Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 September 17

< September 16	September 18 >

September 17

File:USS Enterprise NCC-1701-J.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. This is a close call, but the delete !votes seem more grounded in policy than the keep !votes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Enterprise NCC-1701-J.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MJBurrage (notify | contribs).

No commentary on the image's real-world concept, design, or creation. Article includes a single sentence that doesn't even describe what the ship looks like. Ship itself is a trivial part of the franchise (seen briefly in a single episode and in a calendar). As a whole, seems to fail WP:NFCC #8 --EEMIV (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It seems to add to the article its already in. The fair use rationale would be key. Id be inclined to keep it as its descriptive to the article in that its in, if mostly visually as alll photos in its article do. The image doesnt seem to replaceable either. But thats just a personal thought. I dont see it as violating rule 8 i think it adds to the description. A better description may be necessary by the uploader in justifying and maybe some tweaking in the text Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's non-replaceable, but it's also non-essential. The appearances and role of the Enterprise-J are no less clear with the image removed, nor do we understand the information provided any better with the image present. There is probably potential out there for someone to offer critical commentary on the ship's appearance -- but, it ain't there. --EEMIV (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did look for production notes for the ship but only really found fan cruft. I think thats a inherent difficulty of wikipedia, as time goes on more newer episodes of tv shows are covered better (with sources) but older shows (if 2004 is old)lack the information (sources) necessarcy to discuss production of the episode, as it was never reported. I still would like to keep the image, but i agree critical commentary form production notes discussing the relevancy would be very helpful in establishing why it should be presnet in the article.Consider my comments as a weak keep. Maybe someone else will be luckier in a search. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete we tend to end up keeping these sort of images (though I don't thin we should) but I think EEMIV makes a good point that this particular version is bereft of commentary (or significance to the internal narrative) Protonk (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know it's a bit odd to axe this image when there are so many others. But, I think all those thumbnails for vessels with their own articles also violate WP:NFCC with their placement there. Really, it's only the images of the mirror-universe Enterprise -- with a description of delibate design choices -- that comes closest to meeting NFCC on that page. --EEMIV (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points. I think some sort of signifigance form design notes/ further sources (etc) are necessary to establish keeping them. I dont know where to find those if they exist (which is why my argument is weak for keeping them, but i acknowledge that). So if that is the route thats taken, Im not one to put up a fuss. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Image shows one of the Star Trek starships named Enterprise which, although only seen one episode or movie, is from established Star Trek cannon, so this picture is useful for Starship Enterprise article. It has as much right to stay as the picture of alternate reality Enterprise from Star Trek XI, which also appears in only one episode or movie. --antiXt (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is useful" is not a compelling reason to retain material. There are lots of images, sounds, and texts that'd be "useful" to have here -- but, non-free content criteria exist specifically because "this is useful" isn't sufficient to include certain things at Wikipedia. Additionally, this has nothing to do with the image's "right" to be there. As I think I stated above, the entire list abuses non-free content, and has been marked as such for a while. This is an initial step to address that -- focusing this IfD on one image doesn't imply endorsement of the other images' inclusion. You've actually made a salient point, though, about most of the other images: they simply don't belong on that page, because this list of ships (with the exception of the original series-eras Enterprise) makes no reference to design, concept, or commentary; most of those pictures should be removed from that page (but not deleted -- the ships' individual articles do offer commentary on their appearance). --EEMIV (talk) 11:32, 2 October 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:9thcommlogo.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 ⚡ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:9thcommlogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 (notify | contribs).

There are no pages that link to this file. Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 02:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this file was apparently more up to date than the file that was being used, a better file has been uploaded and put into articles.--Rockfang (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unlikely to be useful with two superior images present. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:27, 20 September 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:MishaOfBroadway.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 ⚡ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MishaOfBroadway.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krazycev13 (notify | contribs).

now orphaned, used for G7 article; no other encyc use. Skier Dude (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; article itself was deleted, so image clearly shouldn't be here. Cheers, I'^mperator 19:14, 19 September 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:OPEC-reserves.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 ⚡ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OPEC-reserves.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Europrobe (notify | contribs).

OB, replaced by vector version File:OPEC declared reserves 1980-now EIA.svg Iorsh (talk) 08:46, 17 September 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:Another-John-Doe-Single.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 ⚡ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Another-John-Doe-Single.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonah474747 (notify | contribs).

Derivative work of http://www.thenewno2.com/images/content/gallery/logo.gif Hekerui (talk) 11:48, 17 September 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:Key club thenewno2.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Key club thenewno2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonah474747 (notify | contribs).

