Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 August 11

< August 10	August 12 >

August 11

File:82Who-PST-Who.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to show the band at every given point in their career. There are already acceptable free use images of the group on the page; considering this we should not violate copyright in order to add additional images at different times. If the desire is to illustrate a the difference lineups I would suggest using free use images of the different members of the group specific to those times - such as this[1] Solid State Survivor (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has the copyright holder complained? I doubt it, particularly given the resolution. I vote for the picture to stay. It just plain makes the page look better, and it's informative to have a visual representation of the longevity of the band. Also, I think the replacement picture you're suggesting is terrible. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lineup in the photo represents the group during a fairly weak period in their career. It is a rather silly and lame posed shot, too.

Silly and lame and posed, perhaps, but then so were most of the 80's. It does represent the longevity of the band and the different visual styles they adopted as well over the course of their career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.93.44 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are so few free images of the band and, frankly, I think it is necessary to show them at as many points in their career as possible, considering both the longevity of the band and their changes in style over the years. The picture in question illustrates how they appeared later on in their career... a picture from 1975 or 2006 can't effectively do that. Furthermore, the idea that we could use a picture of Kenney Jones from 2007 is absurd and not a reflection of his time in the band. In fact a similar image is used for this same purpose on The Rolling Stones page, and I imagine it is a common practice. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Michigan, thanks for adding to the discussion - your input is especially valued since you are the original uploader. To quote from the policy page on non-free content one of the first questions we should ask when evaluating a copy-righted image is "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" - I think the answer to this in this case is yes. The text of the article - in conveying the events of the groups long history and the changes that occured to the group does a completely adequate job of establishing the groups longevity and points out changes in their musical style. Additionally a free-use rationale pertains only to a single image in-and-of-itself and cannot be spread across a series of images. So in this instance if we said that a certain image establishes the groups longevity - it does not really do so, rather it only establishes the groups existence at that given moment of time (again the text is adequate for that), which begs the question "what is significant about their visual appearance at that given moment?". If there were something integral about the groups visual appearence in a specific photo which was discussed to some length in the text of the article then I could see how a copyrighted image could add to the content - however the article does not make any important mentions of changes in visual style and if the topic is not notable enough for discussion in the text I cant an image as justifiable. Comparatively this article has a wealth of free-use images to illustrate it (most bands have only one) and claiming fair-use on even more images seems unnecessary. As it stands now (especially given the even distribution of pictures through the article and the defense provided by other users that the pictures make the page look nice) it seems to me these images are more decorative in effect and do not greatly enhance the readers understanding of the articles contents. Solid State Survivor (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you care. No one has been making a fuss about this. You are not a regular contributer to that page. You appear to have some sort of axe to grind, as you have been making a habit of proposing images for deletion across numerous articles. If the copyright holder complains, then we can discuss deleting the image. As it is now, you're the only editor that appears to have a problem with it. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 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:Thewho60s.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to show the band at every given point in their career. There are already acceptable free use images of the group on the page; considering this we should not violate copyright in order to add additional images of the group at different times. If the desire is to illustrate a the difference lineups I would suggest using free use images of the different members of the group specific to those times Solid State Survivor (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has the copyright holder complained? I doubt it, particularly given the resolution. I vote for the picture to stay. It just plain makes the page look better, and it's informative to have a visual representation of the longevity of the band. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the photo, it's fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.146.225 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The problem is that there are so few free images of the band and, frankly, I think it is necessary to show them at as many points in their career as possible, considering both the longevity of the band and their changes in style over the years. The picture in question illustrates how they appeared early on in their career... a picture from 1975 or 2006 can't effectively do that. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(text here is the same as entry above) Hey Michigan, thanks for adding to the discussion - your input is especially valued since you are the original uploader. To quote from the policy page on non-free content one of the first questions we should ask when evaluating a copy-righted image is "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" - I think the answer to this in this case is yes. The text of the article - in conveying the events of the groups long history and the changes that occured to the group does a completely adequate job of establishing the groups longevity and points out changes in their musical style. Additionally a free-use rationale pertains only to a single image in-and-of-itself and cannot be spread across a series of images. So in this instance if we said that a certain image establishes the groups longevity - it does not really do so, rather it only establishes the groups existence at that given moment of time (again the text is adequate for that), which begs the question "what is significant about their visual appearance at that given moment?". If there were something integral about the groups visual appearence in a specific photo which was discussed to some length in the text of the article then I could see how a copyrighted image