Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 22

< June 21	June 23 >

June 22

File:28342-0-300-0-300.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 ⚡ 05:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:28342-0-300-0-300.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andrew777 (notify | contribs).

Uploaded new version of photo with proper name, (it was requested that the file be renamed to fit wikipedia's filename standards) KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 00:42, 22 June 2009 (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:FamousIcelanders.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does anyone have any idea what license this would be under? A number of images are PD, but some have CC-by licenses which are different from one another. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use of individual image files permits more flexibility in article illustration than a composite of this nature. Erik9 (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2009 (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:CawleyasKirk.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: Not deleted, due to a lack of consensus.

I recognize that this is a complex case. In articles on fictional characters, where the character has been portrayed in many visually different ways, how many non-free images are appropriate? How well-known does a portrayal have to be to be included? How much does one portrayal have to differ visually from another, and how much does that visual difference need to be discussed? These are not black and white issues, and arguments on both sides are well-founded. Without consensus, I have chosen not to delete. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image from a Star Trek fan film. It's in James T. Kirk ostensibly to illustrate the topic -- but, the fan portrayal is a small paragraph in the overall article, has no commentary on how the character's appearance (i.e. what's actually depicted in the image) matters or has been subject of third-party commentary, and in general doesn't meet WP:NFCC requirements that the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". --EEMIV (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

precisely which criteria doesn't it meet? It illustrates one of only three major dramatic (read: serious) portrayals of the subject. the image represents the fan production at preserving the 60's series. . And Cawley has in fact been the subject of third-party commentary. I mean, its right in the article. Did someone miss that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"precisely" the one I quoted: #8, Significance. "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." A guy wearing a yellow shirt with a pompodour doesn't significantly increase our understanding that a fan has played Kirk, and removing the image doesn't at all obfuscate our understanding of the topic. --EEMIV (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, which is yet another reason for the picture to only be within a cultural impact section that helps improve the understanding of the character's cultural impact. Sticking it in depiction is giving a fan production too much weight IMHO. We have already been down that road & really don't need to rehash it again. Erikeltic (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Get rid of it. I'm still thinking of deleting it myself. SChaos1701 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete it & the one at Spock. I don't think either belongs in the primary biographies. I could see putting something like that under Culture Impact, but that's about it. Ideally, it should be in its own article about Phase II. Erikeltic (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regardless of *where* in the article it goes, the image of Cawley belongs in the article, as does the one of Pine. These two, along with Shatner, are the primary visual representations of Kirk out there, and should be highlighted. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Mike's point and I am willing to change my vote to keep, but the main issue for me is placement. Erikeltic (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I think the way it is, withreliably-cited info about Cawley's portrayal in the Depiction section next to the image, seems spot-on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite the odd obsession that Trek fans have with canon, the images clearly illustrate one of only three depictions of the subject of the article in mass media. As well, since both actors are supported by reliable citation and are connected to the article by the text, there isn't any failure of RfCC. At all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my "obesssion" has nothing to do with canon is is clearly shown here. Erikeltic (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the record, I wasn't referring to you, E. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about canon, either. I care about WP:NFCC. If Cawley's (physical) appearance and depiction were subject of broader coverage/discussion beyond the Wired anecdote, it would be appropriate to include. But he isn't, so it isn't. You keep whipping out this griping about canon here and on article discussion pages, but it's an annoying dead horse. If you need me to say it yet again: I have nothing against non-canon portrayals and including the information, appropriately weighted, at Wikipedia. So, please drop the "boo to canon purists" nonsense. Anyhow: Cawley and other fan depictions may be popular with a niche of fans, but hardly any part of the real world really cares about her specific appearance/performance -- hence the dearth of coverage in the actual article; given that lack of substantial material, the inclusion of an image isn't necessary and violates WP:NFCC #8. --EEMIV (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is not that it isn't a violation of NFCC#8, but rather a continuation (or in furtherance) the current debate regarding the application/misapplication of 8. the image fulfills the criteria as written and generally interpreted. If it has a reliable citation (which it does), then it is significant. If the depiction is discussed (which includes appearance), then it is further connected. I am sorry, but this seems to be bending the application of #8 incorrectly. Cawley is only the third person to portray Kirk on over 40 years, which is in itself significant. There are a total of four images in the article, one of a commemorative marker in Riverside, Iowa, one of Shatner, of Pine and of Cawley. How is using the image of Cawley undue weight,as you have hinted at with the "niche" comment? I am sensing a less than neutral intent here (specifically, the comments in article discussion clearly indicate a dislike of fan media), which is inapprorpiate in an encyclopedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it has a reliable citation (which it does), then it is significant. The picture of Spock giving the middle finger came from that article and could have the same citation. We've already been down the road of why that shouldn't be included right here. :) In addition, James Cawley's bio doesn't even have a picture of the guy. Why then does the Kirk article need one? Erikeltic (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, Erikeltic: because we do not have a free use image for use in a BLP (which, unless celebrities are checking out in groups of more than three nowadays, Cawley is), whereas we do have an image of him portraying a character wherein fair use is a tad more lenient in an article about the fictional character. And really, do you want to walk that precarious road about the incorrectly referenced, pointy image upload again? I mean, do you think this is the correct step to take at this juncture? I really don't think it is, and you rather know it isn't (having admitted such), so maybe stop, okay? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Does the current location of the image within the article work for you at this point? Have we reached a consensus on that issue? Erikeltic (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The picture is of considerable significance in providing a summary of how the actor captures the role of Kirk, as discussed in the accompanying text. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the article says about the subject of the picture:

