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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chris Harris.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mch915c (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Appears to have been orphaned for nearly a decade. Does not seem to be any of the subjects listed at Chris Harris. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. ℯxplicit 00:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with nomination that this does not appear to be any of the Chris or Christopher Harrises we have articles for. This appears to be simply a personal photo being hosted on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2017 (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⚡ 04:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012 new logo William Carey University athletics.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nb2b (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is the logo for a university athletics team. The stated purpose is "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question". However, the article's primary topic is the university and not the athletics team which is a small section of the article. There i no sourced commentary about the logo itself. This usage fails to meet WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2017 (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 as F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SamWiki.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mnwebbrc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:SamWiki1.png. Stefan2 (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Also questionable authorship per the current Deletion request on Commons. Salavat (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2017 (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⚡ 04:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seleccionada3.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adriarroyo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, unlikely to be useful. Too low quality. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. 2,592 × 1,952 pixels is not low quality at least for my standards.
2. There is no proof that Wikipedia has a better quality photo of the same scenary.
3. The picture is around for about 12 years. It highly likely that the picture has incoming external links.
4. What about moving it to Commons?

-- Magioladitis (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it would be deleted on Commons. The quality is not purely measured by resolution. We don't have a picture of the scenery in this image because massive lens flare blocks anything of potential interest. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't claim that without sending it to Commons first. Commons has a differen set of rules about photos. "Oprhaned" is not even a valid argument there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can, actually, because I know the policy there and the typical deletion request outcomes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an assumption not a fact. The correct procedure would be: Move to commons and then tag for deletion. Then the outcome probably deletion but Commons community is not the identical to Engish Wikipedia Community. This reminds me the same old question: Do we delete by policy or by consensus? Whpq gives thought much better arguments for deletion. If better images of Ensenada exist then we have to decide differently here.-- Magioladitis (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

c:Category:Ensenada has 133 files in it. c:COM:Project scope provides a list of "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose" with the last bullet point being "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." Given this, sending it to Commons and tagging it for deletion there for a discussion seems unnecessarily bureaucratic unless you believe that there is a significant difference between practice versus the documented policy. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The image may have a high resolution but it is not high quality. The lights completely blow out the image. Commons has a category filled with images of Ensenada of much better quality and the scope in commons excludes poor quality images especially when they are not in use and better images of the subject are available. --Whpq (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Resolution ≠ quality. You can't really even tell what the photo is a picture of, so its useful is highly suspect. Nihlus 19:47, 15 October 2017 (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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:BeaverTails logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jon Kolbert (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Possibly below the threshold of originality in Canada and consequentially eligible for commons. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2017 (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⚡ 04:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stavros bros oldbar09.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Schmozzle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused image, not sure uploader is copyright holder - states "(photo: Marika Kahle)" Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to be a copyright violation an moreover the photo is only some KB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2017 (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.