Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 6

< July 5	July 7 >

July 6

File:ID-achidDebbagh-01.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ID-achidDebbagh-01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rachiddebbagh (notify | contribs).

OR, UE. Created by now-banned editor for the soap-boxing/disruption which got him banned. Calton | Talk 00:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cash is paper and paper is made with trees.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cash is paper and paper is made with trees.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rachiddebbagh (notify | contribs).

OR, UE. Created by now-banned editor for the soap-boxing/disruption which got him banned. Calton | Talk 00:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Real cash containing 10% of it's worth of gold.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Real cash containing 10% of it's worth of gold.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rachiddebbagh (notify | contribs).

OR, UE. Created by now-banned editor for the soap-boxing/disruption which got him banned. Calton | Talk 00:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as F9. That fifty pound banknote is not free and protected by Crown Copyright, making this a copyvio Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Money & Metals & Gemstones.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Money & Metals & Gemstones.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rachiddebbagh (notify | contribs).

OR, UE. Created by now-banned editor for the soap-boxing/disruption which got him banned. Calton | Talk 00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ken Rosa Portrait.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ken Rosa Portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kenrosa (notify | contribs).

OR, UE. Real estate agent's headshot and his only contribution to WP, an advert for his services. Calton | Talk 00:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Headshots 004 edited.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Headshots 004 edited.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timhall11 (notify | contribs).

UE, OR. Real estate agent's headshot, used to promote self. Only edits other than a single edit to his user page. Calton | Talk 00:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Obama's Gramps.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obama's Gramps.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cladeal832 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image of a person that we already have a free image of (File:Stanley Dunham.jpg). No justification for hosting this copyrighted image that I can see and as there is a free alternative, the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 01:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also orphaned. Ejfetters (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amanda Wenk9.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amanda Wenk9.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Amanda_Wenk (notify | contribs).

Sexually explicit image without indication of release and possibly are minors. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE per nom Ejfetters (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can see no evidence of anything sexually explicit. However, image is of a non-notable one time minor (in every sense) internet celebrity who's WP article has been deleted long ago (see AfD). As such it is orphaned and highly unlikely to ever be put to use. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sexually explicit, but with innuendo, possible minors, no source, permission or licence, no apparent relevance. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amanda Wenk8.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amanda Wenk8.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Amanda_Wenk (notify | contribs).

Sexually explicit image without indication of release and possibly are minors. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE per nom Ejfetters (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can see no evidence of anything sexually explicit. However, image is of a non-notable one time minor (in every sense) internet celebrity who's WP article has been deleted long ago (see AfD). As such it is orphaned and highly unlikely to ever be put to use. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sexually explicit, but with innuendo, possible minors, no source, permission or licence, no apparent relevance. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUnless you can find a use for this image (good luck!) KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 20:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KidCudiNabilPhotoshoot.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

SPEEDY DELETE - CV, and also likely non-free use image of a living person. Ejfetters (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CudiKid.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CudiKid.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JoshuaBrody (notify | contribs).

SPEEDY DELETE likely CV following uploaders previous pattern of uploading non-free images, orphaned as well. Ejfetters (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pokerfacesheet.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. Since there's already a non-free sample in the article, having the sheet music is redundant (overuse:WP:NFCC#3a, not to mention that it's only a fraction of the song and so isn't significant to the reader per WP:NFCC#8. One could also argue that a summary of the chords could be summed up in text per WP:NFCC#1 ... and they already are in this article, so double redundancy. Black Kite 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pokerfacesheet.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).

I don't believe this image meets with WP:NFCC#8, in that those few users who have not heard it do not need to know the chords of a song to understand the article about it. This is especially true given that most Wikipedia users can't read sheet music. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People who put their opinions into it shouldn't have their opinion matter. It is presumptuous to assume 'most Wiki users can't read sheet music' In fact it is very useful. I myself have just found it so. The chord progressions and rhythmic pulse of a song are instrumental in understanding the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.25.114 (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A similar discussion was held for File:Justdancesheet.JPG which was also up for deletion but was decided to be kept. The discussion can be viewed here. Same reasoning applies here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The image does not provide any additional information about the song and is definitely not required to help people's understanding of the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkuy (talk • contribs) 10:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FfD linked above seemed to have several people argue that these images aren't actually copyrighted. I think we should find out for sure, because it's of course relevant. If they are copyrighted, then I support deletion, because for the vast majority of people, this will not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. ÷seresin 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sheet music of a copyrighted song is copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's at least as useful and relevant as the three photos of Germanotta in different outfits. Copyright is not an issue for 8 bars of music. Peter Grey (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its very imporant, and you may not think it is but it tells alot of information about the song. About the song's chrods and keys of the song's although it needs an image with lyrics so I would just delete this one and get one with lyrics on it.Sprite7868 (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arossi.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arossi.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by J mcandrews (notify | contribs).

