Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 16

< February 15	February 17 >

February 16

File:MeddleUScover-250.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. Image is same as File:MeddleCover.jpeg except with wording at the top and a slightly different color tone. A second image is not needed to explain the difference in the U.S. release of the album in this article. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:58, 16 February 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:Coal, Nick Beer Bong.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unecyclopedic, only used on a deleted article. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 22 February 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:Feds and Tylor.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unecyclopedic, only used on a deleted article. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 22 February 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:Fresno Tour (2006).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - a shot of a concert does not provide enough information to help reader's understanding of the subject, and given the number of cameras at a typical concert, a free image should be available. Mosmof (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image meets all the specifications on Wikipedia, and so there is no reason for deletion. It is part of the life history of the article that is prepared: Fresno Tour.*FranklinG* (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no proof of permission, could have been speedy'd Alan - talk 07:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contrary to FranklinG's claims, this fails the nonfree content criteria. Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8; I cannot see how the inclusion of this non-free image enhances reader understanding of the text. Also, as the Mosmof noted, a free image likely exists, so WP:NFCC#1 may not be met either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 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:Stonehenge (Music Video).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 - there are no arguments below that demonstrate how the image significantly increases reader's understanding (fails WP:NFCC#8) - Peripitus (Talk) 05:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, unremarkable music video screenshot Mosmof (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image meets all the specifications on Wikipedia, and so there is no reason for deletion. It is part of the life history of the article that is prepared: Stonehenge.*FranklinG* (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question We permit screenshots for movies; since this song is part of a music video, what's the difference? I'm not familiar enough with the situation to advocate either keeping or deleting. Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep We do allow limited numbers of screenshots from copyrighted music videos (we even have a template for it – {{Non-free music video screenshot}}. However, with non-free screenshots (whether for music videos, video games, or films), it is particularly important for the uploader to include a detailed fair-use rationale. The current rationale is rather lacking. I do not support deletion at this time, because I don't think the WP:NFCC#8 argument is especially convincing here; that said, I have no prejudice against renomination if the fair-use rationale is not improved in a reasonable amount of time. The uploader may wish to use WP:FURG and compare with, say, File:PokerFaceVideo.jpg#Rationale for use on Wikipedia: when doing this. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of explanation as to how this significantly adds to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 24 February 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:Alguém Que Te Faz Sorrir (Music Video).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 - there are no arguments below that demonstrate how the image significantly increases reader's understanding (fails WP:NFCC#8) - Peripitus (Talk) 05:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-significant screenshot, fails WP:NFCC#8 Mosmof (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image meets all the specifications on Wikipedia, and so there is no reason for deletion. It is part of the life history of the article that is prepared: Alguém Que Te Faz Sorrir.*FranklinG* (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom Alan - talk 07:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question We permit screenshots for movies; since this song is part of a music video, what's the difference? I'm not familiar enough with the situation to advocate either keeping or deleting. Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep We do allow limited numbers of screenshots from copyrighted music videos (we even have a template for it – {{Non-free music video screenshot}}. However, with non-free screenshots (whether for music videos, video games, or films), it is particularly important for the uploader to include a detailed fair-use rationale. The current rationale is rather lacking. I do not support deletion at this time, because I don't think the WP:NFCC#8 argument is especially convincing here; that said, I have no prejudice against renomination if the fair-use rationale is not improved in a reasonable amount of time. The uploader may wish to use WP:FURG and compare with, say, File:PokerFaceVideo.jpg#Rationale for use on Wikipedia: when doing this. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of explanation as to how this significantly adds to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 24 February 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:Pólo (Music Video).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 - there are no arguments below that demonstrate how the image significantly increases reader's understanding (fails WP:NFCC#8) - Peripitus (Talk) 05:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-significant screenshot, fails WP:NFCC#8 Mosmof (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image meets all the specifications on Wikipedia, and so there is no reason for deletion. It is part of the life history of the article that is prepared: Pólo.*FranklinG* (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep We do allow limited numbers of screenshots from copyrighted music videos (we even have a template for it – {{Non-free music video screenshot}}. However, with non-free screenshots (whether for music videos, video games, or films), it is particularly important for the uploader to include a detailed fair-use rationale. The current rationale is rather lacking. I do not support deletion at this time, because I don't think the WP:NFCC#8 argument is especially convincing here; that said, I have no prejudice against renomination if the fair-use rationale is not improved in a reasonable amount of time. The uploader may wish to use WP:FURG and compare with, say, File:PokerFaceVideo.jpg#Rationale for use on Wikipedia: when doing this. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of explanation as to how this significantly adds to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 24 February 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:Uma Música (Music Video).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 - there are no arguments below that demonstrate how the image significantly increases reader's understanding (fails WP:NFCC#8) - Peripitus (Talk) 05:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-significant screenshot, fails WP:NFCC#8 Mosmof (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image meets all the specifications on Wikipedia, and so there is no reason for deletion. It is part of the life history of the article that is prepared: Uma Música.