Wired observes that while Cawley's depiction "lacks Shatner's vulnerability", the actor has enough swagger "to be passable in the role of Captain Kirk".[85] Cawley, due to his portrayal of Kirk in the Star Trek: Phase II web series continuation, is well-known enough in Trek fandom and at Paramount that a group of Star Trek: Enterprise writers called out to get Cawley's attention by shouting "Hey, Kirk!" at him while Shatner sat nearby."

Can you please explain in what way the picture of this actor significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, or how the picture not being there becomes "detrimental to that understanding?? --EEMIV (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned before, it remains useful for identification purposes, just as images of the only other two fellows that portrayed the character. Readers want to know who we are talking about. As well, the cited comparison to Shatner invites comparison by the reader, and the depiction does so as well. Long story short, as it is the only other notable depiction of Kirk, it seems nonsensical to exclude it. If we didn't have cited references for the portrayal, that would be one thing. However, such is not the case here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OI. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2009 (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:Zachariah supernatural.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zachariah supernatural.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rreagan007 (notify | contribs).

non-free image used for decoration in a "list of article" - does not significantly add to reader's understanding and fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 03:20, 22 June 2009 (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:Gordon Walker (Supernatural).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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gordon Walker (Supernatural).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Meraculas (notify | contribs).

non-free image used for decoration in a "list of article" - does not significantly add to reader's understanding and fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 03:20, 22 June 2009 (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:Zlatarlake.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zlatarlake.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nexm0d (notify | contribs).

listed as PD here but "all rights reserved" on the linked page - this appears to have the incorrect licence Peripitus (Talk) 03:24, 22 June 2009 (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:Phoemela Baranda on Maxim Magazine.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phoemela Baranda on Maxim Magazine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TitanOne (notify | contribs).

Non-free magazine cover used to simply illustrate that she was on the cover. No discussion of the cover itself and this use is simply decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8 in that it does not significantly increase reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 03:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only emulated the use of such from articles such as Ashley Tisdale, specifically this picture. The picture illustrates the many magazine covers she has graced already. If this is unacceptabble then the same should be done to other pages not just this picture? --TitanOne (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also this picture illustrates the international editions of Maxim where it is also posted. --TitanOne (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though that use was added after I began this discussion. In that case there is no discussion of the image and the rationale "Illustrate article about International editions of Maxim" does not give a hint as to how the image passes the WP:NFCC requirements. It looks to me as a simply decorative use of a magazine cover in an article with an adequate and existing non-free one. It fails NFCC#8 in the Maxim article and probably NFCC#3a as excessive use of non-free content - Peripitus (Talk) 04:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine if it does not comply however what of the other images that follows the same chain or emulates the same usage of such?--TitanOne (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2009 (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:Stacy Haiduk as Patty Williams.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 - Consensus is that image may be used to identify character appearance. However, it is inappropriate to use a non-free image to identify a living actress Papa November (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stacy Haiduk as Patty Williams.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rocksey (notify | contribs).