No date of creation, publication or detail of author. Impossible to determine PD status from this little info. Rossi's life span was 1931–1997, and, according to {{PD-Italy}}, this is only US-PD if it was published between 1923–1977. Even if it was published as soon as it was created, these dates would require Rossi to be under 46 in this photo which I think is dubious anyway. Furthermore, we shouldn't have to speculate creation, publication etc. we must assert PD status, and this image doesn't do so. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Obama's Grandmother.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. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obama's Grandmother.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cladeal832 (notify | contribs).

Additional non-free image with no justification. There is an existing non-free image of Obama's father in the article and neither the article, nor the image's rationale, give a convincing reason as to why this extra is needed. Excessive use of non-free content...fails WP:NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fair use of unique historical image. PhGustaf (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I fail to see why what Obama's Grandmother looked like is of any importance. J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J Milburn. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Orignal reason invalid. There are no other pictures of Akumu nor her son as an infant (infant and grown man very different)Cladeal832 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might cover NFCC#1; what about the other 9 (and particularly #8)? Stifle (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's her grandmother as well as his father and there is not picture of her. Many false rumors claim she is an Arab but clearly from the picture she is an African. Who copyrighted it and who owns it? The picture is at least 70 years old. It was taken in a British colony that no longer exists. The two people in the picture have been dead for decades and whoever toke it, if he isn't dead, never copyrighted. And to those who state it isn't historic, whatever the case in the United States, tell that to any African and you will a rude awakeningCladeal832 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate to illustrate the family. appriate as a key historic image as well. DGG (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Iconic via use on grandson's best-selling memoirs. ↜Just M E here , now 20:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it meets WP:NFCC#8 how exactly? Stifle (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The photo is now in the public domain, and is very relevant as a rare illustration of the people concerned.JohnC (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is the photo in the public domain? Stifle (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per PhGustaf and others //Halibu tt 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessive use of non-free image, we're an encyclopedia not a genealogical project, and per J Milburn. Paperego05 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC). — Paperego05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep as per Cladeal832 and JohnC. Of historic value, in public domain, and relevant to the article. FYI, WP is not an image-free, text-only encyclopedia. - Nhprman 14:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The boy in the picture (Barack Obama, Sr.) looks to me likely to be at least three years old, so even the image itself might not be 70 years old yet, and it certainly seems unlikely that the photographer died before 1939. Thus, it's probably not {{PD-old}} or even {{PD-old-70}}. However, the image might be PD under Kenyan law, if it was published more than 50 years ago. (Or is that really required? The law seems quite confusing to me.) Also, note that this image has also been uploaded to Commons, and should presumably be nominated for deletion there if it is judged not to be PD. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David Ndesandjo.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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Ndesandjo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justmeherenow (notify | contribs).

Decorative non-free image that does not significantly add to reader's understanding. Used in a "list-of" type of article. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 12:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Ndesandjo's short bio, at the "Family of Barack Obama" article, is illustrated by his image; also, Ndesandjo is deceased, making it unlikely a free image of him will become available. ↜Just M E here , now 12:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that section need to be illustrated and what of significance does this image give the reader. ? Your response does not identify this . Peripitus (Talk) 12:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he was worthy of his own article, an illustration would be useful- other than that, unless his appearance or the photo is somehow important (and discussed) there's no way to justify the inclusion of this image. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you don't have an interest in the Obama, then you don't care either way about any of it. If you (as an African, I do), then the picture of his half-brother very much helps with the understanding. I think people in the United States don't understand who interest people in Africa are in the Obamas of Kenya. I have seen Wikipedia quote in our national newspaper because it is one of the only sources about them.Cladeal832 (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it may or may not be replaceable, knowing what one not-particularly-important family member looks like is not necessary to understand the article. So it is unjustified. ÷seresin 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WWE SummerSlam 2009.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WWE SummerSlam 2009.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by WWE_Socks (notify | contribs).

