Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 6

< February 5	February 7 >

February 6

File:Ryugyong Hotel under construction on 26 August 2009.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Blueboy96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably copyvio, apparently a slightly photoshopped version of [1]/[2] (note, for example, the position of the cranes in front). Uploader has a long history of uploading copyvio photos. This was tagged for speedy deletion but was declined. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The angle is exactly the same. Cranes are the same. There are two dots of sunlight-reflection hitting the exact same spots. Give me the Reuters-original and I give you a pic that looks like this one in 10 minutes: Crop, filter, blow up, smooth pixilated areas (badly done in this one). Note also that the location is North Korea. It's not like they have millions of people casually strolling in and out taking pictures... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close — this image is on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Whose side are you on.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned & unencyclopedic. Otterathome (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Image illustrates Uncyclopedia's concept of 'editors' and 'vandals'. Difu Wu (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like original thought, unless you can back it up with source. Also what is the significance of the picture? What the hell is 'Who's side are you on' about? These questions would be answered if it was properly added in to an article and had a real description.--Otterathome (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose deletion. Image is not currently orphaned illustrates something that is relatively true on Uncyclopedia it not going against any policy's on Wikipedia so i see no reason for it to be deleted. Kyle1278 00:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"something that is relatively true" what is this something? If you don't understand why it is up for deletion read the instructions at WP:FFD.--Otterathome (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I understand your view on why you nominated it but i do not think it is unencyclopedic. Kyle1278 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm waiting for you to describe the encyclopedic aspect of it, preferably with a source. All you've said is that it is 'something' to do with another article.--Otterathome (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I never said it has to do with another article. What i meant was that it is the view of a lot of editors on unencyclopedic. Kyle1278 21:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete OK you have swayed me and after reading through the WP:FFD again i agree with the deletion it is unencyclopedic. Kyle1278 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator. could be moved to commons, but has no place on wikipedia. ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 06:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ticket to Vivekananda Memorial.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 as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no reason given that image is PD, doesn't look like it really is PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 1981 is too new for PD-no-notice, and I can't imagine any other reasons to claim PD. Nyttend (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a problem - just delete it - it is not too important to the article anyway. Sorry, I didn't realise there might be a problem with such an item being in the Public Domain when I uploaded it. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hasidim Hungary.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1923 photo, no reason given why it would be PD. if a person in this photo really needs to be illustrated we should be able to find a different photo from a year earlier that would be PD. also has no source. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ThreeShires.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-commercial use only - not acceptable for wikipedia Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Arcturus can provide evidence that the author's willing to make an exception and release this into the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grad hat jpg.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, source doesn't say that the images are PD, low quality anyways Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of this being free. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 06:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Richardwatson2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no source, low quality, now replaced by File:Richard Watson.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom nom nom geeze I'm hungry ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 06:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orbigo.Bridge.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission is not satisfactory. We now have other images of this bridge; see Commons:Category:Puente del Paso Honroso Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even aside from licensing issues, this is inferior to some of the Commons images. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Johnfletcher.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no source, no reason given why it's PD, looks like it could be modern Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paris1.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 Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, replaced by File:Grandes Armes de Paris.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stras2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no source, replaced with File:Coat of Arms of Strasbourg.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Risley-shield-stonework.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: Relisted at today's FfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not clear whether uploader was photographer Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is perfectly clear that the uploader indicated that he is the risley resident who took the photo, that is how the comma attaches extra information.--Crossmr (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parrish letter.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 Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation (written by state govt figure, not federal govt), original research - used in Legality of pet skunks in Virginia (what an article!) Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HerbertHooveratOWU.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no source - nominating here bc it's a nice photo, i can't find teh source but i want to encourage others besides the uploader (long gone) to look Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So did you nominate something for deletion that would be more appropriate for clean-up? I've potentially found the original uploader on another site and sent a message to ask about this.--Crossmr (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, normally no source gets a five-day deletion tag, see {{nsd}}. I brought it here so it would get more eyes before deletion. I looked for the photo myself but couldn't find where it came from. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juandelacosa.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Spanish stamps are not PD. I could be wrong. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Invernesscastle1.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i don't see any indication at source that photos are PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:delete2|image=File:Donald Braswell and Anthony Bazzani performing.jpg|reason=(orphan) --Lucia medea (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

