Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 22

< May 21	May 23 >

May 22

File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One editor has continued to remove speedy deletion tags for this file. It has undergone a file review. The image has a history of not having FURs associated with each article.It now does not have a FUR for Tea Party movement. Even if a FUR can be provided, the image is replaceable with File:Tea Party Protest, Hartford, Connecticut, 15 April 2009 - 050.jpg which is similar and conveys the same meaning (one image that could be considered "as evidence of first use of the verb "tea bag" by Tea Party protesters ~4/15/2009." Its historical importance is purely speculative. Its presence does not significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic. Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the discussion about this photograph? Patriot130 (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

review Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From that review, "Your 'other image' is not a clear use by a protester of the verb 'teabag/tea bag' in two meanings; the sexual meaning is only implied. The two meanings are clear in the image under discussion.

There have been multiple disputed uses of this image (Teabagger, FreeRepublic, Tea Party movement) that remain to be settled. I fear the very controversies contained in those articles seem to be animating attempts to delete this image."

It had no FUR for Tea Party movement b/c an IP editor 68.25... removed it and the editor above did not restore it in his following edit. This image needs to be protected for the reasons Keith Olbermann gave under "Other Information" in the FUR. -74.162.153.141 (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That actually wasn't me so feel free to strike out your accusation.Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is now orphaned. Although they have not commented here, at least two other editors agree with its removal.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 26 May 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:Sebastiano.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 05:22, 22 May 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:FindToto Map.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: orphaned map image was likely not created by the uploader and looks like a Google, or other online, copyright map image. Source https://www.findtoto.com/lost-dog.html shows copyright but may not be copyright of that website either. ww2censor (talk) 05:25, 22 May 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:PhopArt.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 05:27, 22 May 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:Prince Phumulani Nyoni.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 05:33, 22 May 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:ChadCD.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 05:36, 22 May 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:Janet-Jackson-Control-Japan.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free files are being used when one would suffice. This cover is not significantly different than the main cover, File:Control.jpg, to justify its use. — ξ ^xplicit 05:42, 22 May 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:Golden virginia.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:58, 22 May 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:Floodguildhall.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Image of the band The Brent Flood. — ξ ^xplicit 00:48, 30 May 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:Nano Nummer de.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:58, 22 May 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:I110northboundundertransitway.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons a reasonable pic of LA. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:10, 23 May 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:File-HarryHaySept2000.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! We apparently don't have too many pictures of him. --Beao 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have this file.--Rockfang (talk) 09:08, 28 May 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:Harrypotterfanart.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toph 1729 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 27 May 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:High-five 200px.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 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:HolmesMuseum2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 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:Hazel23.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 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:Idlerpulley7.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 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:NFD.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 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:Karte Ellwangen in Deutschland.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 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:Map of Province and Muncipalities that had won Miss Latin Tourism Dominican Republic.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 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:TheLaplaceResonance2.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 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:Img08970087.bmp.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:59, 22 May 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:Waterfall model 2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:00, 22 May 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:Intrusion200mm.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:00, 22 May 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:IradjEye23.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:00, 22 May 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:J.z. smith 3n.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:00, 22 May 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:Jaredletomanchester.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:00, 22 May 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:John-Jarvie-Store.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:00, 22 May 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:Jumping several nodes.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:00, 22 May 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:Katie Leungpremierenew.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:00, 22 May 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:KentDistrictsNumbered.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:01, 22 May 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:Kit body baseball Carphome.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:01, 22 May 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:Kit trousers cap padrescap.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was used for Redcliffe Padres page previously. Delete. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 12:39, 22 May 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:LTE layer.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, possbile copyvio FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:01, 22 May 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:Landscapesmall.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:01, 22 May 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:Lawofinertia.ogg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inaccurate, as well. Toph 1729 (talk) 11:45, 27 May 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:ListerCenter.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Suitable for Lister Centre. — ξ ^xplicit 00:58, 30 May 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:Longinuslanc.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:01, 22 May 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:Manila cathedral2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:01, 22 May 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:Map 2 lane.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:02, 22 May 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:Map8.gif

