Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

February 8

File:Jullleithef.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer orphaned, but is it free? Probably not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 10 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:Julleuchter1936.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer orphaned, but is it free? Probably not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 10 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:Xmass book drawing.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, possible copyvio, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:00, 8 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:Newrune.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 01:29, 9 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:Amark.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 and Wrong Forum. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You really had no idea what to do with these did you? You put two up on PUF and then 1 here for deletion without indicating you put one up for deletion. So I'm going to copy what I wrote on PUF. This would be covered under german copyright law during world war 2. This comes from an article talking about porcelain made up until 1945, which puts it at 65 years old. I'm not sure how that applies to current copyright law. The article on German_copyright_law indicates that prior to 1965 copyright was for life + 8 years, it also states that logos however were not automatically covered under this law. Since the threshold for gaining copyright on these is high, I think the burden would need to be on you to show this ever actually achieved copyright protection, since it is more likely they didn't than did.--Crossmr (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the SS was determined to be a criminal organisation by the Nuremberg trials, so I think the SS symbol is public domain. I doubt the gothic style text is copyrighted, so my guess is this can be considered a free image. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 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:Julleuchterphoto.jpg

Orphaned, Low Quality, possible copyvio, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to commons. A template exists for that and they are all licensed appropriately as such. No reason for mass nominations.--Crossmr (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have tagged with {{Move to Commons}}, but per the quality and professional style lighting, the file appears to be a copyright violation. 5 nominations is hardly what I would call a "mass nominations". -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of Egypt governorates.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:21, 8 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:M. Abuhelwa's signature.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. The user is using File:M. Abuhelwa's signature.JPG, an identical copy of the image nominated here. This image was orphaned, thus deleted. — ξ ^xplicit 19:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a user's signature used on an active user's user page. The image is freely licensed.--Rockfang (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Signatures are not copyrightable on WikiCommons or Wikipedia. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:36, 10 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:Ashurbanipal.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no freedom of panorama exemption exists for this 1988 US sculpture per Commons:COM:FOP#United States. Sculpture details here. ww2censor (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This photo greatly contributes to the quality of the Ashurbanipal article. I see no reason to delete it, on the contrary - this is what makes Wikipedia great. Deleting the image will degrade the quality of this Wikipedia article. John Hyams (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, image of copyrighted sculpture (artist born 1947) with no non-free rationale presented or plausible based on current use. Ashurbanipal is an ancient historical figure, and the article has photographs of ancient, public domain sculptures depicting him. The article does not even mention that sculpture outside of the image and its caption, so there is no commentary indicating its significance to the article's subject other than as merely another depiction. May be appropriate in an article on the sculptor, if notable, or of course on the sculpture itself, but neither article exists at present. postdlf (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? A statue standing publicly on the street may be copyrighted work, but the photo of that statue on the street is originally mine. I OWN the copyright to the photo, which also includes the pavement, the building behind the statue, and the position the photo is taken. I am the creator of the photo. The name of the creator of the statue can and should be mentioned, of course, but once the statue is put on the street it is regarded as public scenery. Moreover, the picture shows how the ancient history of Ashurbanipal has survived the generations and has reached in artistic form to the city of San Francisco. John Hyams (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if a statue is placed publicly outside on the street, it becomes part of the street. The street is not copyrighted. There's a difference between taking the picture inside a museum, or taking it on the street. This applies to all the statues in the world placed on open streets or in public places. John Hyams (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You own the copyright to your photo, but to the extent it incorporates elements of another copyrighted work, those incorporated elements (which you did not create) are governed by the rights of another. What that means is the copyright owner of the sculpture legally can't use your photo without your permission or a fair use claim, and you also can't use the sculpture as it is depicted in your photo without permission or a fair use claim. So yes, you could completely crop out or paint over the sculpture and have a completely free image, but so long as the copyrighted sculpture is included, it is a derivative work of that sculpture.

Regarding the sculpture, under American law, it doesn't matter that the sculpture is placed in a public place. It retains its copyright regardless of where it is physically located. Other countries have different laws regarding publicly displayed sculpture, but American law does not recognize freedom of panorama in this manner. I may agree with you that that's not good law, but that is the law. By contrast, American law does permit unrestricted photographs of the exterior of copyrighted architecture; some countries don't even permit that or recognize fair use.

