Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 17

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 G7 by Kelapstick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rita Jeptoo (cropped) 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kelapstick (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused locally, already copied to Commons; no good reason to retain local copy FASTILY 06:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No issues from me (uploader), it was a local crop for an ITN item, Fastily if it's copied to Commons, doesn't that make it speedy eligible? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Typically yes, however as a courtesy, files tagged {{Keep local}} aren't usually deleted outright, hence the FfD nom. Regards, FASTILY 08:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh yes, of course, I should have checked that. I would have added that for the period it was in ITN, as such I have removed the template. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And I have deleted as single editor request (there is a bot that closes these automatically when deleted right?). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:41, 21 December 2016 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Francesco Maria Piave small.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Viajero (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused crop of File:Francesco Maria Piave - Granger.jpg. No foreseeable use FASTILY 06:55, 17 December 2016 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 27#File:Wilhelm Crinius Oak Leaves.jpg. — ξ^xplicit 06:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilhelm Crinius Oak Leaves.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MisterBee1966 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance and its omission would not be detrimental to understanding. The rationale applies to all three articles where the image appears. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is part of K.e.coffman's ongoing de-Nazification campaign. Retention of the picture certainly "significantly increase readers' understanding" of who we're talking about. I suspect this nomination has less to do with wp policy and more to do with IDONTLIKEIT. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chris troutman: How does the image "significantly increase readers' understanding"? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I believe the above iVote should be discounted as it seems to be motivated by the dislike towards me as the nominator, vs being guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2016 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cambridge waste.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiworld2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused image, which was uploaded with the intention of using it to illustrate Cambridge, Ontario by a user who was banned earlier this year for disruptive behavior. Actually look at the image before dismissing that as something that sounds reasonable, please -- there's no context in that article, nor could any be added, to turn a photo of a pile of garbage into something that's actually helping the user understand anything about Cambridge. And I just can't see any potential for reuse, because even municipal solid waste (the only other place where this could possibly be repurposed to) already has all the images it needs to get its point across. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2016 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:ActioLogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cjellen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Out of scope; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cjellen/Enter your new article name here Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:38, 17 December 2016 (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.