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:02, 22 May 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:Mentaltvshow.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:02, 22 May 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:Miighankurtcologo.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:02, 22 May 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:Misro.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:02, 22 May 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:Sun Temple Modhera.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:02, 22 May 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:Murray High School Arts Building 2.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:02, 22 May 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:Nasa tour bus.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Commons where it will have company.KTo288 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 09:18, 28 May 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:Phi Kappa Psi badge on green background.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:02, 22 May 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:James Joseph Kennedy.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image was apparently taken in the 1920s, so the tag claiming that the uploader, Richard Arthur Norton, created it around 30 years before he was born is clearly false. Since it cannot be determined whether or not it was pre-1923, it can not simply be marked {{PD-US}} ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:7611406109080387587.jpg to File:James Joseph Kennedy.jpg by Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) at 07:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:03, 23 May 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.

Actually the tag said I was the "copyright holder" not the photographer.

File:Credential 1.img assist custom.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image clearly fails NFCC #8. It is patently absurd to say that not seeing this image of a few indistinct people holding a document, would have a "detrimental" effect on one's understanding of Estonia – Sri Lanka relations ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 12:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8 by a country mile. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 25 May 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:Belarus priop 120 09.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image clearly fails NFCC #8. It is patently absurd to say that not seeing this image of a few indistinct people holding a document, would have a "detrimental" effect on one's understanding of Belarus–Croatia relations ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 12:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, decorative fair use. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 25 May 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:Moy 3507602546 6fa05322a4 o.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph was apparently taken by a commercial firm, and found on the Smithsonian Institute's website. As far as I know, it is not a work of the US Federal Government, and thus not in the public domain. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 13:00, 22 May 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.

Actually it was from Flickr commons and has no known restrictions, the same tag that allows us to use the Bain Collection. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smithsonian 3506795335 3c7466d17d o.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph was apparently taken by a commercial firm, and found on the Smithsonian Institute's website. As far as I know, it is not a work of the US Federal Government, and thus not in the public domain. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 13:02, 22 May 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.

Actually it was from Flickr commons and has no known restrictions, the same tag that allows us to use the Bain Collection. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Branford Clarke 12.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; solution offered. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image was copied from a blog which nowhere gives a date for the image. The uploader's claim that it was "circa 1920" is therefore, presumably pure guesswork. Since we don't know whether or not it was pre-1923, it should be deleted, because {{PD-US}} couldn't be used with confidence. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 13:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, he's sneakily changed it. Fair enough. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 13:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we'll have to keep it as fair use, although some others of the images on that article have questionable licensing. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 25 May 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:Byron-Percy portrait.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph shows Percy Claude Byron (who anyway has his own article with its own, better, image), and is blatantly not essential to readers' understanding of the page about his company, the only page it is used on at time of writing. Therefore, it fails NFCC #8 ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 13:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's more or less established at audited processes like WP:FAC that simply illustrating a person's appearance at a specific point in their life does not meet the stringent requirements set by WP:NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but what about the requirements of WP:NPOV? Is it not misleading to only present a visual record of someone at one point in their life? To my mind, presenting a range of pictures of someone at various points in their life is essential for high-standard scholarship on a biographical article. I accept that many images are non-free, but I think it is essential to link to places on the internet that (legitimately) host non-free images, in order for readers of an article to be able to see as full a visual record of someone's life as possible. Having pictures only of someone pre-1923 or only photographed by US government officials, does start to distort NPOV. Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either this or File:Percy Claude Byron.jpg should be deleted; I'm not especially bothered as to which one. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 24 May 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:1930compositescore.gif