So all of your arguments really imply a fair use claim, not any absolute right under American law to make and distribute photographs of copyrighted sculpture in public places. Which means that the use of your derivative photograph of a copyrighted sculpture on Wikipedia is governed by Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, which depends upon, but is stricter than, what fair use legally allows. So you need to frame your rationale for using the photograph in the article expressly in terms of the non-free content criteria, not as an abstract public policy argument, however sensible. postdlf (talk) 16:48, 9 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:1st Company Insignia.jpg

This image is being listed for deletion "en masse" along with all of the others uploaded by this user. The reason for this nomination is a little bit strange and, while it would usually be more appropriate to tag every image as lacking license information, I think it would be more disruptive to have an edit war with the uploader across 49 image pages. Every image HarryKG (talk · contribs) uploaded is lacking license information. Additionally, the source for every image lists himself as the creator of the work, but many of them are obviously screenshots, video caps, etc. I used AWB to tag each and every one of the images as lacking license info, however the uploader has gone back and removed quite a few of these tags, and has, in their place, added a description of the image. In no case, however, did the user actually add a license tag or provide any information about the images' copyright statuses. Therefore, the images still qualify for deletion as having no license information. But, like I said, I think it would be disruptive and tedious to go back and keep adding the no license tags back on every image page each and every time the uploader removes them. Therefore, unless appropriate license tags are added, I request all of these images be deleted. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As disruptive as it would be to remove in use images? I don't think so. Deletion isn't for clean-up. If the images are in use and appropriate, then fix them instead of deleting them because you don't want to deal with a difficult editor. There are procedures in place for doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure in this case would be speedy deletion of all files under one or more file-related CSDs and a block of the uploader until such time as he acknowledges that he understands the requirements for uploading images. I have deleted some under F4 (no license) and some under F9 (copyvio). I will probably delete more. I have only explicitly closed the FFDs where the CSD was not F4. Anomiebot will close the others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is that the wrong license is on the page and a proper license for their use exists and the use is appropriate, the proper procedure would be to fix that. Not delete the files because some user is "difficult".--Crossmr (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2nd Company Insignia.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion "en masse" along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:2nd Company of 3REI.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:2REI Legionnaires getting out of Combat helicopter.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: CSD F9, from here - credits 'RAIDS' magazine. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:2REI Legionnaires with special assault weapon.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: CSD F9 from here - credits 'RAIDS' magazine. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:2REI Legionnaires with VBL.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: CSD F9, from [1] which credits 'RAIDS' magazine. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason=Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:3rd and 4th Company PROTERRE.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:3rd Company Insignia.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Ariranga Govindasamy Pillay.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Bobby Baccalieri.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Boss of bosses.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A fair use and tag has been added and there is really no reason delete this anymore. Salavat (talk) 10:00, 9 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:Brainbench Website Photo Shot.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Brainbench.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Cassam Uteem.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: speedily deleted WP:CSDF#F9, from here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:CEA Badge.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Celebrity farm 2004 and 2005.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Celebrity farm 2010.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Command and Logistics company (CCL) Insignia.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Company of Command and Support.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Cross of Valor.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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:DeCavalcante Crime Family.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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Edith Piaf Milord.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Edith Piaf singing.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Flag of the legion.svg.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:General Alain Bouquin.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: speedily deleted, CSD F9, from here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Insignia of 1st Company.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Insignia of 2nd Company.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Insignia of 3rd Company.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Instruction and Base company Insignia.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Jake Amari.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Jerry Capeci.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Jonathan Banks.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Ken Wahl.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Lifeguard.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Louis Ferrante.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Mercenary Simon Mann.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Moe Greene.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:National Order of Merit for Officer.svg.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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Navin Ramgoolam.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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Paul Berenger.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: speedily deleted WP:CSD#F9: cropped from Xinhua image here apparently. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Rama Sithanen.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Serge Nubret.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: speedily deleted, WP:CSD#F9. Plainly from a film or TV show. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Sir Veerasamy Ringadoo.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Support company Insignia.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:The Decavalcante crime family ruling panel.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Tom Bower.jpeg.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Toni Kalem.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Tony Lip.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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is being listed for deletion “en masse” along with all of the others uploaded by this user. Please see the rationale for File:1st Company Insignia.jpg above. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:48, 8 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:Mulia Putra at Dec 2009.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. Blurpeace 09:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic personal picture. Blurpeace 06:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The image is being used on an active user's user page. The image is freely licensed.--Rockfang (talk) 01:41, 9 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:Zeige.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 06:30, 8 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:Fritz Weitzel.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) 11:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was previously closed as delete. Thanks to Rockfang for noticing the mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated. -- Linksnational (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The file is not orphaned. It is being used in Fritz Weitzel.--Rockfang (talk) 01:46, 9 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:Logo iRobot.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete image, superseded by SVG. Deletion does not break the attribution path of the logo. Blurpeace 07:04, 8 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:Alex Raymond (King Features).jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing known about the origin and copyright status of this image. Apparently, t was just copied from a tripod blog that was using it (but no longer exists). We need such information before claiming fair use. Damiens.rf 15:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That was a dead link. I have replaced it with a link that works. As clearly stated in both photo caption and picture page, this photo (perhaps the best b/w ever taken of Alex Raymond) was published in Famous Artists and Writers, a book created in 1949 by King Features Syndicate for sales and promotional purposes. Pepso2 (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For "sales and promotional purposes"? Why is it ok for use to use this image under fair use? I do understand the photo is good and we need one, but this is not enough to make a case for fair use. --Damiens.rf 14:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our educational remit will help us mount a fair use case in any court case. Is one pending? Hiding T 15:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A source has been provided that confirms the image is what it says it is. A non-free use rationale is already present on the image. As your concern was only regarding the insufficient source, I don't see any deletion rationale remaining here. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source link shows this image was used in a magazine. How is this helpful in building our rationale for using copyright material we don't know who the copyright holder is? --Damiens.rf 17:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would the rationale be affected either way, given that we know the source publication and even the company that published it? A scan from a published book is a scan from a published book regardless of whether rights to that book were or are currently owned by the original publisher (which we happen to know here), a subsequent corporate purchaser, the photographer, or Old Widow Raymond. I mean, if you know that information, go ahead and provide it, but it isn't necessary, and that information isn't always available. Rather than who owns it, it instead matters what the image is and where it was and can be found (i.e., was it a scan from a published book, a scan of an unpublished family snapshot, a screenshot from a theatrically-distributed film). See also this recent discussion, and this DRV (in which you participated). Or am I misunderstanding your point? postdlf (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would not matter if we were just writing an article about about the magazine itself, and used it as an illustration of the magazine (other transformative use scenarios are possible, of course). But we currently are simply taking a guy's picture that some magazine used and using it ourselves. We don't know if the magazine produced the image, paid someone to produce it, paid someone for a license to use it, asked someone for permission to use it for free under certain conditions.... the fact that the copyright holder (whoever it is) had not his interests hurt by the use of this picture on that magazine can not be extrapolated to the believe that our use here does not hurts his interest. That's why we need to know more about the image than just the fact that it once appear on Magazine M. --Damiens.rf 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a promotional book, not a magazine, published and distributed by a national newspaper syndicate to promote its featured talent. We have no reason to believe King Features Syndicate wasn't the author and owner of that photograph (it is not credited otherwise on the page where it is published). And even if that company was not the copyright holder, whether that holder got paid or gave the picture away as a gift is a completely separate question from who the holder is, and doesn't affect our non-free content analysis. You're basically asking for information on any commercial transaction underlying the publication of that photo, above and beyond a description of the image and publication itself. Whether not a current or prior copyright holder was a good businessman, fresh off the turnip truck, or a generous soul does not increase or diminish that image's copyright, fair use claims, or WP non-free use rationales, and it's ridiculous to even assume such transactions are typically available information. Can you point to a discussion or any instance on WP establishing that such information is necessary, above and beyond the source of the image? I've pointed to multiple recent discussions establishing that it is not. And once again, this is all tangential to your deletion rationale above, that the image origin and copyright status were unknown. That's no longer the case. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder is King Features Syndicate, the publishers of Alex Raymond's comic strip Flash Gordon. It shows Alex Raymond doing research, and was taken as part of a series of photographs depicting King's artists. I don't believe that the photographer was credited, but (as Postdlf writes), the unknown photographer is not important.
A photograph is clearly the best means to identify Raymond, but if it is desired I can also upload a self-portrait to be used as primary identification, and the photo can be moved down into the Flash Gordon section. ntnon (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Missing info has been supplied. There is no registry of copyrighted images like there are for films and for books. Who owns the rights to an image can only be determined by a court.
Incidentally, I think the photograph can and should be cropped to a tighter frame around the subject's head, if the sole encyclopedic purpose is to illustrate Raymond as a subject. Also, non-free images should generally not be uploaded at any larger size than they are to appear in the article. The less we use of the image and its creative composition and other elements the better, to minimize the portion of the work we use and reduce any potential effect on its commercial value. This one is already b&w, but making color photographs b&w where that would not detract from its encyclopedic function would also reduce our use of the creative elements in the original. I don't think we generally pay enough attention to those considerations. Instead we often focus simply on the binary question of whether we have a claim to use an image, when both non-free content policy and its legal underpinnings in fair use require us also to minimize our usage so it's tailored to our informational purpose. postdlf (talk) 16:23, 11 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:DougMacmillan.jpg

