Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 1

< July 31	August 2 >

August 1

File:Tazio2.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:T-shirt4.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The-banana.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, too low res to be useful, possibly a copyvio B (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete the image description seems to admit it's copyvio. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thunderballswoo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thilo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, uploaded for deleted article B (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Topless24.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING! NSFW! Orphaned photo of a topless woman, user's only contribution is to upload this photo and add it several times to Toplessness. I'm not especially thrilled about simply accepting explicit photos from non-regulars without documentation. Sure, AGF, but for all we know, this could be a professional image or a bitter person uploading a photo of their ex. If someone has some strong desire to keep this image (which, keep in mind, it has been here for 4.5 years without being used), and you want to move it to Commons and they will take it (and they are pretty good about keeping new sexually explicit photos to a minimum) okay, fine, whatever, do it, but I don't especially like the idea of hosting this. B (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort or Discomfort is not a valid deletion criteria. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has no unrelated contributions. On what basis are we to accept that the license is legitimate as opposed to a an anonymous person uploading a photo they found on the internet? --B (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. First, Commons already has enough images of topless women to be sufficient for educational purposes. Second, as B said, this may well be a copyvio. I'm generally inclined to be suspicious of images which are the users' only contribution, because the user probably isn't too familiar with Wikipedia policy and image copyright law. Since the image isn't in use anyway, delete it to be on the safe side. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drilnoth. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Townsendsextracurricular.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. B (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trashinals Pittsburgh Apr 2005 012.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, too blurry to be of any encyclopedic value B (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tinakarol10.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, image marked with name of source website so license is dubious B (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GN Empire Builder combined.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. These "drumheads" are neither the subject of critical commentary, nor would the absence of these non-free images be detrimental to the understanding of the concept. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The drumheads show the historical origins of the Empire Builder line. Furthermore, the To-Do list for that article included adding the train's historic logo. Those drumheads fulfill that need. ----DanTD (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do they show that? Right now, they do not. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They show it as a Great Northern train. How hard is that to figure out? ----DanTD (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a non-free picture to understand that it used to be a Great Northern train. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody obviously disagrees with you. Don't delete are way out of a content dispute. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of you. Comment on content, please, not contributors. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the Amtrak's Empire Builder logo, you should have the original GN one as well. I'm not willing to delete the Amtrak one because it's contemporary. ----DanTD (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this logo does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the train route. If we need to convey that it is/was a Great Northern train, just say that in text. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If we delete the GN logo, we're going to have to delete File:Empire Builder logo.jpg as well. ----DanTD (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OP-12028.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 ⚡ 19:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. This specific photo is not the subject of critical commentary. In addition, the absence of this photo would not be detrimental to the understanding of the concept, as this article is about a route, and not about specific rolling stock. I'm sure that the rolling stock used on this route has changed many times over the years. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The image coveres the history of the route and the type of locomotives used when the Empire Builder was originally established by the Great Northern Railway. Furthermore if you look at the to-do list for the article, it includes adding a photo or two of the train in action, both in GN and Amtrak eras. This image fulfills the first half of this request. ----DanTD (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To-do lists cannot override policy. One can use any free photo of the same type of locomotive to show what kind of equipment was used on the Empire Builder. It does not need to be specifically on that route. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only if you build a time machine and head for anytime between the late-1920's and World War II. And it does have to be on this route, because the image is for this route. ----DanTD (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any free picture of the area along the route will suffice for that, and any free picture of the applicable rolling stock will suffice for that to show the route and show the rolling stock. It is not necessary to show a non-free image to understand this concept. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Meets WP:NFCC#8 -- educational and the best image we have so far. If people think a better image exist, go find it and get a consensus for it. Don't delete a picture someone to time out of their life to go find in good faith. Stomping on sand castles is easier than building them, more fun too-- but deletions don't educate. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There are lots of images that are "educational and the best image we have so far" that still fail non-free content criteria and get deleted. Additionally, I ask you: how does it meet WP:NFCC#8? You failed to explain that part. Just saying it doesn't make it so, or else I'd be 6'2" and drive a Ferrari right now. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any other free picture of the area along the route or of the rolling stock will not suffice, because it won't be relevant, and is unlikely to be historically accurate. By your standard I could go to some trolley museum in Connecticut, take a picture of some radnom streetcar, and add it to an article on the Third Avenue Line in Manhattan claiming this was or is a Third Avenue Line trolley. ----DanTD (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It may meet NFCC#8 but it fails NFCC#1, there could be a free use image made, it is not irreplaceable. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A free image of the rolling stock (somewhere else if necessary) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose of showing what the rolling stock looked like. The caption can clearly explain that it is a photo taken on a different line. Readers will still get the same benefit. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, any free rolling stock somewhere else would just be any free rolling stock somewhere else. ----DanTD (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any free rolling stock would be just any free rolling stock, and using just any free photo of a train would be incorrect. Using a free photo of the correct type of rolling stock is perfectly acceptable, even if it is in a different location. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo GETCO.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, certainly looks like a fair use logo. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of permission. The uploader doesn't claim to be the copyright holder, so I've tagged it with {{npd}} as well. Nyttend (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MorgansRaidBrandenburgMarke.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purely an image quality issue. Although the photograph shows original text in the USA, where sadly there's no FOP for text, there's no issue with this being a derivative work: the historical marker was set up in 1976 without a copyright notice, so the text itself is {{PD-US-no notice}}. I'm requesting deletion because File:Brandenburg Morgan marker.jpg depicts the same historical marker with substantially better quality, and unlike this one, that image is already on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if the image is deleted, but to me, this image to be deleted is far easier to read than the one suggested to be kept. What does FOP mean? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old Adult Swim Logo.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible quality image, only used for decorative purposes in the article. Image uploader has edit-warred to keep it in the article after having it removed by multiple editors. It fails WP:NFCC#8, in my opinion. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it should be used is debatable, but surely this is {{PD-textlogo}}? –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, as it's set in a circle. However, the image is not being used in an infobox - it's just randomly stuck into the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

