Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 14

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14

File:Evesham high street.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 F4 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File has no licensing information. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2011 (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:GreaterRacketTailedDrongo2.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 ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution image that does not show its subject very clearly and only used on article talk page to indicate its replacement. File has been superseded by File:Dicrurus paradiseus -Kerala -India-6-3c.jpg, a higher-resolution picture of a live specimen of the same species. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FunkyDuffy (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2011 (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:Dimensionality of Organic.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 ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useless failed proposal. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused after 4 years. FunkyDuffy (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2011 (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:GBthumb2 Eastbourne maps.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of deleted template to show its particular problems. No file uses at all; hence, no longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2011 (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:Lady gaga pony necklace.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: speedy deleted per Teb728. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non free photo of a living person. Free replacement is definitely possible. MASEM (t) 05:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you even read the image description? It is intended to show her distinctive necklace. No free image of her with the necklace exists. Free replacement is not possible. FunkyDuffy (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't allow non-free images of living persons, regardless of what they are wearing. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If, for example, her head was cropped off, would it be acceptable? The value here is in showing that the necklace is being worn.FunkyDuffy (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While technically that might be less a problem, is it that difficult to envision "a necklace made from MLP toys" without an image of the necklace? This is trying to illustrate something that doesn't need to be see to comprehend what's being said, which fails WP:NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, yes. The necklace I envisioned was very different from the image I found. FunkyDuffy (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To clarify first, we don't prohibit nonfree images just because they show what a living person looks like; the problem is instead when that is their only encyclopedic purpose, rather than one incidental to another purpose.
And on that purported other purpose, I don't see a lot of call for an image when it's just a one-sentence statement of "she wore this once", with the inexplicable rationalization that it shows Gaga "has been open towards Friendship is Magic", whatever that is supposed to mean. It's definitely not of a J. Lo dress-level of cultural impact or commentary. So while I don't think it necessarily fails WP:NFCC#1, it definitely fails WP:NFCC#8. postdlf (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't agree it necessarily fails WP:NFCC#8, but I think it fails WP:NFCC#2. Based on the description, it sounds like this is also speedy deletable per Wikipedia:CSD#F7 bullet #2 (images from a commercial source). However, I will let the discussion go, as it isn't immediately clear to me who the copyright holder is. If it turns out not to be Paparazzi, then keep. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete According to the caption at the source it is a WENN photo. There is no sourced commentary. —teb728 t c 23:54, 15 June 2011 (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:4chanmarch20.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 ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image showing the header of 4chan changed to "Once upon a pony" is completely replaceable by text. MASEM (t) 06:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Text does not have the same authority a screenshot does. It's 4chan. FunkyDuffy (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only relevant part of this screenshot is the changed title - a piece of text. And this only makes sense if you know what 4chan's site layout is normally in the first place. Fails WP:NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 06:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it somewhat demonstrates the fandom on 4chan. Rainbow Dash 10:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral because I don't want to have a WP:COI issue. Rainbow Dash 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if we keep this image, we most certainly need to crop out the thread at the top, per WP:NFCC#3b. There is no need to have a second copyrighted image within the first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2011 (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:TIM Government UN.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 ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to confirm that this is indeed what the description says (i.e. may be a false/invented image). The license is inappropriate. File was copied from dewiki; the source of the file there is stated as "no-longer-existing UN homepage", which is unhelpful. The license at dewiki tells us that it is an "official work" in Germany, Austria or Switzerland, again very doubtful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2011 (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:Cadproc1.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 ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unused lower-quality format of commons:File:Cadproc1.png by same author DMacks (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2011 (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:WikiVandal.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, orphaned, low quality user image. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons to preserve humour. Der yck C. 18:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to move it to Commons, do it! You don't have to !vote for it here. There's no reason to keep the image just because you think it ought to be moved. If you want to move it, you've had a week to do it. --B (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2011 (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.

X³: Reunion user-guide images

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Numerous files uploaded by Digitalvip (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log):[reply]