Template:Susbt:ffd top -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free image. Any image of this man before his 40 will be PD-Old. Damiens.rf 15:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - PD-Old refers to the death of the author, not the subject of the picture.--Rockfang (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Douglas Macmillan, he died in 1969, so that rather cuts against replaceability. I don't understand the rest of the nom's comment. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He was 40 years old in 1923. Any picture of him that has been published before that date will be PD. I'm sure there are some around. Replaceable does not means "available on google images". --Damiens.rf 14:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am fairly confident that none exist, having researched the man and found none. Please explain why you are so certain they do exist, and what proof you have. Hiding T 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a recognized presumption that free images of living people may be created or found. There is no such recognized presumption that free images of dead people who were alive prior to 1923 may be found. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I recognize no "recognized presumption"s you mention. We don't use non-free images when free ones are expected to exist, and this is the case here. For instance, we don't allow non-free images of U.S. politicians or military people because we know that some public domain official images are available somewhere. It's not reasonable to believe that no picture of this man was published before his 40s. --Damiens.rf 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not a good analogy, given that works of the U.S. government are always public domain by statute, regardless of when created or published, government photographs of U.S. federal (not state, mind you) politicians and U.S. military personnel are taken as a matter of common procedure, and the U.S. government maintains readily available archives. We don't know that any pictures of this man were likely published, or more important, that even if there were published photographs, that such published copies are readily available or still in existence. And I've seen no justification for presuming that in every case in which someone was living prior to 1923, or in this case specifically. If you want to determine a consensus for such a blanket presumption, you might want to start a general discussion elsewhere first to weigh the pros and cons, rather than just unilaterally asserting it in the middle of a deletion discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As long as we have admins capable of judging arguments on their own merits, we don't need a previous consensus for every specific case of a deletion nomination. --Damiens.rf 20:18, 9 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:Bill Finger by Jerry Robinson.jpg

