Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

January 4

File:Facial symmetry in dogs.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: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 22:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Facial symmetry in dogs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Outriggr (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...unique, expressive and irreplaceable symbol of both absurdity and humor...Modernist (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...what Modernist said, but with humour spelt differently. Used occasionally on my user page, a use for which there is some leeway despite the plethora of initials that now pass for deletion arguments. Yomangani ^talk 14:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because I can't decipher the deletion rationale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - His abbreviations mean orphaned, unencyclopedic, and low quality.--Rockfang (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The image is currently in use, currently encyclopedic, and unique...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a limited amount of latitude is allowed to established users for personal images and content for their userspace. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 8 January 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.

File:A10n1esp-1.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 Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:A10n1esp-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Renemunez33 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:56, 4 January 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.

File:PulpFictionTwist.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: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PulpFictionTwist.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DCGeist (notify | contribs).

Image is not necessary to understand the film. No sources provided to discuss the notability or significance of this image itself. ÷seresin 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly false (complainant appears to simply misunderstands our NFC policy, as well). Multiple sources are adduced in support of relevant critical commentary:

Waxman, Sharon (2005). Rebels on the Backlot: Six Maverick Directors and How They Conquered the Hollywood Studio System (New York: HarperCollins), p. 71 . ISBN 0-06-054017-6.
Laverick, Daniel. "Selling a Movie in Two Minutes—The Modern Day Film Trailer". Close-Up Film.
Charyn, Jerome (2006). Raised by Wolves: The Turbulent Art and Times of Quentin Tarantino (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press), p. 106. ISBN 1-56025-858-6.

Of course, one must actually make the effort to read through the article to encounter all of the critical commentary that the image explicates.—DCGeist (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article, but your entirely benign remark about my competency is appreciated. My point about critical commentary still stands; the commentary must show that the image itself is significant, not the scene it depicts. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a significant image; The Blue Marble is a significant image; Guerrillero Heroico is a significant image. This image has no sources discussing the significance of this exact image. (Consider that another still depicting the same scene would also make the same point you were seeking to make with this image. If that is the case, this image cannot be not special.) My other point also still stands: text explicating (to borrow your ten-dollar word) that the two danced and an image explicating that they danced both impart the same information. When this is the case, a FU image is unjustified. ÷seresin 03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is at best, deep ignorance; at worst, pure sophistry (please feel free to price that word). The image explicates the extensive critical commentary on the famous scene. There is no free image that exists or could be created that can do so. "This exact image" is (a) a nonsensical standard and (b) one that has no basis in our policy. Your parenthetical underscores the vacuity of your argument—because the famous scene lasts for more than a single frame, according to your illogic, no single frame may be used to illustrate it. That is absurd. Your irrelevant comparisons to unique photographs merely underscores your misunderstanding of the field at hand. Cinema history, criticism, and analysis—which you appear to be completely unfamiliar with—is not based on the discussion of "exact images", but on scenes and images that extend over time and multiple frames. Apparently you are unaware that there are 24 distinct frames to every second of projected film; thus your devotion to the bizarre misconception that encyclopedic discourse on a film relies on "exact images". In fact, I made no comment about your competency before, but your latest emission both raises and answers that question.—DCGeist (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating two issues. The first is that if an image itself (not the scene, the actual image) is significant, a FU image may be justified. This is true regardless of medium. My reference to unique photographs is just that—those images themselves are significant, not only the scenes they depict. In this instance, the film still itself is not significant—but the scene is. My parenthetical was to show that use of another still of this scene would provide the same illustrative purpose, no one particular still is more significant than another; so this one can't be significant in this context. The commentary you allude to discusses the scene, not any particular image. So that potential justification for a FU image is null. The second issue is NFCC8, which stipulates that lack of a FU image in an article must be detrimental to the readers' understanding. This is a pretty clear point, as readers do not need an image to understand that the two danced. ÷seresin 07:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The test is whether the image adds significantly to reader understanding. That can remain possible, even if there are other alternate non-free images which could equally have been used to add to understanding in a similar way. For example, there are any number of publicity pics or screengrabs which could be used to show Captain James T. Kirk. That doesn't take away from the fact that using one such image in that article does indeed add to user understanding. Jheald (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exactly. Seresin, I'm afraid, has confused matters. Our guideline pertaining to acceptable image use should help explain that there is a difference between the category of specific "Images with iconic status or historical importance" (like the unique photographs seresin has raised in, it must be said, irrelevant comparison) and the category of "Film and television screen shots", which by the nature of the media will in virtually all cases be examples illustrative of longer scenes (or of recurrent motifs). As for what is being illustrated, of course it goes well beyond the mere fact that two people danced. How did they look as they danced? What sort of poses did they strike? How were they dressed? These are matters crucial to an understanding of the scene that the image significantly aids us in understanding. Given the well-sourced fame and importance of the scene, the image clearly meets our 8th NFC criterion. DocKino (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per DocKino's convincing argumentation. Doc9871 (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral to Keep. I think DocKino's comment above summarises the issues accurately. That said, under "What sort of poses did they strike?", I would have thought the "pulling the fingers across in front of the eyes" move was the best known, most distinctive trademark pose in the scene. I would also prefer the image caption to make the point, right where the image is used, that the scene has become iconic (and suggest why), preferably with page-specific references (and maybe even one-line pull quotes cited in the references) to support this, since DCGeist (above) appears to have such material to hand. But nevertheless, this is universally recognised to be an iconic scene from the movie, so showing how it looked does indeed add something valuable and significant to reader understanding. Jheald (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the choice of image: I certainly considered the possibility of using an image showing the fingers-across-the-eyes move. However, an analysis of the sequence reveals that there is no frame that shows both characters doing so—or even shows both characters while one or the other does it. Travolta/Vincent does it with two fingers in close-up, the camera pans, and then Thurman/Mia does it with all five fingers, again in close-up. Both to honestly represent the scene and to respect the letter and spirit of NFCC 3a, I believe it's essential to use an image that shows both characters in dance action. In addition, while we can be sure on an anecdotal basis that the finger move is the best known element of the scene, most of the WP:V-standard sources that discuss the scene and its iconic status do not specify that gesture, but discuss the dance as a whole.
On sourcing of scene's status: I'm a bit confused. The image's caption currently includes, and has long included, a cited quote from a high-quality source, including page reference, describing it as the film's "famous dance scene". The scene is widely discussed in the literature, of course, and it would be easy to add further quotes to the caption from high-quality sources describing it as "iconic" or "timeless", but is that necessary or desirable? Recall that further down in the article there is sourced commentary on homages to the scene and extensive critical analysis of it.—DCGeist (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While inflating the caption doesn't seem desirable, what I've done is expand the citation with a page-referenced quote from another high-quality source describing it as an "iconic scene".—DCGeist (talk) 18:28, 19 January 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.