File:Keyboardx3game.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:LaserInfo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:MissileStats.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Racerank1.1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:TRADE&FIGHT.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:RANKSSHIPS.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ArgonShips.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:TeladiShips.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Paranid1.1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:BORONSHIPS1.2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SPILITSHIP1.2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:X3 ship SPOILERv1.1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:X3 ship SPOILER.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Minutia of a video-game (X³: Reunion)--content likely not appropriate for WP article (was removed years ago) per excessive plot detail and WP not a gaming/user-guide. Not appropriate format either (graphic-file of text-table: data could vary in over years/new versions not easily editable). DMacks (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2011 (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:BoysPenisSizes.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 ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. This is the third time somebody has uploaded yet another random screenshot for this specific episode article right after the previous one was deleted. We had a group FFD for a whole bunch of proposed alternative ones a few days ago [1], which led to the deletion of the whole lot. No argument has been made why this new screenshot meets NFCC#8 more than any of the ones contained in that last bunch. It clearly doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 14 June 2011 (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:Black and white Valentino dress of Julia Roberts.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image from a commercial source. Violation of NFCC#2. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I asked you to find an appropriate image?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image was discussed on my talk page. I told you why this image was not appropriate, and it has not been replaced. I have not at any point said that I will find an alternative, nor have I said that there definitely is an appropriate alternative. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have updated the non-free use rationale using the proper template. I think it is sufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note NFCC#2. We cannot simply take images from commercial sources and use them. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2011 (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:Cairn Terrier with ball.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: closed as irrelevant, as the image is present on commons at File:Cairn Terrier with ball.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned is not a reason to delete an decent-quality free image. Decent image of Cairn Terrier playing with a ball, and this image is no more unencyclopedic than any other image of a Cairn Terrier. Poor file name, renamed File:Cairn Terrier with ball.jpg and moved to Commons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The file was moved from File:DSC01137.JPG to File:Cairn Terrier with ball.jpg by JohnnyMrNinja (talk · contribs) at 14:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 16 June 2011 (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:Bigg D at Miami Live.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: closed as irrelevant, as the image is present on commons at File:Bigg D at Miami Live.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, low quality Acather96 (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the image is slightly unfocused at full resolution, this is a free image of Bigg D as can be clearly seen by uploader's description and contributions. Poor file name choice, which is easily fixed. Renamed File:Bigg D at Miami Live.jpg, added to article Bigg D and moved to Commons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:18, 16 June 2011 (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:Kitchen interior design.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: closed as irrelevant, as the image is present on commons at File:Kitchen interior design.jpg]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, seems only being used to promote an interior design company. Acather96 (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned is not a reason to delete a decent-quality free image, nor is a poor file name, nor is the uploader's original intention. Renamed File:Kitchen interior design.jpg and moved to Commons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The file was moved from File:DSC01186.JPG to File:Kitchen interior design.jpg by JohnnyMrNinja (talk · contribs) at 14:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 16 June 2011 (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:ManilaHostageAftermath.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 G5 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image was flagged up for potential copyright problems at the good article review of Manila hostage crisis. The uploader is a blocked suspected sock, hence it's impossible to ask for clarification. The uploader tagged the image with CC-BY-SA-3.0.

In any other case in which an image uploaded by a sock is found with copyright problems, I would speedy the image. However, in this case I would rather assume good faith and open up the discussion to everyone else. The reason is that a TinEye reverse image search of this image shows ~~no match. Or rather,~~ this image is the source image pirated by two other websites. The short duration between the upload time and the actual event, and a lack of watermarks, also gave me reasons to believe in the uploader that the picture was genuinely taken by the uploader, using a low-resolution device.

Two proposals:

Assume bad faith because the uploader is a sock, and delete the image for lack of author information.
Keep the image by assuming good faith, and tag the image as original work by the uploader.

Please comment. Der yck C. 17:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The uploader's "e-mail this user" is enabled, so I sent an e-mail regarding this deletion discussion. Der yck C. 17:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The image is not tagged with a FFD notice. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put it on the talk page. I've put it onto the image description now. Der yck C. 18:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did a quick Google image search for "manila+hostage+crisis" and found the same image in use at http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/filipinos-taking-photos-at-manila-hostage-scene-chinese-netizen-reactions.html. The copy on that website has a watermark crediting it to news.ifeng.com. postdlf (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An image diff (see the TinEye link I posted above) suggested that the ChinaSmack image is a reproduction of this one, not the other way round. Der yck C. 12:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - sorry for unorthodox closure; using proper wiki markup is too difficult when using my smartphone. The reason is: it is unsourced (uploader never claimed to be the author, just gave a license tag without the self tag), because I truly doubt the uploader is the legitimate author, and because it qualifies as G5 anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David Smith April 2011.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not required. Richardhsmith329 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2011 (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:16 division collar inmsignia.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep/Withdrawn. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by File:16 Motorised Division Pistoia collar insignia.svg, which is a lossless format, while this one is not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the SVG version seems to have a poorer quality. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The SVG is inferior to the JPG in this case due to the SVG's poor quality. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Too hard for me to do it correctly; I'm my phone's keyboard. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2011 (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:Document 8.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obsoleted by File:Document 8.png for the same reason I listed in the nomination immediately above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. You should have speedy deleted it in the first place. Fleet Command (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FleetCommand, speedy doesn't apply because the files are in different formats. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:06, 20 June 2011 (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:Boston 1772.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obsoleted by File:Boston 1772.png Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2011 (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:FER-Map.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obsoleted by File:Far Eastern Republic (orthographic projection).svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems a simple format swap and as an adaptor of the original image in question, I have no objection to it. Carrite (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2011 (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:VChernykhandBukreev.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 ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article claims that the screenshot shows a lack of ego, but in fact it shows only two men in uniform, standing in front of a microphone. Aside from this claim the text needs no illustration, and the use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. If the article needs to comment on the lack of ego, that can be accomplished by pure text without the need of illustration. —teb728 t c 22:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For identification and critical commentary: The image identifies the soloists. Without this image, there is no other way at present in which these 1970s soloists of the Soviet era can be identified as individuals in the English-speaking world today. It is not sufficient to explain formality of performance in this case, in words alone, because the matter is subtle, and expressed on stage in attitude and appearance of artists. What Boris Alexandrov wanted the public to see was two men in uniform, just standing there like soldiers, as you see in the image. Today in the West, this might be called a "wooden" stage performance and counts as a criticism; it implies a lack of professionalism. However, to Alexandrov, the appearance of soldiering represented political pride, and what we may see as just two soldiers standing had a positive symbolism for the audience of the time. This is about the history of musical performance in old Soviet Russia, and should be respected as such, and not interpreted from a Western point of view alone.