Orphaned Image Bballlova99 (talk)(My Contributions to wikipedia) 14:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Josifrunjanin.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Josifrunjanin.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hadžija (notify | contribs).

Unclear source. Possibly created during the lifetime of the subject, so possibly public domain. I've declined the speedy, and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have a commons version File:Josip_Runjanin.jpg that is claimed as PD and the the sources I can see indicate it was made in his lifetime, I am fairly sure that this image is PD - Peripitus (Talk) 05:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KlimaBG.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KlimaBG.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hadžija (notify | contribs).

Orphaned and sourced to user of the German Wikipedia user - the user's uploaded files don't include this picture Hekerui (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Standard 4 No 80100.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: - Moved to commons as File:Standard 4 Bluebell Railway.jpg. Remember delete opinionators, renaming images is simple and so is changing descriptions, gaining good quality free images (like this one) is much harder - Peripitus (Talk) 21:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Standard 4 No 80100.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ninja Scaley (notify | contribs).

UE 80100 has never been restored and remains in ex-Barry scrapyard condition.Image may show 80154 running as 80100, but it cannot show 80100 in steam at the Bluebell Railway because 80100 never has steamed since withdrawal by British Railways. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Faked image, see Talk:BR_standard_class_4_tank#File:Standard 4 No 80100.jpg I'd also question what the original creator(s) was doing making it or uploading it in the first place. A far from acceptable action, IMHO. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sorry, but if the title is wrong or the image edited, that's not a reason to delete. We delete images if they are unencyclopaedic, fair use images without a valid FUR, images transferred to commons, etc. We don't delete an image just because it's not true to real life. Rename it, edit the description, but there is no evidence that it is a copyvio (0 results on tineye) or fair use. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do delete unencyclopedic images, frequently. Orphaned images with no forseeable use should be deleted- I know nothing of trains, but if this image has no possible use, it should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Image is misleading. There is no indication that the locomotive pictured is not 80100, which might cause readers to question the other facts surrounding 80100 ("but I've seen a photo and it's been restored..."). Presumably an untrue 'fact' would be removed as unencyclopaedic; well, this photo is an "untrue fact". It is possible that this photo shows a genuine event with one loco dressed-up with the identity of another (yes, that sort of thing does go on), however we do not know this to be the case. The safe course of action is to delete it. -- EdJogg (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- co-incidentally found the application 'TinEye', which searches online for similar images.
The results of running the tool on this image may be found here. (= 0 matches found) - EdJogg (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons if not used here. From what I can see of online photos, this image is of 80151 wearing the 80100 badges for some reason. The image does not appear to have been photoshopped or edited. Looks like a good quality image that just requires more description. Calling it a "faked image" is a bit rough - look at the exif data and closely at the image, I can't see that any editing has taken place rather than someone has described the subject as they see it - Peripitus (Talk) 08:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons - I'd do it myself, but the image servers appear to be working like poo today. Rockfang (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this being a "fake" or wrongly identified train irrelevant? Couldn't the image still be theoretically used in an general train article? Not to show an example of a certain train, but show an example of a train.--Rockfang (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CableGuySoundtrackCover.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cover is practically the same as the film cover, and the cover itself is not worthy of mention, nor is the soundtrack worthy of its own article. The use of this image is not consistent with NFCC#2A or NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KingdomHeartsMangaVol1Cover.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KingdomHeartsMangaVol1Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Guyinblack25 (notify | contribs).

What the cover of the book looks like is of no importance to the article, and this is used in featured articles/lists, which is somewhat worrying. The copy paste rationales are unilluminating and downright wrong- "It provides an illustration of the subject and is to be used solely for exposition and criticism." The subject of the articles is generally illustrated by something else or unillustratable, and there is no criticism of this image anywhere. Clearly in violation of NFCC8. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I've bounced back and forth between removing this to trim the non-free images in Kingdom Hearts. I admit it doesn't add much besides showing the character drawn in a different style and medium. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete the manga is not the source of critical commentary to the extent that an image significantly increases reader understanding and would be detrimental upon removal. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:M1130 Command Vehicle.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: - Kept - issue fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 10:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:M1130 Command Vehicle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User name one (notify | contribs).