Performance was September 2008, not this year. Photo looks like it was taken by Pat Tyson: http://www.daytrippin.com/georgeharrison.htm Hekerui (talk) 12:05, 17 September 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:Ghsmustangsloogoo.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 ⚡ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ghsmustangsloogoo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonah474747 (notify | contribs).

Logo of the Grapevine High School. No source with permission given (trademarked though), no evidence of permission, orphan. Hekerui (talk) 12:05, 17 September 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:Ottawa Swans Jumper 2008.svg

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 as G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ottawa Swans Jumper 2008.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Toyaser (notify | contribs).

replaced by better version Ottawa_Swans_Jumper_2009.svg Toyaser (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've marked it WP:G7. In the future, for anything that you've created and want to delete, just speedy tag as G7. Cheers, I'^mperator 20:32, 19 September 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:TheStig.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. Having reviewed the various comments, I think that the delete !votes are more grounded in Wikipedia policy (WP:NFCC) than the keep !votes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheStig.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fish and karate (notify | contribs).

As there is already a free photograph of the Stig on the article, this one fails WP:NFCC#1. Even if it didn't, it would still fail WP:NFCC#8 as failing to increase readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a photograph of White Stig, who was the replacement for Black Stig (whom the picture is of). It is not replaceable as Black Stig was fired after two series, and so there is no longer a black stig. As for failing to increase people's understanding, I disagree - what the character looks like seems like a MAJOR thing to me - and pretty much every article about a TV character features an image of the character - why is this different, just because there are two different characters of the same name in the article? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the fanboyism of Top Gear, having said photo helps to not only sate the fanboys, but also allows people to understand the design history of The Stig from his "Original" Black incarnation to his "Current" White Incarnation. Kermit the Frog has his earliest incarnation (without the collar), and an image of him with the collar. Minor yes, but significant to the characters history.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to protest and file a formal complaint that Stifle has gained an unintended benefit in the FFD, as the template {{deletable image-caption|1=Thursday, 24 September 2009}}|{{ifdc|1=TheStig.jpg|log=2009 September 17}} has completely obliterated the image caption for the image on the page, which has given Stifle an unfair advantage in his arguments that the image serves no purpose under/violates NFCC. Furthermore, by adding said template, it also violates Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images as well, as image has no sufficient description to describe itself accurately.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to return the description of hte picture but I couldn't seem to be able to without deleting the deletion template. Either way, I disagree with Stifle on all accounts for the same reasons stated above. Looneyman (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the caption, for what it's worth. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see what understanding the image provides that the text "the Stig in seasons 1 and 2 wore a similar, but black, outfit" does not. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when a description isn't enough. No matter how clearly you try to describe an outft, some people might not get it without seeing the outfit in question. The caption alone doesn't provide enough explanation. People may ask questions like 'how black was the suit?' (I've learned this through personal experience). The image makes it clearer whlie both create a picture perfect understanding of the original stig. Plus, as people have said above, it's all part oif the history of both the show and the character. Looneyman (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If reader's can't look at a man in a white suit, read how it was black, imagine the difference and then finish the article without significantly damaged understanding then they are beyond our help. Simply decorative use of a non-free image - Peripitus (Talk) 11:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So by your assessment, we need to go thru every single fictitious character page on Wikipedia to see if they have more than two non-free images that can be summed up by one image. I'm sure some Wikiprojects are gonna love trying to defend why Bart Simpson, Kermit the Frog, Stan_Smith_(American_Dad!), Naruto Uzumaki, and others only deserve one image apiece.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