Replaceable drawing. Damiens.rf 15:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is this image replaceable? Hiding T 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it's been shown that it's acceptable to illustrate this bio with a drawing, we must do that with a free drawing. Simple drawings like this are replaceable. --Damiens.rf 16:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though this comment post-dates the comment below, Hiding has clearly rebutted your claim that this image is replaceable with a free drawing. He correctly notes that it's impossible to create a free drawing of a dead man from a non-free image, as that would just be a non-free derivative work subject to the copyright of the original work that it was based upon. There is no recognized presumption applicable here that a free image of any sort exists or could be created of a dead subject. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By looking to many different images of the same person, you get what the person looks like. An skilled artist with this information can make a completely new drawing of the person (using different cloths, in a "neutral" straigh-to-the-camera look, and this work will not be a derivative of the previous images. This is not much different than reading a lot of copyrighted sources to write an article on Wikipedia. --Damiens.rf 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's very much different. You're rather simplifying the difficulty involved in making such a drawing, both in terms of creating an accurate drawing as a composite of others that is still substantially different from its sources, and in terms of reliably judging under copyright law that the drawing is sufficiently different from the sources it relied upon that it is not a derivative work (for what it's worth, I have a BFA and a law degree). So you're really inviting more serious problems than you're trying to solve. So even allowing such images is simply not the accepted practice on here, or on Commons for that matter, and every attempt I've seen in either forum to pass off user-created images that were at all based on copyrighted images has resulted in their deletion. It's best to have a prophylactic rule against such images, which, as I noted, would require both artistic expertise to create and legal expertise to evaluate in every instance, by comparing the image against all of its sources. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      So, everyone that makes and distributes a drawing of Harrison Ford, but had never seen the man in person (or in Wikipedia), is a copyright violator? In any case, the drawing we want as a replacement does not have to be "accurate", this the current one isn't either. --Damiens.rf 18:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The current one is by an artist notable enough to merit an article, which to some extent may belie concerns of accuracy, though I don't know of a reason to doubt that it's an accurate portrayal. As for your rhetorical question, such a Ford fanatic may be infringing copyright, they may have a fair use claim, but it's unlikely that they would develop a non-derivative, informative drawing based only on looking at copyrighted images. And, as I noted above, we really don't want to go down the rabbit hole of having to personally make the legal determination of what is and isn't a derivative illustration in each and every case. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        And why is it ok for us (ie, why is it fair use) to ignore this notable artist's rights over this image. Also, why is this notable artists depiction of the man necessary for the article? --Damiens.rf 20:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Asked and answered. And those are different questions than replaceability, which is the sole deletion rationale presented above. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, replaceability is hotly contested, no free images of Bill Finger exist, and no free one can be created since the man is dead and any drawing would therefore be created from a copyrighted image of the man and be subject to copyright. Hiding T 14:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with a shovel and camera can take a copyright free image of him, so a free equivalent is always available. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Jerry Robinson produced this drawing knowing Bill Finger (with whom he worked). Moreover, there are only two or three known photographs of Finger, and they are not of particularly high circulation or resolution (two can be seen here), so the liklihood of a photograph being found that would be better illustrate Finger is slim. The liklihood that a better provenanced drawing could be sourced or created in also very unlikely. In addition - not that it matters here, as Postdlf has noted - Robinson created this artwork for the sole purpose of depicting and identifying Finger, a very important figure, but one whose face is/was rarely seen. ntnon (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following Hiding, Postdlf and ntnon it should be kept, for now anyway unless a better image turns up. It is worth noting that the Dial B for Blog images have been deliberately given a sepia tint and made fuzzier (as can been seen with the image of Catherine Yronwode, as it is the same one we use here). So it is likely that these images exist in a larger and clearer format that is seen on those pages and the original image for this would be ideal. It'd be worth contacting the individual who runs the blog to ask them about the original image. It might be worth speaking to Catherine as she is an active editor here. I doubt any of this will yield results over night (or ever) but they are angles worth pursuing, until they turn something up though it seems the drawing is our best bet until then. (Emperor (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