File:PulpFictionColors.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PulpFictionColors.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DCGeist (notify | contribs).

Image is not necessary to understand the film. No sources provided to discuss the notability or significance of this image itself. ÷seresin 01:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious, injudicious argument for deletion. Source is clearly and directly adduced to discuss significance of Willis' physical appearance in character: Dargis, Manohla (1994). "Pulp Instincts/Quentin Tarantino on Pulp Fiction", Sight & Sound vol. IV, no. 5 (May). Collected in Quentin Tarantino: Interviews, ed. Gerald Peary (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1998). ISBN 1-57806-051-6. Image is evidently judiciously chosen to focus on Willis's physiognomy and physical bearing in accordance with sourced critical commentary.—DCGeist (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is almost no mention in the article of his appearance and I cannot see what significant understanding this image gives to me as a reader. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Throughout the article, from the lead through the entire primary text, there is extensive critical commentary on the centrality of cinematic allusion to Tarantino's conception of the film. In the case of the casting of the role of the boxer Butch Coolidge, it is clear that Willis's appearance was crucial to Tarantino in exactly this regard: "Tarantino said, 'Bruce has the look of a 50s actor. I can't think of any other star that has that look.'" The image is extremely significant to the readers' understanding of that statement in particular and Tarnatino's vision in general, as discussed in the article. DocKino (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, decorative fair use, image not the subject of critical commentary. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather difficult to engage in an intelligent, productive discussion when editors make blatantly false statements. "Decorative" means "purely ornamental", but the informational purposes served by the image have been explicated at length, and are readily apparent to anyone who actually reads the article. DCGeist (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously, this is another motion to delete based on the nominator's misunderstanding of our policy and relevant guidelines, as the argument keyed to "this image itself" clearly reveals. As with any commercial live-action film, an understanding of what the star or stars look like in character is essential to an understanding of the film. This is, of course, especially true when the film's auteur is motivated by allusion to cinema history and specifically articulates how important his star's appearance is in relation to that cinema history. DocKino (talk) 00:43, 14 January 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.

File:My Saint Anselm Ring 2010 (1).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 Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:My Saint Anselm Ring 2010 (1).JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ericci8996 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete this image, there is no reason, I took it myself, SOMEONE HELP ME OUT WITH THIS PLEASE --Ericci8996 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a derivative work, if the ring itself is considered an artistic creation (and was first designed after 1923). Why not add a paragraph to the Saint Anselm College article, and discuss its significance? Then it could no longer be considered "unencyclopedic". Jheald (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Jheald for that idea... I will add a paragraph immediately... also, the image has now been moved to Commons! Thus It should be "de-nominated" for deletion :)

Hello again, I have added that paragraph detailing history about the shield design... Please make sure this and the other images, (b/c they are all moved to commons now...) are NOT deleted!! --Ericci8996 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Ericci8996 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 23:18, 7 January 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.

I know it said not to add anymore, but "Rockfang" gave no reason as to why these images need to be deleted... someone give me one solid reason as to why to delete these images? they are on Commons... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Student Ambassador.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 Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Student Ambassador.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ericci8996 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete this image, there is no reason, I took it myself, SOMEONE HELP ME OUT WITH THIS PLEASE --Ericci8996 (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. Categorise there under Saint Anselm College. Jheald (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Jheald for that idea... it has now been moved to Commons! Thus It should be "de-nominated" for deletion :) --Ericci8996 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 23:20, 7 January 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.

File:Alumni Hall 1889 Sun.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alumni Hall 1889 Sun.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ericci8996 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete this image, there is no reason, I took it myself, SOMEONE HELP ME OUT WITH THIS PLEASE --Ericci8996 (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. Categorise there under Saint Anselm College. Jheald (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC

Thank You Jheald for that idea... it has now been moved to Commons! Thus It should be "de-nominated" for deletion :)

--Ericci8996 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 23:24, 7 January 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.

File:Alumni Hall 1889 dark.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alumni Hall 1889 dark.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ericci8996 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete this image, there is no reason, I took it myself, SOMEONE HELP ME OUT WITH THIS PLEASE--Ericci8996 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. Categorise there under Saint Anselm College. Jheald (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Jheald for that idea... it has now been moved to Commons! Thus It should be "de-nominated" for deletion :)

--Ericci8996 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 23:26, 7 January 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.

File:Alumni Hall 1889 SNOW.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alumni Hall 1889 SNOW.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ericci8996 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete this image, there is no reason, I took it myself, SOMEONE HELP ME OUT WITH THIS PLEASE --Ericci8996 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. Categorise there under Saint Anselm College. Jheald (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Jheald for that idea... it has now been moved to Commons! Thus It should be "de-nominated" for deletion :) --Ericci8996 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 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.

File:Alumni Hall 1889 RAIN.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alumni Hall 1889 RAIN.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ericci8996 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete this image, there is no reason, I took it myself, SOMEONE HELP ME OUT WITH THIS PLEASE --Ericci8996 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. Categorise there under Saint Anselm College. Jheald (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Jheald for that idea... it has now been moved to Commons! Thus It should be "de-nominated" for deletion :)

--Ericci8996 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 23:29, 7 January 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.

File:ALUMNI HALL in 12-15-2007.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: local copy deleted. The image is now available at File:St Anselm College, Alumni Hall, 15 December 2007.jpg on Wikimedia Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ALUMNI HALL in 12-15-2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ericci8996 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete this image, there is no reason, I took it myself, SOMEONE HELP ME OUT WITH THIS PLEASE --Ericci8996 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. Categorise there under Saint Anselm College. Jheald (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Jheald for that idea... it has now been moved to Commons! Thus It should be "de-nominated" for deletion :)

--Ericci8996 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 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.

File:Abujarange.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abujarange.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kehz99 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:37, 4 January 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.

File:Accent with Logo.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Accent with Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ElectricOne (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:38, 4 January 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.

