Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
October 6
[edit]
- 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⚡ 22:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:54WURT 04 21 06.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Pauljoffe (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Unused image. Unsure of what church/where as summary only says it is the "church of no faith" and taken "with permission from church" Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This edit supplies a description. "Taken by the submitter" is fine, "the permission of the church" was not needed although it never hurts to ask nicely. Is this in some way connected to the The Evangelical and Unrepentant Church of No Faith of Kerry Wendell Thornley? We could move this to Commons and categorise it under commons:Category:Discordianism I suppose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:23, 13 October 2010 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Glacio greenland.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Polargeo (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Orphan image not used on wikipedia. User has retired and image was only used on the userpage PolargeoSock (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2010 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Gliese 581GG.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Trulystand700 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Depictation is factually wrong. On a tidally locked planet, the points near the pole would have the same climate as other the points near the terminator Thue | talk 13:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete LQ, poor image. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gives a misleading impression that this is some kind of map. Nature of Gliese 581g as terrestrial planet or ocean planet is not known at this time, we do not know if this planet even has continents. Icalanise (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is reason for deletion that the planet may be an ocean planet. If the image was a correct depictation of what a non-ocean planet would look like, then it would be perfectly ok, and could be supplemented with a hypothetical depictation of what the climate of a tide-locked ocean planet would look like. And the image does not claim to be a map, but only a hypothetical representation, which I have seen often enough in fx scientific american, and that I don't see anything wrong with in principle. Thue | talk 11:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I made the map comparison to avoid saying that the artwork is total crap, but if you prefer that... Icalanise (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is reason for deletion that the planet may be an ocean planet. If the image was a correct depictation of what a non-ocean planet would look like, then it would be perfectly ok, and could be supplemented with a hypothetical depictation of what the climate of a tide-locked ocean planet would look like. And the image does not claim to be a map, but only a hypothetical representation, which I have seen often enough in fx scientific american, and that I don't see anything wrong with in principle. Thue | talk 11:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2010 (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. Fails NFCC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Secret Code MV1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Pehxinyi (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Delete: non-free image being used in Rui En without any critical commentary about the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as the reader's understanding of the article is not impaired by removing the image and might be provided by the addition of suitable prose. The fair-use rationale is insufficient for its current use. It also fails WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use because there are several non-free images in the article. ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2010 (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. Fails NFCC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Reach out for the skies mv.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Pehxinyi (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Delete: non-free image being used in Rui En without any critical commentary about the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as the reader's understanding of the article is not impaired by removing the image and might be provided by the addition of suitable prose. The fair-use rationale is insufficient for its current use. It also fails WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use because there are several non-free images in the article. ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2010 (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. Fails NFCC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rui En in With You.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Pehxinyi (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Delete: non-free image being used in Rui En without any critical commentary about the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as the reader's understanding of the article is not impaired by removing the image and might be provided by the addition of suitable prose. The fair-use rationale is insufficient for its current use. It also fails WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use because there are several non-free images in the article. ww2censor (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2010 (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. Fails NFCC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rui en in metamorphosis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Pehxinyi (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Delete: non-free image being used in Rui En without any critical commentary about the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as the reader's understanding of the article is not impaired by removing the image and might be provided by the addition of suitable prose. The fair-use rationale is insufficient for its current use. It also fails WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use because there are several non-free images in the article. ww2censor (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2010 (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. Fails NFCC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rui En at Truehearts 2009.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Pehxinyi (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Delete: non-free image being used in Rui En without any critical commentary about the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as the reader's understanding of the article is not impaired by removing the image and might be provided by the addition of suitable prose. The fair-use rationale is insufficient for its current use. It also fails WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use because there are several non-free images in the article. ww2censor (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2010 (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⚡ 21:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:RamblingMan.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by TUF-KAT (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Add's nothing to reader's understanding, at least not in Allman Brothers Band article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest removal from The Allman Brothers Band - agree with the Hammer - but retain on Ramblin' Man (The Allman Brothers Band song)Skier Dude (talk 02:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed from Allman Bros. which was a no-brainer. I'd say delete. The rationale doesn't meet guidelines as the neccessary component of what purpose it serves is not present. Regardless, I think this would fail WP:NFCC8 as it does not "significantly increase reader's understanding" especially given as the article provides no critical commentary of the recording itself (features, key, style etc.) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2010 (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.