non-free image of living person (Stacy Haiduk) used to illustrate a character article. As the image is very recent, the actress is still alive and there is no special costume shown, a free image could be created of her that would be an adequate replacement and this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 06:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image does not fail WP:NFCC#1. Like Peripitus said, the image is used to illustrate a character. The actor is not the character. Using an image of the actor not acting as the character would only illustrate what the actor looked like. It wouldn't represent the character the way they were meant to be presented in the fiction. Rocksey (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the character looked any different to the actress in this shot I might be inclined to agree somewhat with you. In this case a headshot of the actress and a headshot of the character will only differ by the hairstyle....hardly a difference that is going to cause a reader of the article undue issues in understanding the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 07:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When the character and actor look more or less the same, arguments like Rocksey's hold little water. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming they look the same is a matter or original judgement. Including the picture presents the information for people to judge, and is therefore every bit as relevant in understanding the subject as if she looked different. DGG (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an image of a fictional character, used to show what the character looks like. The same photo could be used to show what the actress looks like, and if it were used that way it would violate our policies. But I believe its current use is in line with our policies, since a free photo of the actress (at an awards ceremony, say) would not depict the character. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:33, 24 June 2009 (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:Money2.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Money2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Peregrine981 (notify | contribs).

Derivative of non-free currency image (UK banknotes are © Bank of England). I don't think this would be suitable for non-free use on List of countries either, as it would be possible to create an equally encyclopedic alternative image using only public domain designs Papa November (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with what Papa November said, WikiPedia has enough pictures of currency. This image does not ass anything important to the site. Just clutter. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 22:07, 22 June 2009 (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:North Northwest.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:North Northwest.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KF (notify | contribs).

The movie trailer is in the public domain (pub. 1959, no copyright notice) and a free alternative is available for this non-free image on Commons. Papa November (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What a poor "alternative" to the lovely Eva Marie Saint! <K F> 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  There are free images of Grant with Saint in the North by Northwest trailer too. How about this one? Also, sorry I didn't send you a personalised message earlier, KF. I hope you weren't offended by the message twinkle sent on my behalf. :) Papa November (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2009 (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:2000car.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2000car.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Anwar saadat (notify | contribs).

SVG available at commons Papa November (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2009 (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:204th Air Base.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:204th Air Base.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Buttons (notify | contribs).

PNG at commons Papa November (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2009 (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:21st Signal Battalion.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:21st Signal Battalion.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Buttons (notify | contribs).

PNG version at Commons Papa November (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2009 (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:246th NBC Battalion.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:246th NBC Battalion.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Buttons (notify | contribs).

PNG version at Commons Papa November (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2009 (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:Vojna policija.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vojna policija.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Boki13 (notify | contribs).

PNG version at Commons Papa November (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2009 (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:Large 0423-twilight-new-moon.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Large 0423-twilight-new-moon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ChaosMaster16 (notify | contribs).

unencyclopedic, purely decorative. google.com given as soure, hence no source given either. Ejfetters (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2009 (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:WolfmotherInt.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WolfmotherInt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chappy84 (notify | contribs).

back cover of an album used to simply show that a word is misspelled. Fails to significantly increase reader's understanding and so fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 12:36, 22 June 2009 (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:BabyItsYou.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences (crop/zoom and text changes) can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:38, 22 June 2009 (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:Heavy Metal FAKK2 OST.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heavy Metal FAKK2 OST.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ibaranoff24 (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:39, 22 June 2009 (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:Werbistdu.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Werbistdu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Samuel Blanning (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:39, 22 June 2009 (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:Megaherz-Zwei.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Megaherz-Zwei.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by King nothing (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:39, 22 June 2009 (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:FreakofNature alternative.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FreakofNature alternative.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Guylikeu (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:40, 22 June 2009 (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:Uadvd.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uadvd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Liyah lover01 (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:40, 22 June 2009 (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:XTC as The Dukes of Stratosphear - 25 O'Clock.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:XTC as The Dukes of Stratosphear - 25 O'Clock.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Memphisto (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the uploader of the image I would like to point out that the "small differences" help to illustate in the article that the album is now credited to 'XTC as The Dukes of Stratosphear', and its placement in Infobox Album helps to explain the articles inclusion in the XTC chronology. Memphisto (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The small differences are of such a minor nature, particularly in thumbnail form, that the images are practically identical. "helping to illustrate the article" is not an argument that meets the NFCC requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 06:01, 29 June 2009 (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 just a little while uk 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Janet jackson just a little while uk 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Reqluce (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:42, 22 June 2009 (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:Jalwtvpromo-small.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jalwtvpromo-small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick2341 (notify | contribs).

rather pointless image of a cd-single. Adds nothing significant to the article and, in my view, nothing except a bit of decoration. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 12:43, 22 June 2009 (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:U9louuop.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:U9louuop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kekkomereq4 (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 22 June 2009 (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:All Nite Dont Stop-Front.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:All Nite Dont Stop-Front.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PiperHalliwell9673 (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in two articles with an existing very similar images. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:45, 22 June 2009 (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.