*FranklinG* (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep We do allow limited numbers of screenshots from copyrighted music videos (we even have a template for it – {{Non-free music video screenshot}}. However, with non-free screenshots (whether for music videos, video games, or films), it is particularly important for the uploader to include a detailed fair-use rationale. The current rationale is rather lacking. I do not support deletion at this time, because I don't think the WP:NFCC#8 argument is especially convincing here; that said, I have no prejudice against renomination if the fair-use rationale is not improved in a reasonable amount of time. The uploader may wish to use WP:FURG and compare with, say, File:PokerFaceVideo.jpg#Rationale for use on Wikipedia: when doing this. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of explanation as to how this significantly adds to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 24 February 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:Alguém Que Te Faz Sorrir (Music Video 2).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 - there are no arguments below that demonstrate how the image significantly increases reader's understanding (fails WP:NFCC#8) - Peripitus (Talk) 05:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-significant screenshot, fails WP:NFCC#8 Mosmof (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image meets all the specifications on Wikipedia, and so there is no reason for deletion. It is part of the life history of the article that is prepared: Alguém Que Te Faz Sorrir.*FranklinG* (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep We do allow limited numbers of screenshots from copyrighted music videos (we even have a template for it – {{Non-free music video screenshot}}. However, with non-free screenshots (whether for music videos, video games, or films), it is particularly important for the uploader to include a detailed fair-use rationale. The current rationale is rather lacking. I do not support deletion at this time, because I don't think the WP:NFCC#8 argument is especially convincing here; that said, I have no prejudice against renomination if the fair-use rationale is not improved in a reasonable amount of time. The uploader may wish to use WP:FURG and compare with, say, File:PokerFaceVideo.jpg#Rationale for use on Wikipedia: when doing this. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of explanation as to how this significantly adds to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 24 February 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:Desde Quando Você Se Foi (Music Video).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 - there are no arguments below that demonstrate how the image significantly increases reader's understanding (fails WP:NFCC#8) - Peripitus (Talk) 05:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-significant screenshot, fails WP:NFCC#8 Mosmof (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image meets all the specifications on Wikipedia, and so there is no reason for deletion. It is part of the life history of the article that is prepared: Desde Quando Você Se Foi.*FranklinG* (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep We do allow limited numbers of screenshots from copyrighted music videos (we even have a template for it – {{Non-free music video screenshot}}. However, with non-free screenshots (whether for music videos, video games, or films), it is particularly important for the uploader to include a detailed fair-use rationale. The current rationale is rather lacking. I do not support deletion at this time, because I don't think the WP:NFCC#8 argument is especially convincing here; that said, I have no prejudice against renomination if the fair-use rationale is not improved in a reasonable amount of time. The uploader may wish to use WP:FURG and compare with, say, File:PokerFaceVideo.jpg#Rationale for use on Wikipedia: when doing this. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of explanation as to how this significantly adds to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 24 February 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:Akishino in Hague with Dutch PM August2009.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 ⚡ 05:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Japanese Imperial Family members make public appearances, not sure how the image meets WP:NFCC#1, and unclear what is exactly meant by how the image is necessary to "convey the impression intended by Kunaicho". Mosmof (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image is beeing used in conjuction with coverage of the specific incidence where the image was taken, and for that it's probably not replacable. OTOH that coverage is only as an example of Akishinos official functions, so it's a bit coatrack'y. Taemyr (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, there's no significance to the image itself or the event shown in the image and there's no mention of either in the article body. --Mosmof (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "For example, they traveled to the Netherlands in August 2009 to commemorate 400 years of trade between Holland and Japan." So the event shown is mentioned in the article.Taemyr (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I meant was that particular moment isn't discussed - you wouldn't need to illustrate the trip in general because the text does an adequate job. I hope that makes sense. --Mosmof (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete WP:NFCC#1 would be passed because (a) a free equivalent of this sort of photograph is highly unlikely, and (b) the encounter depicted does not occur frequently, at least not with the same Dutch PM, so again, a free equivalent likely cannot be created. However, this is all contingent on the necessity of having a photograph of this encounter or a similar one in the article. The fair-use rationale is unclear as to why, exactly, this image is necessary or why this photograph is an especially good example of "Kunaicho." WP:NFCC#8 is not met at this time. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - living subject, so replaceable. PhilKnight (talk) 01:45, 24 February 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:Pterodroma madeira.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 KimvdLinde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. Taken from here; wiki version just modified to remove the text on the original photo. Strictly speaking this is CSD#F9, but placed here due to the editing of the photo. • Rabo³ • 06:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy vio, speedied. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:25, 16 February 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:1996CupWinnersCup.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8, image not subject of critical commentary Mosmof (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure about the validity of the Mosmof's rationale for this one, but I recommend deletion anyway because WP:NFCC#10c is blatantly violated. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 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:Bahamas Bananaquit.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 KimvdLinde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. Taken by Mr. Joseph Burgess, and originates approximately 3/4 down this page (direct link to large version here). Strictly speaking this is CSD#F9, but placed here as its placement on the original page requires a brief explanation. • Rabo³ • 06:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy vio, speedied. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:24, 16 February 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:Ajo393.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 File:Ajo393.jpg, Delete the Rest. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating File:Cms256.jpg and File:Hev606.jpg.