File:Picken.jpg

Replaceable non-free image. Any picture of this lady before her 37 will be public domain in the U.S.. She was already a prolific author at that age. Damiens.rf 15:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~, subject is dead and replaceability has not been established. As above, the nom's comment seems based on the misapprehension that a photograph enters the public domain purely based on when it was taken. There are no guidelines or policies that I am aware of telling us to presume public domain photos are available just because a subject was living prior to 1923. postdlf (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need a guideline for everything (we don't have one explictly stating we can use non-free images for dead people either). I assert this images is replaceable because this woman was a prolific published writer at 1923, and it's not too much to expect that some photos of her were published at that time. Those photos are now PD. We just have to find them. --Damiens.rf 14:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notwithstanding your assertion, there is no such presumption recognized here. Find a free image of her and I'll gladly agree to delete this one. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not how we how here, sir. We don't have to find a free image to get a non-free deleted. We just have to point out that a free image can be reasonably obtained. --Damiens.rf 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a silly argument to say that a replaceable free image is available of a dead person, without coming up with one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Arthur Norton is mistaken, as WP:NFCC#Enforcement shows, but I'll do his homework for him this once: the frontispiece of Picken's 1918 Secrets of distinctive dress shows her, and in the period in which she was probably most active. The Cornell copy is blurry, but there is a clearer vwersion here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. Free image uploaded at commons:File:Mary Brooks Picken.jpg, and the non-free one replaced by this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent work; I retract my opposition to deletion. postdlf (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your not doing my homework, you are doing Damiens.rf's homework. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the section there on "burden of proof" shows, I am not. Still, it's a collaborative enterprise, and it is clearly beneficial to find a replacement. So I'll apologise for the sarcasm, but the message is the right one. Nominators do not need to find replacements themselves, only to have a reasonable case that a replacement can/does/will exist. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. Nice detective work. - PKM (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puget Systems Submerged.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free image of an existing object (and the article could do well without an image of this object, by the way). Damiens.rf 15:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - easily replaceable.--Rockfang (talk) 03:15, 9 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:Redgrave-Head.jpg

Non-free (although with a permissive license) picture of an existing object. Also, I'm not sure why the article needs this specific imagery anyway. Damiens.rf 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep website license allows wiki use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Photo © Stuckism 2004: may be used with credit as indicated on the web" equivalent to a free license (GFDL, CC or whatever other license is considered "free)? If it is, then the image is freely licensed and this FfD is irrelevant as a license problem is the only reason this would be deleted. If that qualification does not count as a free license, however, then this image is used as fair use, because images cannot be licensed free for Wikipedia only. Assuming the image is nonfree, it should be deleted as totally failing NFCC.8 As a side note, is the artwork itself copyrighted? If so, is it possible to release a photograph of the work under a free license? ÷seresin 04:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PosvarPitt.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not-enough information is provided to verify the source of this non-free image. It says "University of Pittsburgh Archives" but I'm sure there a great deal of image on that archives. Also, the image is used decoratively in at least 2 articles. Damiens.rf 15:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image is used in three articles, none of which have been tagged with notices about this image's possible deletion. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although a link had been included to the source archive where the image could be easily found, a direct link to the original source image is now provided. Regardless of this particular image, it should be noted that there is no requirement to directly link a source of a non-free image, particularly if the source could be scans of materials that are off-line. Further, "I'm sure there is a great deal of image on that archives" is not a valid justification for any image deletion.