could add to the content - however the article does not make any important mentions of changes in visual style and if the topic is not notable enough for discussion in the text I cant an image as justifiable. Comparatively this article has a wealth of free-use images to illustrate it (most bands have only one) and claiming fair-use on even more images seems unnecessary. As it stands now (especially given the even distribution of pictures through the article and the defense provided by other users that the pictures make the page look nice) it seems to me these images are more decorative in effect and do not greatly enhance the readers understanding of the articles contents. Solid State Survivor (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you care. No one has been making a fuss about this. You are not a regular contributer to that page. You appear to have some sort of axe to grind, as you have been making a habit of proposing images for deletion across numerous articles. If the copyright holder complains, then we can discuss deleting the image. As it is now, you're the only editor that appears to have a problem with it.206.216.34.171 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 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 Flock of Seagulls.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The band does still currently exist and does make public appearances in the form of concerts. It is therefor conceivable that a replacement free-use image of the band can be produced. The fact that a free-use image can be produced takes precedent over the use of a copyrighted image of the band with its most recognizable line-up. Solid State Survivor (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, from what I understand, the band does still perform, but not in the original incarnation, and the article describes the band as the photograph presents them, in 1983. I think the mage should thus stay. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, thank you for your thoughts on this topic. I understand that the band was at the height of their popularity with the line-up in 1983- However that line-up is not a seperate entity from the group as it exists today. Regardless of what the ideal picture of the group may be if a free-use image of the group "Flock of Seagulls" described in the article at any point in its existence can plausibly be found the current image's fair-use rationale will not hold up on grounds of replacability and its existence on wikipedia is in violation of copyright law. Solid State Survivor (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your reasoning sounds reasonable to me. I was wondering if that policy pertains to album cover's. For instance, does a re-release that changes the original image void due to replacability?Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. To answer your question the whole issue of replacability has to do with the fair-use rationale on copyrighted images. If it is plausible that the copyrighted image depciting a subject could be replaced by a free-use (non-copyrighted) image depicting that same subject then it is not considered fair-use and its presence on wikipedia violates copyright law. In the instance of album artwork - those image are by nature always copyrighted (being the art on a commercial product) and so its really never possible for a free-use image to replace them. In general that makes album art acceptable for fair-use on wikipedia. When a reissue happens with different art both it and the prior are copyrighted so the subject of replacability (being one of copyrighted vs free-use media) does not apply. Solid State Survivor (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I think it best a more appropriate image is found before this one is deleted. I think the article would lose a lot if there weren't any image of the band at all, seeing how they were an 80s band known as much for their image as their music...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the criterion for replacability in the fair-use rationale is not "is a free-use image readily available?" but rather "could a free-use image be created?". Since we have established that another photo of the group can be created in the future this one must be removed.Solid State Survivor (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a quick search on Google image (following appropriate protocol for a FUI) has yielded at least three more images. As you said initially, it is not only conceivable that an image can be produced, it is reality. Please allow me time to upload. I am not as proficient with this process as you are. I apologize in advance for delay in this. Thanks. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 21:31, 16 August 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 Perfect Circle.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this band is no longer on hiatus making it very probable that a free-use image could be produced in the future and replace this one. Given that fact the current copyrighted image does not meet qualifications for fair use Solid State Survivor (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I don't usually deal much with pictures, so if my arguments are off-base, I apologize. That being said, I disagree. They may be off hiatus, but shouldn't we wait until there is actually a better image before we go to delete this one? Especially since, this band in particular, isn't the typical type of band that poses for lots of pictures, and they often play in relatively unlit areas for concerts. I could be wrong, but couple it with the fact that the band is no longer on a major record label, and I don't think there's really going to be that many band pictures popping up. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion Serge. Unfortunately the criterion for replacability in the fair-use rationale is not "is a free-use image available?" but rather "could a free-use image be created?". That means that is a free-use picture of the group can plausibly be created the image being used here violates copyright law and must be removed. Seeing as how this band has not broken up it seems plausible to me that a free-use photograph of the group playing at a future concert could easily be created by anyone in attendance. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well alright then. I figured there was some type of policy that I didn't understand on it (I don't usually mess around with contributing pictures here.) But I just thought I'd offer my two cents. I guess if the picture is to be saved, it'll have to be on different grounds...Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 12 August 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:Magecover.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused, fan-art? source for base image not provided, no target article or encyc use provided Skier Dude (talk 02:45, 11 August 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:PrivateDon.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FU. The article "Donald Bradman", does not discuss much about this book. Vssun (talk) 02:52, 11 August 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:AMoF Shoalhaven aviation 1 of 4.pdf