File:Account creation.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: keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Account creation.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dodoïste (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out this issue. I do not understand what "OR, UE, LQ, use not stated" means, but I'm willing to help. Could someone explain it to me? Basically, this file was used to show a usability issue with the signup form on the village pump/technical. Should I provide a link to the history of the MediaWiki messages used in the form, which contains the list of authors? What about the licence, is CC-by-sa 3.0 OK? Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for deletion#Glossary -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, here is your answer:

OR ----> As explained, it was useful to demonstrate a lack of usability, not to be used in an article.
UE ----> It was never meant to be, of course. Such screenshots are proven useful in debates, therefore I do not understand why being unencyclopedic is such a problem.
LQ ----> Just how is that relevant for a screenshot?
use not stated ----> I stated it above.

Now if you have some real concerns, I will be glad to hear them. If not, I have other things to take care of. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is being used at the Village Pump. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm...it is a useless media file. Frankly, I don't see anything special about it whatsoever. Regardless, assuming what you said is true, I could go to Special:createaccount and simply take another screenshot or better, direct users there when the issue comes up in a debate (assuming it ever will). To top it off, the file is only used in an archive - althuogh you might be someone who does, in my experience, most people tend not to look in archives. Only drawback to that is that you might see the same question pop up rather frequently on the relevant noticeboard. And unfortunately, there's not much you can do about it. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole purpose of the debate was to improve the signup form, which was done successfully. Thus, the signup form has changed, I can't simply take another screenshot. If we are to keep the archive, there is no point in deleting the image. Dodoïste (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid rationale for deletion has been given. Also, the file is being used in a lengthy, archived village pump discussion.--Rockfang (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This image is not causing any problem, so there is no reason for deleting it. It may be useful as an archive. Dodoïste (talk) 23:42, 5 January 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.

File:Acetoneiso-2.0.3.svn.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acetoneiso-2.0.3.svn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bulletxt (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:40, 4 January 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.

File:Acetonidegroups.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: keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acetonidegroups.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by John Riemann Soong (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was used in an RD question. I don't know if you really want to make the reference desk archives ugly... John Riemann Soong (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Image was used in a reference desk discussion.--Rockfang (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perfectly usable PD image of a known compound. Could be useful in discussions of sugar organic chemistry and protecting groups. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 12 January 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.

File:Acres per Car 2008 0120.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acres per Car 2008 0120.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Georgeiiird (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:40, 4 January 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.

File:Quadrants.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: keep. Not orphaned, not unencyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quadrants.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Northerncedar (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE --- Essential for the understanding of Mohs surgery vs ccpdma vs. breadloafing --Northerncedar (talk) 03:05, 5 January 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.

File:Mohs surgery 1Pacman.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: keep. Not orphaned, not unencyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohs surgery 1Pacman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Northerncedar (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE --- Essential for the understanding of Mohs surgery vs ccpdma vs. breadloafing --Northerncedar (talk) 03:07, 5 January 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.

File:Mohs surgery 2Pacman.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: keep. Not orphaned, not unencyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohs surgery 2Pacman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Northerncedar (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE --- Essential for the understanding of Mohs surgery vs ccpdma vs. breadloafing --Northerncedar (talk) 03:05, 5 January 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.

File:Margin Controlled Bread Loaf.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: keep. Not orphaned, not unencyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Margin Controlled Bread Loaf.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Northerncedar (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE --- Essential for the understanding of Mohs surgery vs ccpdma vs. breadloafing --Northerncedar (talk) 03:06, 5 January 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.

File:Bread loafing.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: keep. Not orphaned, not unencyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bread loafing.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Northerncedar (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE --- Essential for the understanding of Mohs surgery vs ccpdma vs. breadloafing --Northerncedar (talk) 03:06, 5 January 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.

File:FalseNegativeBreadLoaf.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: keep. Not orphaned, not unencyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:FalseNegativeBreadLoaf.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Northerncedar (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE --- Essential for the understanding of Mohs surgery vs ccpdma vs. breadloafing --Northerncedar (talk) 03:06, 5 January 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.

File:Smash Pie Pan.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: keep. Not orphaned, probably not unencyclopedic although it makes less sense than the others to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smash Pie Pan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Northerncedar (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE --- Essential for the understanding of Mohs surgery vs ccpdma vs. breadloafing --Northerncedar (talk) 03:07, 5 January 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.

File:Mohsflattening2.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: keep. Not orphaned, not unencyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohsflattening2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Northerncedar (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE --- Essential for the understanding of Mohs surgery vs ccpdma vs. breadloafing --Northerncedar (talk) 03:07, 5 January 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.

File:Acueductogdl.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acueductogdl.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chokolate (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:46, 4 January 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.

File:Adidas Dynamo Day 15.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adidas Dynamo Day 15.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danmarinker (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:48, 4 January 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.

File:AdminBuilding.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: local copy deleted. Now available on Commons as File:Admin Building, California State University, Chico.JPG. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AdminBuilding.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ChicoLinguist (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons (and perhaps rename more meaningfully). Categorise there under California State University, Chico. Jheald (talk) 17:39, 5 January 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.

File:Admiral of the Indian Navy rank flag.svg

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: The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Admiral of the Indian Navy rank flag.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zscout370 (notify | contribs).

~~OR, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) ~~01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)~~~~ Withdrawn. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The file was intended for use at the Flag of India article. I drew the image myself, but according to guidelines, I had to post the construction sheet of the flag so others can see. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:00, 4 January 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.

File:Adoor Gopalakrishnan.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: local copy deleted. Now on Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adoor Gopalakrishnan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dhvraju (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons. The subject is Adoor Gopalakrishnan and, although this image has poor technical quality, I can see that cleaned up and cropped it could be quite useful. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:18, 5 January 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.

File:Aerialbridge.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerialbridge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shipguy9 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:49, 4 January 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.

File:Aelogo black on blue.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aelogo black on blue.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pickbothmanlol (notify | contribs).

OR, LQ, AU, OB, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:51, 4 January 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.

File:Aetoi.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aetoi.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Koliri (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:51, 4 January 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.

File:Africa Club Minsk.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Africa Club Minsk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dmitrywithc (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:51, 4 January 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.

File:Africa blank map2.svg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Africa blank map2.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cradel (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, OB. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:52, 4 January 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.

File:AggregatedRobots.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AggregatedRobots.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sergkorn (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:54, 4 January 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.

File:Agitated cell reactor.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agitated cell reactor.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Echis (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:55, 4 January 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.

File:AguereberryPoint-view.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AguereberryPoint-view.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tomdonohue1 (notify | contribs).