Johnny Eck pics

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 all (manual closure to avoid confusing bot) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eckhardt Twins.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NileQT87 (notify | contribs).

File:Johnny Eck & Rajah Raboid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NileQT87 (notify | contribs).

File:Conductor Johnny Eck.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NileQT87 (notify | contribs).

The article on Johnny Eck currently has five non-free images to show the person at various phases of his career and doing various tricks. I belive that using all five is a violation of WP:NFCC#3. I'd recommend keeping the infobox image (for identification) and the handstand picture (to show what words along cannot convey), but deleting these three. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:45, 22 June 2009 (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:Don't Open 'Til It's Doomsday 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: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Don't Open 'Til It's Doomsday cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AlienRage (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:46, 22 June 2009 (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:1967 - The Supremes Sing Holland-Dozier-Holland -Enhanced by Jonathan Gardner-.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1967 - The Supremes Sing Holland-Dozier-Holland -Enhanced by Jonathan Gardner-.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JonathanLGardner (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:47, 22 June 2009 (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:XTC as The Dukes of Stratosphear - Psonic Psunspot.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. Peripitus' assessment seems accurate to me... the changes are very minor and can be described easily in text. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:XTC as The Dukes of Stratosphear - Psonic Psunspot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Memphisto (notify | contribs).

additional non-free image in an article with an existing very similar image. The small differences can easily be described with text alone. As replaceable with a free alternative (text in this case) the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the uploader of the image I would like to point out that the "small differences" help to illustate in the article that the album is now credited to 'XTC as The Dukes of Stratosphear', and its placement in Infobox Album helps to explain the articles inclusion in the XTC chronology. Memphisto (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2009 (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:Penelope-pepperpot-quarter-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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Penelope-pepperpot-quarter-1-.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carsie100 (notify | contribs).

Copyvio and Orphan Shem (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2009 (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:250th Air Defense Missile Brigade.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:250th Air Defense Missile Brigade.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Buttons (notify | contribs).

PNG version on Commons Papa November (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (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:333rd Engineering Battalion.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:333rd Engineering Battalion.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Buttons (notify | contribs).

PNG version on commons Papa November (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2009 (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:3rd KOV Brigade.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:3rd KOV Brigade.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Buttons (notify | contribs).

PNG version at Commons Papa November (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (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:4th KOV Brigade.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:4th KOV Brigade.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Buttons (notify | contribs).

PNG version at Commons Papa November (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2009 (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:98th Air Base.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:98th Air Base.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Buttons (notify | contribs).

PNG version at Commons Papa November (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2009 (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:ES wire NE.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ES wire NE.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Omegatron (notify | contribs).

Universally replaced by SVG version Papa November (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2009 (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:Konjickisteg1904.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Konjickisteg1904.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cinoeye (notify | contribs).

PNG version at commons Papa November (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2009 (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:Resadiye.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taken from a book not in the Public Domain, specifically p. 598 of British Battleships by Dr. Oscar Parkes, first published in 1957. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 21:08, 22 June 2009 (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:LeToya - She Ain't Got... (Explicit Version cover).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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LeToya - She Ain't Got... (Explicit Version cover).png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JonathanLGardner (notify | contribs).

Additional non-free cover for the article She Ain't Got... which already has an almost identical non-free image. THe only changes (addition of a warning label that I can see) can easily be described with non-copyrighted text and as such this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 21:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Pointless. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 22:09, 22 June 2009 (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:CherryCokeBottle.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 to delete. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A wikipedian could take a free photo of this type of Coke. Even if the label is copyrighted we don't need to have a second layer of nonfreeness (i.e. the photographer's rights) as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fundamentally disagree with this line of reasoning. The nominator is putting forward an ideological debate that is unnecessary and using conclusions that are patently incorrect. There are no photographer rights to contend with because the object of the photo is itself copyrighted, therefore there is no mysterious layer of additional "nonfreeness" (whatever that is). A photographer holds no rights or license to an image which contains copyrighted material, lest that inclusion is incidental. The original photo was commissioned by Coke and released by them for the express purpose of the use herein. The image is of satisfactory quality and any replacement would be an embarrassment and a waste of time.--Jeff (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the image is non-free either way. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2009 (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.

files