Image source is "US Army", which does not specify where it comes from. If it is from a website, the website should be named. There is no way to establish if this is in fact pd-gov without more information, the first thing needed being the source. Terrillja _talk 19:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed itUsername 1 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:M1135 NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle.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: - Kept - issue fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 10:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:M1135 NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User name one (notify | contribs).

"US Army" is not a valid source, needs an actual link or explanation of where the image was obtained from in order to determine if it is pd-gov. Terrillja _talk 19:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed itUsername 1 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicle.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: - Kept - issue fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 10:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User name one (notify | contribs).

Image source is "US Army", which does not specify where it comes from. If it is from a website, the website should be named. There is no way to establish if this is in fact pd-gov without more information, the first thing needed being the source. Terrillja _talk 19:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed itUsername 1 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Neda Agha-Soltan.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 - Peripitus (Talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neda Agha-Soltan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Booksnmore4you (notify | contribs).

This article is about her death, not about her. The event is already satisfactorily illustrated by a screenshot from one of the videos, and, though biographical information about her is important to the event, what she looked like in life is not important. The rationale claims that this image is used to "identify the subject", but does not explain why this is important- also, it misses the important point that the subject is her death, not her. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is her death at all significant? Because she was a person, not just a news item. Showing the humanity of those killed in this sort of disturbance is important context and we demean ourselves if we forget this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And why do we need a non-free image to do that? J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This image was combined with another photo of her in a scarf. The combination image was in the article, Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. The combination of the 2 photos satisfies the most people worldwide in my opinion, and it meets all the requirements of WP:NFC. English readers are worldwide, and this is English Wikipedia. The combination image was never uploaded as a separate image, though, and got deleted as part of the deletion discussion of the scarf image by itself. The combination image should not have been uploaded over the photo of her with the scarf. For the deletion discussion of the scarf photo by itself see: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg. There is no need to repeat most of that discussion. The combination image should be uploaded separately. Then I believe that the combination image should be used in the article. For all the relevant reasons mentioned already in the other deletion discussion. The closing admin at the other deletion discussion said the following: "...the only issue here is whether both images would be permissible in the article per our non-free image policy. I cannot see any reason why this is the case, both per minimal use and significance. If there is an overriding reason why this image is significant (i.e. iconic or relevant to the article) then this one should be restored and the other one deleted instead. ..." The fundamental flaw in this argument is that both images have become iconic and relevant depending on the audience. Now that the closing admin has ruled that one image of her alive is permissible and relevant, then the argument against having any photo of her alive in the article is no longer relevant. I am resigned to the Western systemic bias in many of the admins who have commented in the other deletion discussion, and so I will probably waste little further time on this discussion. Some admins see the need for both photos (or the combination photo), and some admins don't. That is a shame, and a long-term education project about systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, basically, you're saying the same thing you've been saying for weeks- that you don't really care about the non-free content criteria, that you don't really care about previous consensus and that you feel these images should be kept purely because it's impossible for a westerner to comprehend a woman with a headscarf, and because it's impossible for those from the Middle East to comprehend a woman without one. This "systematic bias" argument holds no water, and you have been told this repeatedly. This debate is about our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say what you say I said. There is no need for me to repeat here what I said at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg. People can go there for a detailed discussion from many people, including several admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Well for starters it would be tasteless to have an image of her death only but other than that, I did a search for "Death of" and came up with a few articles and your reasoning behind it being useless because it is about her death is null, take this article and the best example The King of Pop himself's article. This is a combo of her bio and her death, the image is inside her bio section. Also, her death may have been wanted brought her to our attention, but now everyone looks at her and her life. Rgood erm ote 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are free images. We have strict rules about the use of non-free images- I would have no opposition to an image of her in life if it was a free one. J Milburn (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sure Milburn has some reasonable explanation (and it's hoped it wasn't merely a "pro-deletionist" tactical one) for waiting until now to nominate this instead of doing it in tandem with Neda.jpg.........at least so we wouldn't have to repeat a lot of the same arguments. IAC:
In striving for sterile objectivity wrt the iconization of a subject's death, we need keep in mind the subject's human dignity for the public and esecially those who revere her. As "Fatemeh," at the media watchdog blog concerning Muslim women in the news, Muslimah Media Watch, blogs:
"[...Neda Soltan] was young, slender, and pretty, and so Western media images are obsessed with watching her die[;...but it's her foreignness that] helps explain the fact that Neda is represented as a corpse just as often as she is represented the way any murdered American woman would be: alive and smiling, usually in a picture given to the media by her family or friends."
An important consideration, I think -- that is, giving a notable death encyclopedic coverage via fair-use imagery require us to reponsibly balance the same with our coverage, both visual and otherwise, of its victim's life.