OR, use not stated. Keep if someone can find a home for it. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image needs a home, but it is certainly worthy of a place here. Its just a question of where to make use of it. Else, move to commons. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:06, 4 January 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.

File:Caseydnaiel.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caseydnaiel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Caseyd8i8 (notify | contribs).

Vanity free image. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 4 January 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.

File:Koliri fires.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Koliri fires.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Koliri (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:04, 4 January 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.

File:Geniki1.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geniki1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Koliri (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:05, 4 January 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.

File:Manitaria.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manitaria.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Koliri (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:05, 4 January 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.

File:Topio5.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Topio5.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Koliri (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:05, 4 January 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.

File:Agios nikolaos2.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agios nikolaos2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Koliri (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:05, 4 January 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.

File:Liostasia.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liostasia.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Koliri (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:05, 4 January 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.

File:Uphill.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uphill.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Koliri (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:05, 4 January 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.

File:Peukakia.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: keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peukakia.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Koliri (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is not orphaned and according to the article it is near the greek village of Koliri and shows regeneration after the 2007 wild fires. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:59, 18 January 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.

File:Ahads constant public domain image.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahads constant public domain image.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sitara12 (notify | contribs).

OR, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:06, 4 January 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.

File:Ahmad Syahri Rizqi Haqqi.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahmad Syahri Rizqi Haqqi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by As zoravan (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:06, 4 January 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.

File:Air India Flight.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Air India Flight.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Viral2094 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:08, 4 January 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.

File:Airport Ísafjörður.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Airport Ísafjörður.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fahrschein (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:08, 4 January 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.

File:Airinternationalva.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Airinternationalva.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pedrodiogo (notify | contribs).

OR, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:10, 4 January 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.

File:Airpressureonvenus.svg

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 ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Airpressureonvenus.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blacklemon67 (notify | contribs).

OR, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:10, 4 January 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.

File:Air-show.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Air-show.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Weboperator (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:18, 4 January 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.

File:450px-Novi Beograd - West Gate 03.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:450px-Novi Beograd - West Gate 03.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Weboperator (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:18, 4 January 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.

File:06Barry.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:06Barry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yolopd (notify | contribs).

Image is unencyclopedic and not being used.The article it is was originally used on now uses a different image. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:57, 4 January 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.

File:Aisha.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: keep until moved to Commons (PNG-ised version there now, but no JPEG). Has been tagged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aisha.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gurdjieff (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am author of this image I added the info and removed the delete tag hope that is ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurdjieff (talk • contribs)

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:Ajay Lakum.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ajay Lakum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ajayexpert (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:01, 4 January 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.

File:Akademiksmens2.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akademiksmens2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AgainstAllOddsUSA (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:01, 4 January 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.

File:Akd sanjay yeo.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akd sanjay yeo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ajaydata (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:01, 4 January 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.

File:Akeanon sanag1.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akeanon sanag1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kaliboaklan (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:01, 4 January 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.

File:Thedoorssep1968.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 ⚡ 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thedoorssep1968.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs).

Disputed fair use. As much as I appreciate The Doors and this image, we already have File:The Doors band members.jpg, making this one obsolete as a fair use image. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly on principle. Response. A) I am not trying to make this page into a fan site by adding copious images, and b) one image alone does not an article make; how does one posed publicity shot not allow for a picture of the band in, say, a casual atmosphere, or better yet, performing together? A picture from their beginning vs. the last known picture of them together? One picture makes all others obsolete? WP:NFCC 3(a) is not that strictly worded to say that one image excludes all others... Doc9871 (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What it reads is Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

I do not feel that this image conveys anything significant that the other image does not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is just as valuable as any other editor's, which is what makes WP great. To apply two deletion tags within a short time, without even attempting to reach consensus before doing so, and to still not address the key points I queried above; this is what WP is not. I've got my "tentacles" out already on this one, and if I am wrong (according to the administration), I will comply with them. Good day to you! Doc9871 (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned, this is where I originally intended to bring it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think that a case could be made that this image conveys a different tone or shows a different side of the band than the promotional shot frequently used. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard WP:NFCC#1 violation. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Standard" WP:NFCC#1 on what grounds specifically? Doc9871 (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, should have been #3a (multiple fair use images being used to identify the band when one would suffice). Stifle (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the images must be deleted per Stile's 3A point. I would choose one that is neither this image nor the one we currently have, as both are substandard if we're going to use an FU image. Until we find a better one though, one of these two should be used, and it must be the other one as source information on this one is wholly invalid. ÷seresin 04:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please explain what a non-"substandard" FU image of The Doors is. What is standard, and what is substandard? Please explain... Doc9871 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Purely on an aesthetic and composition level, I mean. The current image has a lot of shadows that function artistically, but do not really aid in understanding how the subjects appear. Substandard was a poor choice of words, as it implies I was referencing some sort of policy; I apologize. ÷seresin 14:03, 10 January 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.

File:Akdeniz.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: The result of the discussion was Withdrawn.

File:Akdeniz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nedim Ardoğa (notify | contribs).

~~OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)~~. Withdrawn. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:19, 4 January 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.

File:Akeanon sanag3.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akeanon sanag3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kaliboaklan (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:06, 4 January 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.

File:Akon1.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akon1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ESARASOOL (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:07, 4 January 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.

File:104B0990.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:104B0990.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moondog419 (notify | contribs).

Low quality image, not being used. User made two uploads and an edit in 2006. Image is unlikely to find a use. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:07, 4 January 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.

File:Al-trust17.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:08, 4 January 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.

File:Black Squirrel in Washington State.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Squirrel in Washington State.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moondog419 (notify | contribs).

Low quality image, not being used. User made two uploads and an edit in 2006. Image is unlikely to find a use. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:09, 4 January 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.

File:AlShaab1234.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlShaab1234.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nms725 (notify | contribs).

OR, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:09, 4 January 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.

File:Geyikkosan.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geyikkosan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chawol (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:10, 4 January 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.

File:116x131px-james schmidt 2006.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:116x131px-james schmidt 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jsschmidt24 (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic image only used by a user treating his userpage like a resume. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:13, 4 January 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.

File:Alan Kirby on cover of Digimodernism.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alan Kirby on cover of Digimodernism.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mifachispa96 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:16, 4 January 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.

File:Alandowney.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alandowney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jackpollock (notify | contribs).