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is clearly inessential to readers' understanding of the article in which it is used, and thus fails NFCC #8. I'm not an expert, and it is possible that the numerical information contained within the image is essential, in which case it can be added to the article as a statistical table. But the image itself is in no way necessary. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 13:50, 22 May 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:Portal2-testchamber.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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Copied from GameInformer, who were given exclusive access to this prerelease material. Copying these images clearly violates the publishes terms and conditions, see Section 1[1]. There is nothing to suggest that Wikipedia has acquired the appropriate permissions from GameInformer or Valve Corporation to republish these images here. Copying these images from the website is the equivalent of scanning in the magazine itself and placing the images here. See criteria 2 of WP:FUC.--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, you don't need permission to use images under fair use. Gameinformer terms are irrelevant here as the Valve are the copyright holders, not GI. Correct me if I'm wrong. There is also no need to remove these images from the article unless they are actually deleted from what I can see. Rehevkor ✉ 16:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both images clearly fails criteria 2 of WP:FUC so have I added a speedy deletion template onto them. So I guess there isn't much to discuss here.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images were published online, and subsequently appeared on countless gaming websites. If it were published in a magazine you might have a point, but I don't believe that criteria applies in this case. Rehevkor ✉ 17:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so if other websites copy content, that gives us permission to aswell? Damn, we'd better start copying and pasting everything on The Pirate Bay servers to Wikipedia then. And it was published in a magazine, see ref 3 of the article, not that it would matter as copyright law exists online too you know.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a grey area. And we'll have to agree with disagree. I'll let others chime in on this as I have nothing else to say, nor any desire to deal further with you. Rehevkor ✉ 18:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine (GameInformer) exclusively published screenshots and artwork of an unreleased game that they received from the game developers. Only they have this material and it is a central part of their commercial articles. By copying their exclusive content, you are devaluing the commercial worth or 'exclusivity' of their article. And as the game is unreleased and no alternative images are available, it is still worth money in the market. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

If you read the copyright tags added to the images: '"does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context",' and "This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media.". A magazine is profiting of these images as they are the exclusive publishers, and they are not from press kits. I can't be any clearer than this.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, valve has released very very very low res versions of these images through the ARG for Portal 2's announcement. (it requires people logging into a BBS and getting ASCII art, but nevertheless the same images. (see [2] for what the overall ASCII art looked like, but this and the other Portal image up here are both clearly identifiable on the left side). --MASEM (t) 18:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? Why don't you use them instead then?--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could. But the point is, it makes no sense for the low-res images to be free and the high-res images to be copyrighted. The high-res images don't contain anything of import to copyright law that the low-res versions don't already have. And when I consider the other points in discussion here, I vote Keep. Toph 1729 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The low-res images are not free. Can't quite make sense of the rest of things you said.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can't claim "unique" press images on screenshots, as screenshots could be replicated again and again. -Nard 18:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh how? The game isn't released yet.--Vaypertrail (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody even tried to contact Valve or Game Informer about the matter? I seriously doubt that either of them will really even care as they are not getting any money off the pictures on the internet, as they are everywhere. Wikipedia isn't getting any money either. If anything, won't putting the pictures on a thoroughly used site such as this one help to sell the game? I don't see the picture being used as a problem. What are they going to do, sue a non-profit organization? If it real bothers some people that much, CONTACT VALVE! ASK ABOUT IT! --Chiefsfan (Reply) 16:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GameInformer is making money off the pictures as I've explained already. Read the nomination again.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid reason given yet for deletion.--Rockfang (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violating Wikipedia's fair use policy in a big way isn't a reason for deletion? Read the nomination again.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep—as far as I can tell, the only alleged breach of WP:NFC is that the image fails Criterion #2. But nobody is going to hold back from buying the game, or the magazine, just because a tiny-res version of the picture is available online. Obviously. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 12:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly infringes the publishers rights to profit from the images, thus violates criteria 2, you cannot judge how much money the company will lose from this.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:11, 29 May 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:Portal2 coop characters.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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Copied from GameInformer, who were given exclusive access to this prerelease material. Copying these images clearly violates the publishes terms and conditions, see Section 1[3]. There is nothing to suggest that Wikipedia has acquired the appropriate permissions from GameInformer or Valve Corporation to republish these images here. Copying these images from the website is the equivalent of scanning in the magazine itself and placing the images here.--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. These images have long since ceased to be exclusive and have been copied by dozens of websites. Screenshots of unfree games are perfect examples of meeting the WP:NFCC -Nard 18:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above.Toph 1729 (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason for deletion given.--Rockfang (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does not prevent legitimate sales of the game, hence a copyright violation is irrelevant. Forteblast (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it did. Do read the nomination again.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:23, 29 May 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:Tehran Summit.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This picture's a problem on multiple levels. First, it's currently used in 7 articles, with only one half-hearted attempt at a rationale. Second, and more importantly, there's nothing unique or iconic about this image. It's entirely replaceable by text in all of its uses. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted 5 links. there is just 3 link that have evough relation with this photo. I guess i obtain your first request.