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

File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.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, at least until copyright claims can be established. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I think this image should be kept; (2) I think this image meets all our criteria for "fair use" -- (I also strongly suspect with some detective work it could be established it is in the public domain); (3) one good faith contributor placed a speedy tag on it, and another good faith contributor removed that tag. (4) I'd like to move straight to a community discussion, as I think it likely this image would otherwise end up at DRV... I uploaded this image last September. It is a rare photo. After years of detention the Red Cross got permission to take pictures of the Guantanamo captives, to give to their families. A few of the captives' families subsequently agreed for their copies of those images to be republished. This, I believe, establishes that the image is non-reproduceable. At the time I figured that images of Guantanamo captives, like this one, almost certainly would qualify as public domain images, but that this would be hard to officially confirm. I am sure that the Red Cross's own rules would prohibit it from making a profit from images like this. I strongly suspect that when the families agreed to have these images republished they wanted them to be republished as widely as possible, and without preconditions. At the time I uploaded it I figured it would be much easier to upload the image as "fair use". Who owns the intellectual property rights to the images? The Red Cross? The Red Cross employee who actually took the images? Or the family member the image was given to? I don't know. I am prepared to try to figure out who at the Red Cross is in a position to know, and either request an OTRS from them, or ask them to forward a request to the family that they send in an OTRS clearance. Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- my first draft for the request for an OTRS ticket for this image is at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion/2010 February 6 Geo Swan (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file is a photograph of a living person. This case is specifically listed as unacceptable use of non-Free content at WP:NFC ("12. Pictures of people still alive"). See also Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people. Even in the absence of Free replacement, this image would not be acceptable for Fair Use. As things happen to be, there are Free replacement available on Commons [3]. Rama (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misquoting the policy, which explicitly makes an exception when new images aren't possible, or won't serve the same purpose as the fair use image. WRT to the pre-capture pictures -- they are not replacements for this image. He's unrecognizable. You direct our attention to Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people -- as if it were a policy. It is a policy I have never heard of. No surprise it is just an essay -- one abandoned two years ago. Finally, is there a reason why you didn't acknowledge my offer to initiate an OTRS ticket to establish whether this is actually a public domain image? Geo Swan (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy explicitly states that photographs of living people are unacceptable, and that images must be irreplaceable to be claimed as Fair use. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed appears to be still alive, and we do have Free photographs of him. Either of these facts would alone bar the possibility of invoking Fair Use, per Wikipedia policy.

Sorry if I gave the impression of holding Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people to be a policy, it is not the case. I mentionned Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people for perspective. The policy is at WP:NFC, and it forbids Fair Use claims on photographs of living people.

I would be absolutely delighted if File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg was made available under a Free licence, and in this case, I would support its use on the top of the page instead of the more widely known and presently available File:Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture.jpg. However I find using it as Fair Use to contradict the policy on at least two major points (three if you count the size of the image), and I think that unless it is made available under a Free licence, it has nothing to do on Wikipedia. Rama (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually there was a foundation resolution [4] The caveat is that it must be reasonable to expect that a free image can be made available. In this case there are public domain images available (Regardless of how they show him), they're available and can be used. Were those not available this would be acceptable under fair use. We cannot expect wikipedians to assemble special forces teams and break into detention centers to generate photos.--Crossmr (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Last night I googled Bernard Barrett, the Red Cross spokesman who the Press quoted about the origin of images like this one. He is a Canadian. If no one replies to the email I sent, requesting permission to use the image on the wikimedia commons, I'll try phoning the Canadian Red Cross HQ. Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW -- The Geneva Conventions strictly prohibit public humiliation of captives, or making them the subject of prurient interest. The two pictures on the commons File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.jpg and File:Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture.jpg. The initial publication of these two images, by the Bush administration, was, technically, a war crime. Similarly, so was the video of a subdued, dazed, and unkempt Saddam Hussein having his head kept for lice. We don't remove images when their initial publication was a war crime, do we? If we did find the war crime aspect forced us to remove the two commons images then the objection that there were free images would not exist -- correct? Geo Swan (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Untitled-9 copy.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sourcing supplied. Ash (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is my understanding under fair use you don't need to indicate a source only where it can be found, which is what it clearly says: The logo may be obtained from St. Eugene Elementary School.. The image does however need a new name as this is far too generic. That being said, I can't believe this is a genuine logo as the text is clearly computer generated. The school seems real, but I think this logo is a hoax/something someone made up--Crossmr (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kika Jan 22 2010.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated, Possible copyvio. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 06:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mrs Mary Janes Incognito.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated, Possible copyvio. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominator ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 06:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Topimg1.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; no context provided for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ben Smith enjoying his favorite pass-time.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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