Very UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ??????? - Yes the image is poor but it is used in an article on the subject. We keep free images that are used in articles, unless there is a compelling reason not to. "use not stated" is not really on the money - Peripitus (Talk) 11:54, 18 January 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.

File:Alaverdi131.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alaverdi131.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kevorkmail (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:17, 4 January 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.

File:Alaverdi stad2.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alaverdi stad2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kevorkmail (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:19, 4 January 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.

File:Alazharuniversity.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alazharuniversity.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahmadvns (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:19, 4 January 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.

File:Albert Gallatin Tomb at Trinity Church in New York City IMG 1710.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: keep and move to Commons. I simply do not see the sense of nominating images here which could be profitably moved to Wikimedia Commons. To my mind this is not LQ or UE and OR is not a stick with which to beat editors into moving images to Commons RIGHT NOW. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albert Gallatin Tomb at Trinity Church in New York City IMG 1710.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billy Hathorn (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine what the fuss here is about. It is a picture of the tomb of Albert Gallatin in Trinity Cemetery at Trinity Church in NYC.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:28, 5 January 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.

File:Albinoracoon.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albinoracoon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jm51 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:20, 4 January 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.

File:Alero-OSV-9.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alero-OSV-9.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by C2comics (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:22, 4 January 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.

File:Alero-OSV-6.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alero-OSV-6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by C2comics (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:22, 4 January 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.

File:Alero-OSV-5.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alero-OSV-5.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by C2comics (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:22, 4 January 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.

File:Alero-OSV-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 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alero-OSV-3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by C2comics (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:22, 4 January 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.

File:Alero-OSV-1.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alero-OSV-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by C2comics (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:23, 4 January 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.

File:Alex Franciosi.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alex Franciosi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonno316 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not orphaned and use is fairly obvious from the image link. The sandbox draft never get into article space, but then again, perhaps it will. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:41, 16 January 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.

File:Alexander Tennant's House, Cape Town.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Tennant's House, Cape Town.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Askarii (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:26, 4 January 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.

File:Alexandra-Burke-280 900606a.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexandra-Burke-280 900606a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Curlz07 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, likely CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:27, 4 January 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.

File:Alexcandar.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexcandar.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alexcandar (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:27, 4 January 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.

File:145aa5a6.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:145aa5a6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Xtreme100 (notify | contribs).

Unencylopedic image, not being used, the only action of the uploader was uploading this image, and there isn't a use stated. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:28, 4 January 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.

File:156amw-1-.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:156amw-1-.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robeter (notify | contribs).

Unused image, no description or use stated, uploader has been gone since 2008. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:33, 4 January 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.

File:16mm Ear Strech Without Plug.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:16mm Ear Strech Without Plug.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ash man04 (notify | contribs).

Low quality image, not being used, uploader has been absent since 2007 Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:39, 4 January 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.

File:19) Snowman, Christmas night.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:19) Snowman, Christmas night.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EamonnPKeane (notify | contribs).

Not being used, not a very good example of what it portrays, no other possible use. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:44, 4 January 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.

File:19c6119543.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:19c6119543.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Breeanzz (notify | contribs).

Unused image, no possible use, only action by uploader, and uploader seemingly only to direct attention to (presumably) uploader's site. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:01, 4 January 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.

File:4thavenuecropped.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:4thavenuecropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Calliopejen1 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned and redundant to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fourth_Avenue_Theatre.jpg Rockfang (talk) 09:08, 4 January 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.

File:Holdenastracolours.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holdenastracolours.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aaaaplay (notify | contribs).

A scan from a Holden ~~Astra brochure~~ staff training book, even if it had fair-use added in the summary section this is replaceable with free-use images by getting photographs of cars on the street or a dealership. Bidgee (talk) 11:04, 4 January 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.

File:Parthian cataphracts.svg

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: deleted, speedily under F9. I'm quite convinced that this was a scanned image from an "Osprey" book. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parthian cataphracts.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Persia2099 (notify | contribs).

First, the image is not an svg, but a gif. Second, cameras cannot possibly output transparency, so there is no way this was taken with a camera, and, in light of that, it may be a copyright violation, unfortunately, I cannot check as I can't open the image up to see the full resolution without getting an xml error. Also, if you will see the talk page of the user who uploaded this image, you will see that they've uploaded copyrighted images before, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was one as well. Even if it was originally taken by a camera, then edited, it would still be a copyright violation. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 12:49, 4 January 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.

File:Bas relief of Hormizd II.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 ⚡ 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bas relief of Hormizd II.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Persia2099 (notify | contribs).

The file metadata here does not match the details given by the uploader. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:02, 4 January 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.

File:Statue of Shapur I Bishapur.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 ⚡ 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of Shapur I Bishapur.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Persia2099 (notify | contribs).

Again file metadata does not match the details supplied by the uploader. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:04, 4 January 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.

File:Flowergrazer.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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flowergrazer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DeathScythe00 (notify | contribs).

Size Error DeathScythe00 (talk) 17:05, 4 January 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.

File:ShapurII statue.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 Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShapurII statue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Persia2099 (notify | contribs).

No file metadata. A larger version of this image is at http://www.zoroastriankids.com/224.html which page appears to date from 2002-04-27. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:13, 4 January 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.

File:Derafsh e kavian.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 Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derafsh e kavian.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Persia2099 (notify | contribs).

The uploader's track record in matters of image copyright and sourcing is not beyond reproach. TinEye finds multiple matches for this image, which is at least slightly odd if it was created in April 2009 and not uploaded until November 2009. An SVG version exists ar File:Sassanid coast of arm.svg which has the same problems. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:18, 4 January 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.

File:Glengoyne 17yr.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glengoyne 17yr.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cabe6403 (notify | contribs).

One bottle of whisky usually looks much like another, as does this one, and one presentation box looks much the same as any other, and so too here. It's not obvious that this non-free image adds much to the reader's understanding of the topic (Glengoyne Distillery) or that its absence would leave a big hole in that understanding. May not meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:35, 4 January 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.

File:Gokushinka sketch.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. Not important enough to be kept as a non-free image to illustrate the article Hiroshi Fujii. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gokushinka sketch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DeLarge (notify | contribs).