second, these is no document in en.wiki similar to this page. this page is exclusive. have you another idea?Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 19:02, 22 May 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:2009–10 UEFA CL0.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Season finished. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 21:11, 22 May 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:Bill Mauldin Postage stamp.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free 2010 postage stamp being used to illustrate the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose are perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A picture of the stamp in the section discussing the memorialization of Mr. Mauldin's work on a postage stamp is entirely appropriate and adds nontrivial context and information to the discussion, well within the bounds of NFC#Images criterion 3. We're illustrating the stamp, which is precisely the accepted and standard use. There is no necessity, for the use of the image but NFCC#8 doesn't require necessity. There is no article on Wikipedia that is necessary. It is only important that it adds significant understanding and completion to the discussion, which we do here. Ray^Talk 22:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 requires contextual significance. There is no commentary about the stamp itself that makes it contextually significant enough to justify the use of this non-free stamp in the current article other that the fact it was issued and that is already explained in the prose. ww2censor (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be where we differ in opinion. My opinion is that the mention of the stamp as memorializing Mr. Mauldin's work is sufficient to create in the reader a curiosity concerning the nature of the stamp and work memorialized, a curiosity which would be satisfied by a picture of it - this goes to the very heart of "contextual significance." A picture is worth a thousand words, after all. I think the closing admin could safely decide whether having a picture of the stamp adds nothing to the reader's knowledge of the subject beyond that it exists. Personally, I'd consider that a bizarre conclusion, akin to saying that a proper description of a famous photograph removes all need for including a picture of it. Ray^Talk 17:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps reading the deletion discussions for about 150 other stamps deletions the majority of which were deleted for the identical reasons as this one fails NFCC would convince you that your view is misconieved. I can always provide you with the links but remember this stamps does not just fail WP:NFCC#8 but also WP:NFC#Images #3. ww2censor (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded re NFC#3 above, this is the classic allowed use outlined in that guideline, which is to say, the picture of the stamp is used in the context of a discussion of and about the stamp in question, to identify the stamp. As for your FfD remark, I do not doubt that FfD is a thinly trafficked area, and that similar nominations may have succeeded, particularly in the face of little or no opposition. However, I think my logic is firmly within the spirit and letter of the guidelines, and I believe your viewpoint is unduly restrictive and would have us deleting many legitimate images on the grounds that a description of them would suffice, when a description clearly carries less impact and information than the image itself. Ray^Talk 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 31, 2010, the United States Post Office released a first-class denomination ($.44) postage stamp depicting Mauldin with Willie & Joe in Mauldin's honor. is sufficient for understanding. The stamp itself is not particularly significant, and so that text adequately informs the reader. ww2censor is also correct about the traditional view of stamps and NFCC8. ÷seresin 01:29, 29 May 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:2006 USPS-AMBER Alert stamp.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free 2006 postage stamp being used to illustrate the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose are perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 22 May 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:Thangal Kunju Musaliar Stamp.gif

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free 2001 postage stamp being used to illustrate the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could perfectly well be explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 22:17, 22 May 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:Amants02.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustifiable FU image for the articles listed. A generic still is not necessary to understand the film nor the director, and this particular still holds no relevance to the SCOTUS case. ÷seresin 23:16, 22 May 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 May 22

May 22

Navigation menu

Search