Orphaned, and potential copyright issue - not sure what the copyright status is on Canadian license plates. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple — keep Ajo393 and delete the others. While Canadian law may be different, under US law you can't copyright simple text: US law permits anyone to draw a rough rectangle and write "NEWFOUNDLAND/AJO-393/AND LABRADOR" on it in any colors they want. Unless we can confirm that this is not copyrighted under Canadian law, this should be tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}}. However, the other two include designs that may well be copyrighted, so delete them unless we can find information to say that they're not copyrighted. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep File:Ajo393 and delete the others, per Nyttend. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 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:AmanjolovKurganIssykInscription.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: Keep. PhilKnight (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, and kind of speculative on what the translation is based on file description (thus potentially making this original research). SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the translation is taken from A. Amanjolov's History and Theory of Ancient Turkic Script, as you can see at the top of the image. It's original research, but reliably-published original research by a scholar. Except for the translation and the transliteration, this is a slavish reproduction of something far too old for copyright; the transliteration is a matter of facts (you mustn't be creative in transliteration), and surely two sentences of English text (the only creativity here) aren't enough to attract copyright protection. All this being said, it's still orphaned, but it could be used at Issyk kurgan, where a similar image is currently in use. Nyttend (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the derrogatory hypothetical and speculative were added in 2006 without any references. Issyk inscription is a Rosetta stone of the Scythian world, the inscription belongs to everybody as a precious gift, Prof. Amanjolov is a highest and recognized specialist on runiform writing, and the only other published reading by Harmatta did not include neither transcription nor transliteration, and therefore is not illustrative, and is unverifiable. Please note that a reading of a unique artifact is tentative by its very nature, and so was Rosetta stone too. The image was created for and posted on Issyk kurgan, but was repeatedly deleted from the article. The low quality comment is fair, if anybody can improve the quality, I will be happy to provide a pdf 400 px much better quality image. The inscription is so authentic, taken from a famous undamaged Scythian kurgan, that it also deserves its own page, just like the "Rosetta stone". No element of the illustration is an original research, they all are depictions of the material presented in the reference publication, only the art is solely mine. Barefact (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend. Not derivative of a copyrighted work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 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:Colby at Mel's.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this would be permitted as part of a userpage, but the user removed it last June. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 22 February 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:Mexican Dance Ensemble.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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unusued article whose only purpose was to illustrate an article deleted for lack of notability. Psychonaut (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 22 February 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:Risley-shield-stonework.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: Withdrawn by nominator. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not clear whether uploader was photographer Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is perfectly clear that the uploader indicated that he is the risley resident who took the photo, that is how the comma attaches extra information.--Crossmr (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw the user added that he took the photo after my original nomination. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 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:Welcome to Firhouse.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic. Nymf _talk/contr. 20:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The image is being used on an active User's User page. Because of this, I'd normally say Keep. But the file doesn't have a source or a license and I have tagged it as such.--Rockfang (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But then again, the talk page isn't his personal webpage to use for advertisement and what not. Nymf _talk/contr. 02:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I forgot about that aspect.--Rockfang (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete On the one hand, the image is obviously user-created and added to a userpage in good faith; in that light, the speedy deletion tag seems to blow things out of proportion a tad. On the other hand, the user seems to have uploaded the image for self-promotional purposes, which isn't okay. Ultimately, WP:NOT, WP:CSD, and WP:C outweigh WP:TIND, WP:BITE, and WP:EM – sorry to the image's creator. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:58, 23 February 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.