The boilerplate non-free content rationale for this image states that it is being used "to illustrate the person(s) ... in question". But this image does not show, or otherwise inform the reader about, Hiroshi Fujii. As the article itself notes, "Despite the references to Fujii, the comic book and concept car were both created by staff at Mitsubishi Motors North America's Californian design studio." Does not appear to meet WP:NFCC#8 in this context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as uploader). It is not there to illustrate Hiroshi Fujii himself, but the Goku Shin Ka concept vehicle. The entire rationale is "the person(s), product, event, or subject in question...", and was used because Goku Shin Ka redirects to Hiroshi Fujii, the page on which it appears (see the bold text in the second paragraph). The concept vehicle isn't really significant enough to warrant a page of its own, so I thought it better to create the redirect and place the illustration here as well. Since, as stated in the article, it only exists as a comic book homage to Fujii, and not as an actual vehicle which can be photographed, I felt that fair use on this page was justified in this instance. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comic book car's relation to Fujii seems to be tangential enough that it's not important. If it were more significant, I would support keeping it, as an image would be necessary. ÷seresin 02:42, 23 January 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.

File:GoldenRice-WhiteRice.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 ⚡ 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GoldenRice-WhiteRice.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PDH (notify | contribs).

Boilerplate rationale only. Non-free image being used to illustrate Golden rice and Transgenic plant. I'm not sure why this image wouldn't be replaceable when tests of Golden rice have been ongoing for some time now even if it is not "publicly available" yet (and perhaps never will be). Pictures can be taken in labs too and written descriptions can also work well ("like rice but golden brown" perhaps?). Equally it's not clear to me how this image adds anything to the reader's understanding of either topic. Visually it just looks like brown rice beside white rice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:04, 4 January 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.

File:Gorynin putin.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 ⚡ 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gorynin putin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alex Bakharev (notify | contribs).

Said to be a historically significant non-free image. Igor Gorynin already has a free image to depict the subject, so this is only being used to show an award. Should be replaceable with text if no free image exists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 4 January 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.

File:Baby-one-more-time-international-cover.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: no consensus. While FFD is not a vote mechanism, there are equal numbers of contributors who believe that the image should be kept as there are those who believe it should be deleted. Almost all contributors have opposing viewpoints of WP:NFCC #3a. There are those who believe that it is not an overuse to show the alternative cover, but then there are those who believe that it doesn't really add anything to the understanding of the article. Both sides make excellent arguments, but in the end there is no consensus whether to keep or delete, so the default decision here is to keep. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baby-one-more-time-international-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Truten (notify | contribs).

Used to illustrate an alternative cover in the ...Baby One More Time, it is not obvious to me that this image meets WP:NFCC #1#3a [corrected, thanks to Fortunato luigi] and #8 in this context. The image is adequately described in the article text already: "The international edition has an alternate cover picture. It is a picture of Spears in white, with her hands in a praying gesture. The picture also resembles the cover artwork of Björk's album Debut." From that perspective it is replaceable and has indeed been replaced by text when combined with the image of the US release just in case readers had never seen Ms Spears on TV or internet or in a newspaper or magazine. The US release cover also shows what an album cover looks like so that showing another version of the cover doesn't add significantly to readers' understanding as required by #8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The picture serves to help people to understand what they are reading. It is a worldwide encyclopedia, so it helps for foreign to see the possible cover on their countrys. Also, not trying yo be rude here, but the fact that it doesn't seems obvious to you (meet WP:NFCC #1 and #8) doesn't mean it has to be deleted. It meets #1, cuz there is no free equivalent for the international cover, not even the US release is a free equivalent, so, given the fact that ther is no equivalent, the cover can be used. It meets #8 because, when you are reading something, see a picture of what you are reading helps, so read about the picture and see it, help people to understand the topic. Fortunato luigi (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the correction made by Angus McLellan, this cover doesn't meet with #3, but it does. Again we are talking about something being equivalent to other thing, in this particular case, they are not equivalent. We can't say that the US cover is equivalent to the International cover. They are not equivalent. One cover doesn't give the information given by the other cover, so both are importants, differents and no equivalents. The other point here is the minimal use. The image is in a low resolution, so it meets both points. Fortunato luigi (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale for covers in general is that we consider it a significant addition to user understanding to show what was the identifying image associated with the record on its release. The non-U.S. image is not similar to the U.S. image; and - associated with a very broad territory - in context in its own right it constitutes an important release. Thus the two standard criteria for showing an alternate cover image are both satisfied. (Compare the run of decisions starting here, from last January). As for the quoted text, yes it gives a description of the image. But does it give a complete description? Does it give as good a description as actually seeing the image? No, it does not. And that is why having the image itself adds to reader understanding, and so why we include it. Jheald (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've read the article and I cannot see what significant understanding this image gives me, or other readers, that is not conveyed by the text in the article "It is a picture of Spears in white, with her hands in a praying gesture.". Jheald, you have an odd point of view there. Review the discussions in February, March, June, September, December etc.... - Peripitus (Talk) 21:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - The reason I referenced that discussion is that it had larger than usual amount of input, so is a good place to see broader views about what "adds to reader understanding", and why.
    The other discussion I would commend is this one at WT:ALBUMS where the matter was discussed into the ground in June to August, to try to achieve systematic criteria for when alternate covers should be shown, and when they shouldn't. By the end of the discussion, various participants had shifted their position, and there was universal acceptance (with the sole exception of User:J Milburn) to adopt the wording Please ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion. This proposal also received buy-in at WT:NFC. That, I submit, is an appropriate and good systematic test, that has been shown to have widespread support, and so should be applied in this case. Jheald (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The image helps. The description on the article is minimal, it just describes the most notable and obvious elements of the cover, but it is not the complete description. Having the cover next to the text help to understand what people are reading and improves the article, beacuse if we talk about something, but that something is not on the article, which would be the point of even mention it? Mention it and show it is better than just show it or just mention it. Fortunato luigi (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard WP:NFCC#3a failure. Extra image used for decoration without any substantil improvement of readers' understanding of the subject, violating WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If Wikipedia thought album cover images were just decoration, then we wouldn't show any. But instead, we recognise that knowing what the cover looked like is useful understanding about an album -- and when an album has been issued with ++++edly different covers inside the U.S. and outside the U.S., then showing both adds to reader understanding.
  This is settled and accepted, and follows from the basic rationale for why we show covers at all. See eg this discussion just this week at WT:NFC. Jheald (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arguments like "[i]f Wikipedia thought album cover images were just decoration, then we wouldn't show any" are considered poor. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - All right, well you explain then, from your perspective, why you think the U.S. cover so clearly adds to user understanding, and the non-U.S. cover not at all. Because to me that position simply doesn't add up. Jheald (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle. Rettetast (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The album cover meets every requirement of the NFCC; it is being used in the article to identify the album. That is the entire purpose of NFCC, to allow non-free content for identification purposes. Music albums are advertised, purchased, discussed, and identified solely by use of their covers. They are crucial to users' understanding of the topic. Album covers are works of art; they aren't replaceable by text. We're not including the image for decoration or to show what Britney Spears looks like; we're including it to show what the album looks like. If one image is used in some countries, and another image is used in other countries, then we are obligated as an encyclopedia to include this information – if not every existing cover, then the most common ones. We are writing for an international audience, and to say the US cover is encyclopedic while other covers are inherently decorative or trivial is biased and ridiculous. Consensus is that album covers as identifying images meet NFCC, period. That's not going to change. If we need to include multiple images to identify the album for all users rather than some, then so be it. —Gendralman (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It meets all the requirements and it also crucial for it to be there in order to identify the cover as the US cover was exactly that an US cover. The rest of the world recieved this cover giving it rightful place in the artical and would only be at the readers best interest to show it. Therefore it does not deserve to be removed.
Keep, as explained above, it is incredibly useful for learning, especially for those non-US users who may see the album and not recognize it because that artwork is not sold in their country. If you delete this you may as well delete the US cover, and if you don't I will simply re-add it because this is ridicules. (Circusstar (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Weak delete – while the difference between the two covers is large enough to make this somewhat borderline, I must still agree with Peripitus and Stifle in general. Note that the statement in the text about the resemblance with the "Björk" cover would possibly constitute enough "analytical commentary" for my taste to make it legitimate – but unfortunately, that statement appears to be WP:OR, so that doesn't count either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, it is perhaps worth noting that the image examples section WP:NFCI #1 requires commentary not on the cover image, but on the underlying item (ie the album itself) -- which certainly is met here. Jheald (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#8. As with all album covers, book covers, etc. for which there is zero critical commentary (or even normal commentary usually), the image doesn't help readers understand the subject of the article. If there was a sourced explanation of the cover's notability, it might significantly enhance someone's understanding, but that's not the case here. — Bility (talk) 19:41, 28 January 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.