Regarding the second point, claims of inappropriate fair use justification for an image on one article does not warrant deletion of that image when it has legitimate, and non-disputed, fair use claims on another article. Rather, the preferred action should be removal of the image from the article with questionable fair use claims. To that end, I have gone ahead and removed the image from the gallery on the Posvar Hall article for which there are questionable fair-use claims. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the direct link. I have removed the image from where it was being used decoratively (lists and galleries in articles about topics for which his look is not essential). The image can be kept now. --Damiens.rf 14:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard dead person usage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost surely the case that this image is in the public domain due to non-compliance/non-renewal. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that could be, but this was taken after 1963 so renewal is moot. The first appearance in publication is uncertain, so the copyright is conservative.CrazyPaco (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am surely - no almost - wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this influences the deletion discussion, but not necessarily. If the image was first published without a copyright notice prior to 1977, or between 1978 and March 1, 1989, without a copyright notice, and where the copyright was not later registered within 5 years, then it would be PD. That said, other than finding such an original publication, there is no way at this time to put this image in the public domain. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:46, 11 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:Racing-brief.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replaceable. Damiens.rf 15:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Replaceable by a free image.--Rockfang (talk) 03:17, 9 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:A Call for Jihad in Bosnia.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image containing no information that can't be conveyed by text. Damiens.rf 15:49, 8 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:Yvonne Craig.jpg

Non-free image of a living woman. Damiens.rf 15:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, it's an image from over 40 years ago of a living woman who is now 72, who apparently hasn't done any acting since the early '70's, so an image of her now is not in any sense the informational equivalent of one of her during her active career period, particularly given the importance of physical appearance to acting (if she were a politician, then the difference arguably wouldn't matter as much). There are two other images in the article illustrating two of her notable roles. However, in one of them she is wearing a mask, and in the other one, she is covered in head-to-toe green makeup, so neither is the equivalent of the image under consideration here. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to imdb, she is still active. Also, her youngself look is no more real that her oldself look. Even more, also according to imdb she made 15 movies between 1923 and 1977 (and she was not old at that time). The trailers for any of these movies are public domain. Some research will certainly review a good free image of this lady. --Damiens.rf 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The WP article doesn't state any roles for her past 1974, but if she's still active (and particularly if the movie trailer sources are viable), you've convinced me. But it's important to remember that replaceability always requires an "equivalent...that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." That the subject is still alive is relevant but not necessarily conclusive. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an image from peak of career is not a substitute for someone at the terminus of their career. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not about the peak of Yvonne Craig's career. It's about Yvonne Craig. --Damiens.rf 16:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its not about Yvonne Craig as an old woman either. It is about her entire life. Younger photos provide context, any photo generated today cannot do that.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being about her entire life, any photo would be just as valid. --Damiens.rf 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As WP:NFC#UUI#11 states, "for some...retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." (emphasis added) This clearly recognizes that we are not to treat an article's subject as a singular thing, such that any depiction is the informational equivalent of any other. You made some good, much more nuanced points above regarding why this image may not be necessary (barely), but your apparent insistence that all potential images of a subject are replaceable with any other is not supported by non-free content policy, guidelines, or basic editorial judgment. postdlf (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Despite any preferences you may have for her earlier look, she kept being an active actress as she got old, and a current image, or any screenshot from a trailer before 1977 will be just as much "she". Free images exist and can be created, but some work should be done. Sean Connery has also changed a lot, but no unique "look" of him is more "valid" or "correct" than the others. --Damiens.rf 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - replaceable.--Rockfang (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep unless provided with a time machine.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for a time machine is a silly argument, you can wait till she dies and then you would have all the time in the world to photograph the corpse, and later the bones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I could just photoshop on some young skin and it would look just like this photo right?--Crossmr (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This image is being used to identify the subject in the infobox and as such it is replaceable, so fails WP:NFCC#1. If the image were being used in a section where it was specifically discussed in some contextually significantly way, it might be considered acceptable. ww2censor (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#1. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capa380.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive non-free magazine cover. Just one does the job. Damiens.rf 15:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No fair use rationale is given. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:38, 10 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:19580428 Walter O'Malley Time Magazine Cover.jpg