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

apparently malformed .pdf, no target article or encyc use provided Skier Dude (talk 04:18, 11 August 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:RFUEA simple 1953.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious WP:FU claim. Image isn't illustrating something words can't Gnevin (talk) 10:58, 11 August 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:New balkans.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map in JPEG format. I'm not sure what it's supposed to represent, but it might be an expression of a personal belief about the way the political boundaries in the Balkans should be drawn. If so, we don't need such potentially divisive things. —Bkell (talk) 12:51, 11 August 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:SunWukong.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No context for encyclopedic use. Based on the image description ("A famous 60's Chinese cartoon 'The Monkey King' (Da Nao Tian Gong) was used for reference to design it"), it may be a derivative work of a copyrighted character. —Bkell (talk) 12:56, 11 August 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:J3f.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. No context for encyclopedic use. Uncertain licensing situation. —Bkell (talk) 13:02, 11 August 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:Escher sphere.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. According to [2] this is a woodcut called "Sphere Spirals" made by M. C. Escher in 1958, so this image appears to be a copyright violation. —Bkell (talk) 13:11, 11 August 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:IrkenEvangelion.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic use; this image is used only in User:IrkenEvangelion, which has been nominated for deletion. This image is claimed to be a self-made image, but it appears to be a copyright violation as a derivative work of several presumably copyrighted images (such as [3] and [4]). —Bkell (talk) 13:29, 11 August 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:Pia bustos.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 13:33, 11 August 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:Pia1.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 13:36, 11 August 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:Pia2.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 13:36, 11 August 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:Neowin Signature Image - Arbitier Desktop.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal forum signature. No encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 13:42, 11 August 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:MMOFPSmaxplayers.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Original research? —Bkell (talk) 13:49, 11 August 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:Fragosolaw.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused mathematical expression in JPEG format. If this is needed in an article, it would be better to write it using proper math syntax. —Bkell (talk) 13:52, 11 August 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:Orenburgskaja Marka.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image showing the front of a pack of cigarettes. Tagged {{PD-self}}, but I doubt the uploader is the designer of the packaging. —Bkell (talk) 13:56, 11 August 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:Screamers!!.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image description page used as an article for an apparently non-notable school club. Image itself is not used in any articles and has no encyclopedic use. It is tagged GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0, but it is a collage of other images, at least one of which (the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers logo) may be copyrighted. —Bkell (talk) 14:02, 11 August 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:Chey in Forest Hills.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image description page used as promotional personal page; Wikipedia is not MySpace. —Bkell (talk) 14:14, 11 August 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:DoDie.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused album cover; I can't find a reference to this album in any Wikipedia articles. Note that this album cover does have an OTRS tag. —Bkell (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facel Vega (band) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do or Die EP. —Bkell (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The file has been tagged as being a duplicate of a Commons file.--Rockfang (talk) 08:08, 12 August 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:Gkalisix7pd1.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: Deleted. —Bkell (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although tagged as free, this is clearly a non-free image of a living person, and therefore is replaceable. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 11 August 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.