Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 14

< March 13	March 15 >

March 14

File:BUSM 1989 Queens Award for Technology R&D department.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 05:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image which doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed from the article. Thanks for your time on this. JRPG (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator that this doesn't add essential understanding so fails NFCC criterion 8. -- Big Dom 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC#8.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 21:54, 21 March 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:Mani Madhava Chakyar Award.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author of this photo is not given. OTRS approval to be obtained Vssun (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned that, the image is from the uploader's private collection. It is not clear, whether it is photographed by him. --Vssun (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per File talk:Mani Madhava Chakyar Award.jpg, in which the author says that it was taken by a family member, not by him. No evidence that copyright holder wishes to release rights. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nyttend – no evidence of permission to use this picture. -- Big Dom 20:26, 19 March 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:CityChicagoMontage.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, clearly problems with NFCC in using a non-free image in a montage like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a FU image is unjustifiable here. The particular FU image (of the fountain) is not necessary in this context and so may not be used as FU. ÷seresin 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Montage is made up of images sourced entirely from Commons and Wikipedia and is licensed appropriately. Not sure why there is a fair use template for the Crown Fountain article, since the picture isn't even used on that page. With respect to the "problem" picture (File:Crown fountain.jpg), I think this is more a case of the uploader not fully understanding image licensing and adding an FU template despite it being his/her own work. -- Big Dom 20:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a montage using only free images should be possible. PhilKnight (talk) 22:53, 22 March 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:Crown fountain.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused FU image. It cannot be added to the page for which it was intended, as another FU image of comparable merit is included and use of this one as well would violate NFCC.3a If the other image is inferior to this one (I do not care either way), then delete the other one and replace it with this. ÷seresin 06:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, other image is better, and neither is better than the other for fair-use reasons. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the user actually did create this picture themselves, I can't work out why there is an FU template; surely he/she should have licensed it PD or CC. I suspect that the user just didn't understand images properly. -- BigDom 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it has to do with copyright on the fountain itself, rather than the photograph. ÷seresin 20:25, 20 March 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:Indigo CRT iMac 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