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover. The article does mentions the cover existed and names the artist, but the cover art is too tangential to the article's subject do justify the use of non-free imagery. Damiens.rf 16:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article mentions Time cover "When O'Malley moved the Dodgers from Brooklyn the story transcended the world of sport and he found himself on the cover of Time." Saying "cover art is too tangential" is too subjective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The cover art is not relevant to the article. It may be truth that the fact this story made the cover may be worth mentioning, but this information needs not an illustration. --Damiens.rf 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  When is being on the cover of Time magazine or Rolling Stone not relevant. It is still the ne plus ultra in print publication. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  That's not what I said. Please re-read my comment carefully. --Damiens.rf 17:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No article needs an illustration, many reference works are devoid of illustrations. They are there to enhance the reader's experience within US copyright law and Wikipedia's concept of fair-use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By our common practice here, some articles do "need" imagery. It's commonly accepted, for instance, that biographies needs headshots, articles about music albuns need the album cover, articles about books need the book cover, articles mentioning controversial or award winning photographies need to show the photograph, articles about famous paintings need to show the painting. There are many others "rules", but surely not "articles that mention someone made the cover story of a magazine needs to show the cover image". --Damiens.rf 18:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image both provides us with an example of his high level of notability at the time and gives us an image of what he looked like later in life.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#1: "... he found himself on the cover of Time" tells the reader all that's needful. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angus is correct about the suitability of text to convey the same information imparted by this image (although I think he meant #8 rather than #1). ÷seresin 04:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newsweek 05 24 09.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: No Consensus -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free image. There are free alternatives to illustrate the NewsWeek magazine. Damiens.rf 16:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The magazine doesn't look like that 71-year old cover any more, so it isn't an informational equivalent. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not only about present-day Newsweek. --Damiens.rf 16:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand how that is a rebuttal. It isn't enough for an image to depict the same, broad subject for it to be replaceable, if it does not serve an equivalent encyclopedic purpose and informational function. postdlf (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is it more important to illustrate the magazine as it is today than how it was some time ago (and for a long non-ephemeral period of time)? --Damiens.rf 18:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I understand your question or the point you're trying to make, in light of the reasons why we illustrate articles on magazines with images of their covers. It's still in publication and it looks significantly different now than it did 71 years ago. So the two are not informationally equivalent and do not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. postdlf (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article is not just about how the Magazine is today, but about the magazine as a whole, with all its history. When you consider the whole of magazine history, the current cover style is no more important than an old cover style. Just like Sean Connery's look as an old man is no more or less important than his younger look. Privileging this newer look is recentism. --Damiens.rf 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said the article shouldn't also have an image of the 71-year old cover. I said that the 71-year old cover is not a replacement for the current cover because they convey very different information. postdlf (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Opposed deletion (obviously, since I uploaded it). I disagree that the image is replaceable. I believe it's important to show the look of the current magazine, which is vastly different than that free link to a 1939 issue. I believe this image constitutes fair use - as stated in the summary accompanying the image: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." The issue selected is one that already depicts a public figure (i.e. does not give anyone undue attention) and happens to be the inaugural issue in this format. Me Three (talk to me) 16:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles need to show major changes in magazine covers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've read through the article and cannot see what, of significance, I am supposed to have gained by seeing this image. The article does not discuss the cover format but instead discusses the content and reactions. The Sarah Palin cover is discussed and is required to support the associated text, this image is simply decorating the article's infobox. Find some reliable source that talks about the importance of the cover, in such a way that you need the image to support the sourced text. Presently the image adds little to reader's understanding and certainly does not meet NFCC#8. For the purposes of the infobox the free image Damiens.rf notes appears an adequate replacement, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient explanation as to why multiple recent covers are necessary. I'd suggest deleting this, and keeping the Sarah Palin cover, which is discussed in detail. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 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:65 war.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free magazine cover used in an article that does not mentions the magazine or it's cover. Damiens.rf 16:08, 8 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:Boris Karloff.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable. There are many public domains image of Boris Karloff in the public domain videoThis is your Life Boris Karloff. Damiens.rf 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per nom. --emerson7 09:33, 8 February 2010
- Speedy, since author agreed. --Damiens.rf 18:46, 8 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:Vanityfairbono.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to show the cover of Vannity Fair Africa just to pass the information that part of the profits went to a fund raising. The image in the cover is not relevant. Damiens.rf 16:41, 8 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:WagnerTime.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free magazine cover used in an article that does not cares about the magazine or about the cover image. Damiens.rf 16:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in article now, which is a lot easier, and more useful to the reader than deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! Now the article says " This action led to a cover for Time magazine". It surely needs this non-free image now. How can we possibly expect the reader do digest this information without some visual aid? --Damiens.rf 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact of his appearance on the cover of Time is clearly replaceable by text. Indeed, the exiting text does an adequate job. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 10 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:Wallis Time.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free magazine cover used in an article where it isn't mentioned outside the image caption itself. While the caption says this issue was uncommon in that it was the first time a woman (and not a man) as selected as Man of the Year, this is the kind of information we can pass to the reader without the aid of visual information (he/she will understand what is it to have a woman in the cover without actually seeing the cover). Damiens.rf 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in article now, which is a lot easier, and more useful to the reader than deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding unsoured content is not a viable alternative to me. Also, as explained in the nomination, the article still does not needs the image.--Damiens.rf 16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure a good lawyer could argue that every image could be replaced by descriptive text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 1423353th time this straw man is used to defend the use of a non-free image. Just for the record. --Damiens.rf 17:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the subjective nature of it. I am a scientist, show me some way a computer can always pick which is correct and which is not correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being a scientist, maybe you could build a time machine and go get a free photo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how a time machine would help here. And the whole point is (if you cared to read the nomination) that we don't need a photo. --Damiens.rf 16:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the first time a woman was man of the year, it should also be in the Time man of the year article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given that it's more than 70 years old, isn't it now free anyway? Regardless, it still serves as a useful illustration for both the Time article and the Duchess' biography page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 09:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Useful" is not enough to satisfy WP:NFCC. --Damiens.rf 16:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Useful and irreplacable, then. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article is right and she was named Woman in the Year in 1936, the cover would not be in the public domain until 2031.--Rockfang (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's over 70 years old and I don't think it merits worrying about. Deb (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you implying it's public domain? --Damiens.rf 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the copyright wasn't renewed before 1963 it would be in the public domain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The 70 year rule is irrelevant in this case.--Rockfang (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Text explaining that she was on the cover is sufficient; seeing the cover itself is not necessary for understanding. So the image handily fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 04:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is absolutely no text in the article I can see that this image supports. She was noted as Woman of the Year, nothing I can see about the cover itself. Without discussion of the cover (rather than the article within) This image is simply decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8. The arguments above do not show how this image significantly increases reader's understanding of the article's topic. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at the top of the article there's a free image - File:Wallis Simpson -1936.JPG - from the same year, and in a similar pose. So all this image adds is that she was on the front cover of TIME, which is easily replaceable with text. I agree with Peripitus - this a decorative image which fails WP:NFCC#8. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 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:WorshamJuly1947.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative use of a non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, mentioned in text now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please, consider stopping spamming articles with failed excuses to use pre-existing unnecessary non-free content. You're wasting everyone's time. We don't use non-free magazine covers everytime a magazine in mentioned. We only do that when we feel the information is incomplete without the visual image of the cover, which is not the case for " In July 1947 he appeared on the cover of Golfing magazine."[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiens.rf (talk • contribs)