..."or simple geometric shapes". It's covered; read the template. Regardless, I'd say ~~delete~~ per Nyttend because of the low quality, just not because of licensing status. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted. Keep until a higher quality version is found or created, and retag as {{PD-textlogo}}. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I lean toward thinking this to be PD-textlogo, but I could create a better-quality version of the same logo with Microsoft Paint in two minutes; there's absolutely no reason to keep an image of this non-quality. Nyttend (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the image is not their for "decorative purposes" nor is it "randomly stuck into the article", it is used to help illustrate the stylistic history of Adult Swim. Using former logos to illustrate the network's history is often used on other also used for Comedy Central,Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, TNT, etc. PS the only users to have an issue with this image in the article was MikeWazowski and JJ98, I wouldn't be referring to 2 people as "multiple editors" 20:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The horrible quality makes it particularly useless. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bad image quality, perhaps, but at least one editor makes a valid point that future editors should have access to it. ---Alecmconroy (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the quality leaves much to be desired, I don't see why this logo needs to be deleted, I agree with Drilnoth that this leans towards PD-textlogo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soggybread (talk • contribs) 09:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TKOKTschoolbadge.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is user-created, unencyclopedic. If it isn't, non-free and orphaned. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamid Ashraf teeghi.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a discussion with the uploader in February at Talk:Hamid_Ashraf. The story regarding this image kept changing: they held the copyright, it was public domain, it came from a (unspecified) website, they "knew for sure that it was found when the Shah was toppled" etc. I really have no idea what the true status of this image is but the copyright is definitely not held by Gmotamedi as it states. Sitush (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:THE-MENTALIST-Strawberries-and-Cream-Parts-1-and-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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not even a caption, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless pseudo-FUR ("to illustrate the article") Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the only problem is that a contemporary TV still is fair use? Good to know that in 95 years the article can finally look right? But if we want to cover media this side of 2100, fair use is allowed to illustrate the article. Read NFCC #8. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thementalistpilot.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 ⚡ 19:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Merely shows a random portrait of the main protagonist, as such redundant to another image we already have in this protagonist's own article. Otherwise no discernible function for the article, not embedded in analytical commentary, purely decorative infobox use. Meaningless pseudo-FUR. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ditto from above. So, the only problem is that a contemporary TV still is fair use? Good to know that in 95 years the article can finally look right? But if we want to cover media this side of 2100, fair use is allowed to illustrate the article. Read NFCC #8. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katharinarademacher.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 22:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mfac.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lewisite structure.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, obsolete by File:Lewisite.svg, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 22:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A commons version in svg format already exists. ----DanTD (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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