low quality orphan IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful because of blurriness. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blurriness is unacceptable. It looks like it was taken using a cell phone camera, in dim lighting. PleaseStand ^(talk) 01:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too poor quality to be of any use. -- Big Dom 20:57, 19 March 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:Itsukushima torii critique.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned and i don't think it should be moved to commons IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but for copyright reasons — it doesn't attribute the image used as its source. If not for that, I'd say move to Commons, since it appears to be a useful photography teaching tool. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Orphaned and has copyright issues. -- Big Dom 20:33, 19 March 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:Khushboo Mirza.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, not at all clear what use there could be. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, was uploaded for use at Khushboo Mirza (see AFD). Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Orphaned picture only ever used in a deleted article. -- Big Dom 20:57, 19 March 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:EST-BTR-80.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This picture was uploaded without any source, under the dual license {{PD-EE}} and GFDL (how can it be both, I wonder). The picture does not seem to meet any of the conditions of PD-EE and no reason is mentioned as to why it should be under GFDL. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Image cannot be both PD and GFDL and there is no sourcing to clarify either way; copyright status remains unclear. -- Big Dom 21:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source to verify PD-EE.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 07:25, 21 March 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:Tenley-Albright-1953.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No proper source, and fails WP:NFCC#1 in Tenley Albright and WP:NFCC#8 in 1956 Winter Olympics. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Orphaned FU image; fails NFCC criterion 7. -- Big Dom 20:56, 19 March 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:BrandonBlair.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 05:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BrandonBlair.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Necropolis Pictures (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (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 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:10, 14 March 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:BrandonBoydsmile.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 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BrandonBoydsmile.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Circamaniac9 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (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 14:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:17, 14 March 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:Brandonmyers.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 05:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brandonmyers.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brandon W. Myers (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal graphics. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (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 14:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:17, 14 March 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:Brandonpicture.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 05:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brandonpicture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Artietsmitw (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (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 14:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Orphaned personal picture; no value. -- Big Dom 20:54, 19 March 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:British Empire Anachronous 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: Keep. PhilKnight (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As worded by an anon, "colours are too close together, a better image already exists regarding this topic with more defined colours". I have no opinion in the matter, this is a technical listing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No real reason for deletion. Maybe WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IDONTCARE IJA (talk) 14:40, 14 March 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:British Empire Anachronous 6.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. PhilKnight (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As worded by an anon, "inaccurate, China was an invasion and not an imperial claim". I have no opinion in the matter, this is a technical listing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No real reason for deletion. Maybe WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IDONTCARE IJA (talk) 14:41, 14 March 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:British Empire Anachronous New.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. PhilKnight (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As worded by an anon, "mistakes included: Vancouver Island, Mississippi river, Oregon Territory not included, among others". I have no opinion in the matter, this is a technical listing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is getting a bit silly now, there is no real reason for deletion of all these images IJA (talk) 14:44, 14 March 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:British Empire Threw Out History.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. PhilKnight (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As worded by an anon, "redundant image which this one does not show colonial boundries". I have no opinion in the matter, this is a technical listing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reasons why it should be deleted, it just shows territories controlled by the UK/GB throughout history. IJA (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason for this to go. It is a technical map of value. Outback the koala (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: properly licensed map, has good value and could theoretically be used in articles about the British Empire. -- Big Dom 21:06, 19 March 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:British Empire anachronous complete III.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As worded by an anon, "redundant image of over 20 copies". I have no opinion in the matter, this is a technical listing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:30, 14 March 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:British Empire anachronous complete.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As worded by an anon, "redundant image". I have no opinion in the matter, this is a technical listing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 14 March 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:British Empire anachronous.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As worded by an anon, "This image is redundant and is a copy of a better image with more distinct colours". I have no opinion in the matter, this is a technical listing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:32, 14 March 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:British Empire.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As worded by an anon, "File is extremely inaccurate, is unsourced and misleading". I have no opinion in the matter, this is a technical listing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:33, 14 March 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:CALDERON.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source unclear, no author, currency-license Hekerui (talk) 16:39, 14 March 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:Casey image.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, image not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Hekerui (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: orphaned personal image, no value to Wikipedia. -- Big Dom 21:41, 19 March 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:Chosen Hill School King.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, image not realistically useful for an educational purpose Hekerui (talk) 17:21, 14 March 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:Chrisinstudio.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image uploaded for a Chris Frangou hoax page, uploader blocked, image has no educational value Hekerui (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no encyclopedic value, only ever used on a deleted page. -- Big Dom 21:43, 19 March 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:FranklinMountains6k.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 17:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unacceptably small, no discernable detail. PleaseStand ^(talk) 01:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: far too low resolution to be of any encyclopedic value. -- Big Dom 21:44, 19 March 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:ChihuahuanDesertPlants.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. PhilKnight (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 17:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The file is in use. What would keep me from moving it to commons? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons. The image is small but is in use so Commons seems the best place for it. -- Big Dom 21:46, 19 March 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:Kenilworth Castle hall.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: Copied to Commons and deleted. James F. (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 17:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No foreseeable use? Really? Given that it was used, I find this a slightly confusing statement for you to make. :-) James F. (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is redundant to a Commons file, so delete it as a local copy. I'll add a proper tag, too. Hekerui (talk) 18:45, 14 March 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:Puyo-whatisagroup.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 17:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that this has been superseded by the SVGs in the article Puyo Puyo (series). I looked at the image description pages for the SVGs in that article, but I dispute how "own work" they are. For example, compare the arrangement of the Puyos in File:Puyo-whatisagroup.png to that in File:Puyo-guide-1.svg. The "foreseeable use" appears to be to document the creation of the SVG versions. What is the policy for when Alice uploads images to Wikipedia, and Bob redraws them as SVG and uploads them to Commons? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:50, 14 March 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:Killing Joke 1985.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator of discogs can't give permission for a free license for a 1985 promo shot of Killing Joke. Hekerui (talk) 20:47, 14 March 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:1972 Copout Logo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screen shots are not GFDL. Uh uh. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not a valid license. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator. -- Big Dom 21:56, 19 March 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:1972 Cop Out Podium.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. Article at AFD; screenshot being used to identify a living person. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending AFD outcome; appears to be used properly at the article. If the article is kept, deletion of this image would hurt the article; and if the article is deleted, this can be tagged for deletion as an orphaned nonfree image. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 15 March 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:Cop Out Celebs.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screen shots aren't creative commons. Uh uh. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not a valid license. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 15 March 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:Cop Out Celebs 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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. Screenshots aren't Creative Commons. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not a valid license. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, blatantly invalid license. -- Big Dom 20:44, 19 March 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:San Jeronimo Seal.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City seal invented by user, not official. Hekerui (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is the type of original image prohibited by the relevant policy. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unofficial city seal, violates WP:OI -- Big Dom 20:45, 19 March 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:Escusanjerolosbarbo.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seal invented by user. Hekerui (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is the type of original image prohibited by the relevant policy. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This type of image is the exact reason we have WP:OI. -- Big Dom 20:43, 19 March 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:EMNAEBmovieposter.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User made film poster, uses film screenshot. Hekerui (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is the type of original image prohibited by the relevant policy. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be a violation of WP:OI and also has copyright issues as the image used in the poster is unsourced. -- Big Dom 20:41, 19 March 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:La Valentina MP.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 ⚡ 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo montage using promo images, not official. Hekerui (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are copyright problems because the images used in the montage are unsourced. -- Big Dom 20:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - use of copyrighted images for the montage.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 07:28, 21 March 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.