader's name is Peter Whitlock[4], but this is credited to Anthony Musinella of Flickr. I can't verify where on Flickr this comes from. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else, that attribution is almost certainly wrong as google reckons our image description page is the only instance of "Anthony Musinella" as an exact phrase on the internet. Obvious alternative renderings (e.g Tony) and likely misspellings haven't come up with anything either, so in the absence of correction/clarification from the uploader the license seems unverifiable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 9 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.