I didn't understand the deletion tag which says there is no copyright tag when there is one, so I added another one.--Storye book (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file now has an inappropriate no-copyright-tag-deletion template. Yet the file already had an appropriate tag, and now I have added a second appropriate screenshot copyright tag. Please remove the deletion template as it does not apply. Please message me on my talkpage urgently if there is anything else I can do to correct this situation. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that explains why use of the photo significantly increases reader understanding: The text (and anything that could be added to it) would be perfectly understandable without the photo. BTW, don’t worry about the {{untagged}} tag: it was added by a bot, which (not being human) failed to recognize your tag—probably because you substed the tag. —teb728 t c 07:52, 20 June 2011 (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:NikolaiGres.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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. If the article needs to comment on the effort that the performance requires, that can be accomplished by pure text without the need of illustration. —teb728 t c 22:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For identification and critical commentary: The image identifies the soloist as an ex-Bolshoi-Theatre-artist in the full throes of a deafeningly-loud performance, which is at the same time subtle and utterly under control as he responds to the acoustics of the building. Without this image, there is no other way at present in which this 1960s-1970s Ensemble soloist of the Soviet era can be identified as the kind of performer that he was in the English-speaking world today. It is not sufficient to explain the sheer effort of performance in this case, in words alone, because the amount of effort is shocking, and expressed on stage in attitude and appearance of the artist, who was still feeling the effects of a severe head injury sustained in WW2. This is about the history of musical performance in old Soviet Russia, and should be respected as such, and not interpreted from a Western point of view alone; for that we need the image.

I didn't understand the deletion tag which says there is not copyright tag when there was already a tag there, so I added yet another one. --Storye book (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file now has an inappropriate no-copyright-tag-deletion template. Yet the file already had an appropriate tag, and now I have added a second appropriate screenshot copyright tag. Please remove the deletion template as it does not apply. Please message me on my talkpage urgently if there is anything else I can do to correct this situation. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that explains why use of the photo significantly increases reader understanding: The text (and anything that could be added to it) would be perfectly understandable without the photo. BTW, I don’t see any “no-copyright-tag-deletion template” which has ever been on this file. —teb728 t c 08:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image shows a person who was born in 1920 and died in 2004, and was a notable Alexandrov Ensemble soloist in his middle age, yet hardly famous in the time　of internet and digital cameras. It would be rather difficult to find a PD adult image in this case, thus fair use seems justified. Materialscientist (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2011 (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:SIvanovPDBogachev.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 ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. If the article needs to comment on the informality of the performance, that can be accomplished by pure text without the need of illustration. —teb728 t c 22:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For identification and critical commentary: The image identifies the soloists. Without this image, there is no other way at present in which the soloists can be identified as individuals in the English-speaking world. It is not sufficient to explain informality of performance in this case, in words alone, because the matter is subtle, and expressed on stage in attitude and appearance of artists. This has changed over time; in the previous decade such smiles would not have happened, and they appear quite shocking to those who have seen previous videos of this Ensemble in the Soviet period.

I have also added another copyright tag, as I do not understand the deletion tag; there is already a copyright tag on the page.--Storye book (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file now has an inappropriate no-copyright-tag-deletion template. Yet the file already had an appropriate tag, and now I have added a second appropriate screenshot copyright tag. Please remove the deletion template as it does not apply. Please message me on my talkpage urgently if there is anything else I can do to correct this situation. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that explains why use of the photo significantly increases reader understanding: The text (and anything that could be added to it) would be perfectly understandable without the photo. BTW, I don’t see any “no-copyright-tag-deletion template” which has ever been on this file. —teb728 t c 08:04, 20 June 2011 (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:Merlin the cat.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 ⚡ 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of uploader's two contributions; orphaned, and presumably never used. No encyclopedic use, and we have much better images of cats. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:49, 14 June 2011 (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.