(Then there's this Jimbo quote wrt special circumstances involving concern for the human dignity of Neda Agha-Soltan; see this diff):

I think there are two separate questions here: the photo of her death, and other photos of her.

I do think that this situation does present special circumstances, one of which is a concern for the human dignity of the deceased. This is also quite clearly a case of WP:BLP1E, and should be considered from that angle as well. (I see the article is in the process of likely being merged with an article about the incident, and I think that's good.) I think that the image of her death is iconic, historically important, and relevant to the article about her death. That the image is haunting and emotionally moving is something the reader needs to see in order to understand in part some of the reaction this created.
For the other images, among the factors to be considered here is replaceability with free alternatives - as she was a college student there are presumably many pictures of her whose copyright is owned by friends and loved ones - perhaps if they have one that they like or think accurately captures her spirit, they will wish to donate it... however, this may not happen for some time, and may never happen. Using a "fair use" picture in such a circumstance strikes me as undesirable, but there is a complex judgment call as to whether it is nonetheless something we should accept, although undesirable to some extent. I have no very strong opinion about it.
I do think, as is well known - and this is just a specific case of the general principle - that we should be quite diligent about seeking out photos under free licenses. Wikipedia is quite famous and important and generally admired all around the world, and I think people will generally be happy to help us make it better. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

–Jimmy Wales

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 48#Curious about your personal opinion. ↜Just M E here , now 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Jimbo was talking about the use of a non-free image of her in a biography about her- that's an entirely different issue to an image of her in an article about her death. If it was determined that there was no free alternative, then yes, I would personally probably support an image of her in her biography- however, this is an article about an event she was involved in, and what she looks like is not particularly important in terms of understanding said event. J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo was talking about the article about her death. He pointed out that the articles were being merged into the article about her death. People can read the whole discussion in context at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_48#Neda --Timeshifter (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the image, and reestablish her page again. She was a girl just before becoming a news item. Delband Amirshahi (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't generally have a policy of covering girls simply because they are girls. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to implement Wiki's rules and in this case deleting a non-free image, it is absolutely OK. But the way, you are commenting about the life of a totally innocent person is utterly DISGUSTING. Please revise your behaviour!--Breathing Dead (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - J Milburn, running after voters this way is a form of harassment. Please stop. --Kaaveh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sophistry it's called, J Milburn, sophistry! By a girl, I was referring to a human being, for sure, not a stripper. Delband Amirshahi (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Showing the humanity of those killed in this sort of disturbance is important. --Kaaveh (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course what she looked like in life is important, because her image belongs to an innocent girl who could still be alive and unfortunately isn't, and not to the ones who are judging about her life. Her image should be kept in this article as well as all other famous people - regardless how and when they did become famous - whose images exist in the articles of Wikipedia, Javanbakht (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not apparently replaceable with free alternatives. Jimbo's opinion is one person's opinion--just as he said. DGG (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually she had taken this image voluntary, when she was alive. Thus it is a valid picture of Neda and it should remain in the article to show more specifications of her.Bardia666 (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As pointing out flaws in arguments is now harrassment, I will offer a link to all readers. WP:NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Philip Hunt.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 - for poor images the solution is to find a better one, not delete first - Peripitus (Talk) 05:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philip Hunt.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rathfelder (notify | contribs).

I'm not sure if this is valid grounds for deletion or not, but this is simply a really horrible picture. Photographically, it's all grainy and blurry and unattractive, and the less said about the poor minister's facial expression the better. I suggest that the image does nothing to futher the reader's understanding of a noble Lord and Deputy Leader of the HoL. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument for deletion is essentially I don't like it. That is not a valid reason for deletion. The arguments for keeping it are that (i) it is a legitimate image legally uploaded, and (ii) it shows what he really looks like. The photographic quality is not a work of art, but it is really not as bad as you say. If I had edited it, I would have reduced the image size by 50% to reduce noise.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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