Delete, fails WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable by free text such as "...appeared on the cover of Golfing magazine...". Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 10 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:John+Hardin2005.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns - does it lack critical commentary in the articles per WP:NFCC#8. This image is not the actors pictured in the biographies. --Kostelca (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Forsythe and Evans were notably played by other actors in a reenactment of the behind-the-scenes action of Dynasty, this image illustrates this point. Not many actors get this kind of treatment, not sure why you're not seeing the notability and are using the tired oversimplification of NFCC #8.— TAnthony^Talk 21:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a photograph of another actor doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (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:AliceKrige-JoanCollins.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns - does it lack critical commentary in the article per WP:NFCC#8. This image is not the actor pictured in the biography. --Kostelca (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Collins was notably played by another actress in a reenactment of the behind-the-scenes action of Dynasty, this image illustrates this point. Not many actors get this kind of treatment, not sure why you're not seeing the notability and are using the tired oversimplification of NFCC #8.— TAnthony^Talk 21:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a photograph of another actress doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 00:54, 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:Hardin-John-Krige-2005.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. The keep arguments stating that this image was iconic or notable weren't very convincing, especially when the image in the infobox is far similar to this one. — ξ ^xplicit 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lacks the importance or significance of the topic. This image is only a non-free image of the actors, adding nothing to readers' understanding of the article. See WP:NFCC#8. --Kostelca (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The behind-the-scenes action of Dynasty was notably reenacted in a TV movie using other actors to portray stars Forsythe, Evans, and Collins (among others). In the main Dynasty article, his image illustrates the recreation and provides the opportunity to compare the portrayals to the actual Dynasty performers, pictured earlier. Not many shows get this kind of treatment, not sure why you're not seeing the notability and are using the tired oversimplification of NFCC #8.— TAnthony^Talk 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an iconic 1980s image and it is low resolution. But a simple fair use rationale shpuld be given. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "an iconic 1980s image" as the description and caption and context make abundantly clear. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the File:Dynastybfr.jpg image contained in the appropriate article is ok, but this image only indirectly relates to the subject, and doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8. PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 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:Hinet-Chinglish.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 ⚡ 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot of a Web page, used to illustrate poor translations from Chinese into English. We have plenty of freely licensed images illustrating this concept already in the Chinglish article; we do not need this non-free image in addition. Violates WP:NFCC#1. —Bkell (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed!--Joelh (talk) 20:10, 15 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.