other stuff exists. You are free to do that. I'll tell you that editor response will be to defend images which are more popular, regardless of their necessity. Whether that is a bug or a feature in your opinion turns on your feelings about consensus. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence is confusing. Or making a false assumption. Please clarify.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, clarification? Clarification? Bueller? Bueller?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One is a guy in a white nomex suit. The other is a guy in a black nomex suit. We only need one, if that. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need both images because it is relevant to the history of the character.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that there have been two different Stigs is important to the history of the character, as stated above. As such, we need images of both incarnatins of the stig. Looneyman (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above that the character's being black is not different enough to warrant another image. Seeing the character in white is sufficient for broad identification, readers can understand what the same suit in black looks like without an image. ÷seresin 01:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above There are lots of articles about characters that have had more than one incarnation that have images of the previous incarnations. I can't see why this is any different. The fact that there are two Stigs is vital to the history of the character and both pictures help illustrate that history. Seeing one Stig is not sufficient for the character's history and if the article is deleted, people will still wonder what the black stig looked like. Looneyman (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look at Kermit the Frog; we have two images of him on Sesame Street and before he got his collar. Bart Simpson has his current look, and his previous look from the Tracy Ullman Show. A whole lot of Naruto characters change drastically during the Naruto: Shippuden storyarc. Even if it is a simple palate swap, you can see the helmets are different, the racing suit is different, and if you watch the episodes, even the shows and gloves are different. How is Black Stig even similar to White Stig?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above There are enough differences between the two stigs to warrant a second picture. If anything needs to be done, another image of Black Stig could be found that better highlights the differences. Looneyman (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agreeing with comments above. There is a major difference between the two, and the image appropriately defines the visual history of the Stig. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:32, 27 September 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:Jeopardy title 2008.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 ⚡ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeopardy title 2008.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gus Polly (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image has been replaced by [[File:Jeopardy 2009.png]] on Jeopardy! article and currently only links back to user talk pages. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Go right ahead. Gus Polly^T_C 01:42, 18 September 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:1992-05-19Jeopardy!Season8LeaderCard.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 ⚡ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1992-05-19Jeopardy!Season8LeaderCard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robert K S (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image no longer in use. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:07, 17 September 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:2007-01-11Season23Slate.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 ⚡ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2007-01-11Season23Slate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robert K S (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image no longer in use. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:09, 17 September 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:Imagestpir.jpeg

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 ⚡ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imagestpir.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Money game (notify | contribs).

Orphaned low-quality image no longer in use. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not only is the image an orphan, but the quality is so bad that I couldn't distinguish the subject...thus failing the image criteria. Cheers, I'^mperator 14:19, 23 September 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:Sontag.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 ⚡ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sontag.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grunge6910 (notify | contribs).

Screen Shot being used to identify a person for which a free image could reasonably be found Laestrygonian3 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 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:1SOPSLOGO.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 ⚡ 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1SOPSLOGO.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mattmill (notify | contribs).

Image is not in use on any page, replaced by "File:1st Space Operations Squadron.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 23:08, 17 September 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:3 4colorlogo.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 ⚡ 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:3 4colorlogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 (notify | contribs).

Image not in use on any page, replaced by "Image:3 4 battalion insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 23:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant to a higher-quality image an unlikely to be useful now. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:35, 20 September 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:3-5emblem.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 ⚡ 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:3-5emblem.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 (notify | contribs).

Image is not in use on any page, replaced by "Image:3 5 battalion insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant to a higher-quality image an unlikely to be useful now. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:35, 20 September 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:3MAWcopyTecom.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 Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:3MAWcopyTecom.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 (notify | contribs).

Image not in use on any page, replaced by "Image:3MAW embossed.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 23:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tagged the file as WP:F1. Cheers, I'^mperator 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That confused me at first because you said "article" instead of "file" and had the wrong shortcut link... I'd thought you meant that you tagged 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing as WP:CSD#F1. Oops. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: redundant to a higher-quality image and unlikely to be useful now. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:32, 20 September 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:3rdBn11thMarReg.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:3rdBn11thMarReg.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 (notify | contribs).

Image not in use on any page, replaced by "Image:3-11 battalion insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 23:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant to a higher-quality image an unlikely to be useful now. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:F1. In the future, just speedy it as F1 if another copy exists. Cheers, I'^mperator 14:17, 23 September 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:4-MAG-13.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 Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:4-MAG-13.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 (notify | contribs).

Image not in use on any page, replaced by "Image:MAG-13 insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 23:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant to a higher-quality image an unlikely to be useful now. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:35, 20 September 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:5bn11marLOGO.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Killiondude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:5bn11marLOGO.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 (notify | contribs).

Image not in use on any page, replaced by "Image:5-11 battalion insignia.png". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant to a higher-quality image an unlikely to be useful now. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:35, 20 September 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:Afghan Campaign Streamer.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 Killiondude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Afghan Campaign Streamer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Palm dogg (notify | contribs).

Image not in use on any page, replaced by "Image:Streamer AFGCS.PNG". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 23:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant to a higher-quality image an unlikely to be useful now. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:35, 20 September 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:Armed Forces Expeditionary Streamer.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 Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Armed Forces Expeditionary Streamer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Palm dogg (notify | contribs).

Image not in use on any page, replaced by "Image:Streamer AFE.PNG". Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant to a higher-quality image an unlikely to be useful now. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the future just tag orphaned, redundant files w/ db-f1. Protonk (talk) 18:13, 21 September 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.