File:Htc logo new.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Htc logo new.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by P.gobin (notify | contribs).

Orphaned. The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:00, 4 January 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.

File:The world needs a hero edit.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 ⚡ 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The world needs a hero edit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wakeupdead (notify | contribs).

An "edited" (read "censored") alternative cover for The World Needs a Hero. Since it's nothing more than the regular cover (File:Megadeth - The World Needs a Hero.jpg) with sections blacked out, it's not obvious how this meets WP:NFCC#1 as we can describe the differences. I'm not clear on how any album cover meets WP:NFCC#8 unless it happens to be discussed in the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 4 January 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.

File:The world needs a hero deluxe.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 ⚡ 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The world needs a hero deluxe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wakeupdead (notify | contribs).

Another alternative cover for The World Needs a Hero. Since it looks very like a section of the regular cover (File:Megadeth - The World Needs a Hero.jpg) blown up and recoloured slightly, it's not obvious how this meets WP:NFCC #3a as we can easily describe the differences. I'm not clear on how any album cover meets WP:NFCC#8 unless it happens to be discussed in the article. The boilerplate rationale doesn't seem to help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 4 January 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.

File:PaulSimon Songbook Reissue.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 ⚡ 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PaulSimon Songbook Reissue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bustago (notify | contribs).

The Paul Simon Songbook was originally issued with a cover (File:PS songbook LP.jpg) with the title in red gothic-ish type and the tracklist in the bottom right. It was reissued with basically a mirror image of the original cover pic, only now the title was in white serif text at the top and the track list in the top right. I'm sure someone more talented could do a better job of describing these differences, but I hope my hamfisted effort shows that the differences can be described by text and that this image is replaceable. If so, it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#3a [corrected, originally and incorrectly stated #1]. And with the differences being so trivial, I am even more stumped than usual as to how this can meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC) i dont see why it cannot be a image with text or just the image, there is no reason to delete the image. alternate covers are quite informative. can someone please give me a good reason why this could be deleted--Bustago (talk) 00:32, 5 January 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.

File:Psycological Profile.pdf

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 at user's request (here and [1]). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Psycological Profile.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Threewords,eightletters... (notify | contribs).

Serves no encyclopedic purpose, and there's no real reason for the user to need to have it on her userpage either. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for people's random stuff. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated for deletion less than 2 hours ago! A decision was made on keeping it - see my talk page. On the work's talk page there should still be my reason for keeping it. I'm not really using Wikipedia as a webhost, it's one work. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although last time was some other kind of deletion, these are the reasons I gave last time for not deleting it:

The template says that I should say why it shouldn't be deleted here...

"Don't delete, I believe this does conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; it is a work created by myself and is used on my userpage. I was under the impression that works are allowed to be uploaded to be used on userpages if they don't break copyright - mine clearly doesn't - and if you don't upload too many for your userpage. My userpage has only one upload on it, so that is far from excessive."

Now, I don't care, all this bureaucracy is much too much effort. I give up. Even I say delete it. Done! Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:30, 4 January 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.

File:Fernando castiella.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 ⚡ 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fernando castiella.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ecemaml (notify | contribs).

Breaches WP:NFCC#8; namely, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The article would be perfectly understandable without use of the image. RedCoat10 • talk 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Sorry, although more or less expert on copyright issues, fair use is sometimes a little difficult of understand for me. As far as I understand, the appearance of a person is a key element of any encyclopedic article about him or her. The inclusion of a person's image significantly increases readers' understanding of the article of such a person, just in the same fashion as a company logotype increases the understanding of the article on the company holding such a logo. I could be wrong, of course, but plenty of portraits of people, usually labelled with the {{Non-free fair use in}} template (and therefore in the Category:Fair use in... images) since, as the template says, the image is used:

To illustrate the subject in question

Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information

On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation ([1]),

Best regards and thank you for your time --Ecemaml (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A copyrighted image of a person is not necessary, and it's omission would not be detrimental to an "understanding" of who the person in question was. That is to say, we don't need to see a picture of the person to understand that he was a Spanish Foreign Minister. See WP:NFC#UUI (especially No 7 and No 8): if the article were a discussion about the painting of Fernando Castiella, then it would be covered by the Non-free content criteria. Your argument about logos (which are often seen as an exception) might be an argument against the inlcusion of Non-free logos, but not, in itself, an argument that justifies the use of this particular, copyrighted, image. RedCoat10 • talk 23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point, but the current practice in the English Wikipedia seems to see it in other way. I've just taken a small sample from Category:Fair use in... images. See, for instance File:EbbaThomsen.jpg, File:E. Riley Anderson.jpg or File:EdFrutig.jpg. It's the same case as with this image. I mean, I don't object to the deletion of the image. However, the interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 seems to be that an image of a person enhances the "understanding" of his/her article. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do a lot of NFC work and recall that a fair number of images in Category:Fair use in... images were inappropriately claimed as 'fair use'. Seeing as images are not reviewed, most went unnoticed. So those images you've cited as examples are as much subject to further scrutiny to as this one. An image alone does not enhance our 'undertanding' if the subject of the image is not also the subject of discussion in the article; i.e., the painting of Fernando Castiella is not the essence of the article. By analogy, "a photo of a copyrighted statue can only be used to discuss the statue itself, not the subject of it." Moreover, please remember that Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia which inevitably means that we must minimise the use of copyrighted material so that only that which is necessary is permissible. RedCoat10 • talk 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral tending to Keep Link on the image upload doesn't work so I wasn't able to find the original source to see if there was already a free use exemption. A comment is that I thought paintings required the originator to be credited when used? Seems a reasonable fair use exemption to me, as the subject has been dead for 40 years a free use image is pretty unlikely. Justin talk 11:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While "No-free equivalent" is indeed a criterion for 'fair use', it's not the only one. There are a total of ten, all of which must be satistified (see WP:NFCC, which is an official policy). The one I am calling into question is No 8. I won't deny that a free use image is pretty unlikely in this case. RedCoat10 • talk 12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my keep is that I happen to think a portrait aids understanding. Whilst this is entirely subjective there is enough of a grey area there for me to vote keep. Justin talk 12:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I tend to take the view that we should minimise the amount of copyrighted material on Wikipedia, which is why I woulnd't necessarily think this particular image is necessary for our understanding of the man. The only problem I see with taking your approach is that you could potentially open the floodgates and allow any non-replicable copyrighted work under the pretext that it aids understanding. But les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas, and yours is a perfectly valid opinion, so thanks. RedCoat10 • talk 13:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, RedCoat, is that the "floodgates" are actually opened. What I've shown above is just a sample, but at least half of the images in Category:Fair use in... images are images that are not strictly necessary to the "understanding" of a biography. However, they're valid (at least up to now). What I mean is that if you want to challenge that interpretation, a specific image is not the place to do it, but WP:MCQ. Don't you think that? --Ecemaml (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC) PS: BTW, I've gone again to Category:Fair use in... images. I've started in the "E". See for instance, the first ten images in the category. Eight out of ten (File:E Nelson Bridwell by Dave Manak.jpg, File:E Y Hall.jpg, File:E zatopek2.jpg, File:E-Kempka.jpg, File:E. Riley Anderson.jpg, File:E.P.Thompson.jpg, File:E1171 spackman prince lg.jpg and File:E19735C7-FF12-24E4-0A5E95F378158409.jpg) are in the same situation. It's strange that nobody has noticed up to now that more than half the images in said category violate WP:NFCC#8, isn't it? PS2: the contextual source is Gallery of Portraits of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain. Unfortunately all of them are uncredited.[reply]

Your argument is bit like the child who claims that what he is doing is acceptable because everyone else is doing it. If I'm not mistaken, most of the images you've cited were uploaded at a time when there was no equivalent criterion eight (the policy changed sometime in 2006, I think). The others have just gone unnoticed. Images aren't reviewed when they're uploaded so the fact that they are being used doesn't by default mean that they acceptable. I'd slap a {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} tag on them (a couple of years ago I used to tag hundreds a day), but I fear it would be described as pointy. Moreover, I'm not challenging the 'interprepation', I'm challenging the fair-use rationale of this image. RedCoat10 • talk 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, RedCoat, my argument is not that way. My argument is pretty simpler: Wikipedia works by consensus. The consensus "seems to be" that a picture of a person may be used under a fair use assumption to increase the understanding of biographies (thus not violating WP:NFCC#8). Three years after the change of the policy, nobody have suggested that such 50%-80% of the pictures in the Category:Fair use in... images should be deleted on those grounds. Again, I don't seen any problem in deleting the image I uploaded, but, again, it's not this specific image the best place to raise the awareness about the problem you seem to have detected, but WP:MCQ. BTW, the last template you've added to the picture is not correct according to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Images. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was the lack of argument based on policy was behind my neutral comment, the everyone else is doing it defence doesn't cut the mustard. A fair use rationale is, however, possible I believe. Justin talk 17:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fair-use portrait of a dead statesman, used to show the likeness of the dead statesman. A classic, non-controversial example of the kind of thing we do use fair-use images for. There seems to be no dispute that this image passes NFCC #1. Regarding NFCC #8, this is an absolutely standard case -- showing what the man looked like does indeed "significantly improve reader understanding of the topic". Note, qua Redcoat above, that that is the requirement - that understanding is improved; ie not that the image is "necessary" in some absolute sense, nor that the article would be incomprehensible without it. Jheald (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can show that Castiella never visited the United States of America in his official capacity - and this news archive search says he did - I would say that this should be deleted as patently replaceable and failing WP:NFCC#1. He was the Spanish foreign minister. He met Dean Rusk in Washington. I don't believe there wasn't a US government photographer around to take a picture or two. Those pictures are now held by NARA where anyone who cared could get a copy, free of copyright. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replace. There is apparantly a black-and-white picture available at NARA, see [2]. It can be ordered by emailing to stillpix@nara.gov mentioning the BW ID (B W ID 66-H-495). Were it not for this free alternative, I would have voted keep. Lumdeloo (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that I'm not particularly interested in this guy (an official of the Francoist dictatorship). I've asked for a copy, but I don't know how long it takes and, more important, whether these images are available for non-American nationals. I assume that the image I've uploaded will be kept until I get a new image, don't I? On the other hand, I'd like to thank Angus and Lumdeloo for making me aware of NARA, a source I didn't know. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC) PS: I had already done some searches in NARA and the image mentioned by Lumdeloo seems to be the only available.[reply]
Delete, replaceable per Lumdeloo. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, unfortunately I haven't received yet not even an acknowledgment of reception from stillpix@nara.gov :-( --Ecemaml (talk) 23:13, 10 January 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.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 4

January 4

Navigation menu

Search