Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 June 6

< June 5	June 7 >

June 6

File:Travel cat hancock tower.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image has no encyclopedic value. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:08, 13 June 2012 (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:Biografia harare.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image is a combination of this image and the cover from Lion King movie. Both images most likely have copyright not owned by uploader -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per possible copyright violations and undetermined EV. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:27, 13 June 2012 (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:The invisible man.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image is this image and is most likely not owned by uploader -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFCC#7; and orphan; and copyvio. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 23:51, 13 June 2012 (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:Tilbury fc.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image is most likely unfree and is replaced by the better quality color File:New Logo2.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:07, 6 June 2012 (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:Tag in Sheffield, U.K..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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:09, 6 June 2012 (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:Spacemerchantz 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image of no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No EV, plus no notability from the artist depicted. Also, (if applicable) possible copyvio. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:37, 13 June 2012 (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:Merchantz1.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image of no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:14, 6 June 2012 (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:SPYNX.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image of no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:15, 6 June 2012 (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:Sienna hybrid.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:17, 6 June 2012 (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:Singapore Exchange Limited Logo, June 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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader removed an SVG in favor of this, image was essentially the same, so I reverted his change. That orphaned this non-free image. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , this is Connect1999 speaking. The image I have uploaded is the new SGX Logo. They are currently trying to phase out use of the previous version. You may go to their website to verify. Could you please change the logo back? Thank you.

The logo didn't change, you just changed its format (from SVG to JPG). It is a Wikipedia policy to use vector images whenever possible, that's why we prefer SVG over JPG. --187.40.193.102 (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2012 (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:Seongsu Bridge collapse aftermath, South Korea, Oct 1994.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free historical news photograph. Fails WP:NFC#UUI5. Likely also a NFCC#2 failure (source seems to be a commercial news source, but description is not specific enough to clarify which exactly). Arguably also replaceable, since the main aim of the illustration – making the nature of the structural failure understood – could also be served with a diagram. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 6 June 2012 (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:Sweet Revenge Liqueur logo.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a copyrighted logo not owned by author Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for guidance here from Big Wind and any other reviewer. This is the first of many entries I plan to create for Wikipedia in the inadequately-covered category of food and beverage. And so your advice and patience will be appreciated, in an effort to help streamline the arduous process of publishing informative, well-crafted and instructional entries.

There are two photographs displayed and captioned in this entry. Both photos were taken by my (the author) of products that are in the public domain, a liquor bottle and the liquor brand logo as displayed on promotional goods distributed to the public.

Is there objection under these conditions to publishing these photos on Wikipedia, and if so, why? If there are objections, what would remedy your concerns? I have published similar photographs in commercial magazines for decades, without difficulty.

Please advise. And if you would be so kind as to discuss this matter with me, and allow time for discussion or remedy if there is a reasonable objection, it will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian Lake (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is continuing with Ryan Vesey and Big Wind. Once there is some clear direction, if a remedy is necessary, or if alternate images need to be provided, I will do so. However, I would like to have clear guidance as to why Wikipedia finds these images objectionable, if in fact they are. They were created by me, they are unique, and I am signing over rights to use them, to Wikipedia.

Please allow a bit more time for a more engaged discussion, which I believe will be not until evening EST tonight.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The producer of the product would presumably hold copyright on the product label art, and there seems to be no indication that the producer of the product has authorized the generation or use of the photo, so it probably should not be considered a freely available image. The person who provided the image said it depicts "a product that is in public domain". However, that is probably not a perfectly-worded description. More likely, it should say that it is a picture of a product that is available for sale to the general public. It seems highly unlikely that the product is really "in the public domain" in terms of copyright rights. There may be a "fair use" argument, however, as an illustration of the product in question. I am not a lawyer and don't feel qualified to comment on the validity of such an argument. See rationale provided for other product labels, such as File:Jim Beam logo.jpg. Also see WP:FUR and WP:LOGO. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Logos seems the applicable guideline here, and this logo does appear to be non-free (no evidence the company either simply adopted a freely-licensed existing logo or that it has released it under an open/free license for use by others). One of the product or logo files (File:Sweet Revenge Liqueur logo.jpg or File:Sweet Revenge Liqueur bottle.jpg, both presently at FfD) would certainly be acceptable non-free fair-use in Sweet Revenge (liqueur), the article about this product. I think the product would be better, because the article is about the product and part of its identity may be the classic-whiskey-bottle shape. DMacks (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either this or the File:Sweet Revenge Liqueur bottle.jpg should clearly be deleted. If an acceptable alternate to the bottle is created, I would suggest keeping this otherwise I find the bottle picture as a better addition to the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:14, 7 June 2012 (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:Sweet Revenge Liqueur bottle.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, will be tagged with a non-free license shortly. — ξ ^xplicit 00:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looks like a copyrighted article not owned by the author Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Wind, I know that you are vastly more familiar with gaming Wikipedia's processes, and so I need to ask your patience. This may be a problem of simply better articulating your position. Can you explain your text above: "looks like a copyrighted article not owned by the author"

Do you mean that, even though this image is created and owned by the author, it doesn't *look* like it?

Or do you mean, that the subject of the author's photos appears to be copyrighted?

I simply need to understand why these images are objectionable to you, in order to correct the misunderstanding, or to create a suitable alternative. Please advise and thank you.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a photo of a product, prominently showing the product label. The producer of the product would presumably hold copyright on the product label art, and there seems to be no indication that the producer of the product has authorized the generation or use of the photo, so it probably should not be considered a freely available image. The person who provided the image said it depicts "a product that is in public domain". However, that is probably not a perfectly-worded description. More likely, it should say that it is a picture of a product that is available for sale to the general public. It seems highly unlikely that the product is really "in the public domain" in terms of copyright rights. There may be a "fair use" argument, however, as an illustration of the product in question. I am not a lawyer and don't feel qualified to comment on the validity of such an argument. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, BarrelProof. But do you love the photos? Just kidding. Seriously, Ryan Vesey and I plan to discuss this tonight. I need to understand more fully the Wikipedia standards. My best hypothesis right now is that it is kind of counterintuitive -- if the photo looks more uniquely "mine", rather than generically "ours", it will be more acceptable in Wikipedia. But I hope to get this clarified within 24 hours, and will either be in a position to defend the images, or offer remedies or replacement photos if necessary. Thanks again for your thoughts. "In public domain" is magazine-speak here, not legalese. Rather than argue blind-leading-blind, hang in there, till we've got more information from those who really do understand this, like Vesey and Big Wind. As I've mentioned to you already, I'm investing energy to solve this not just for this entry, but to streamline the process going forward.

Sebastian Lake (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I do like that photo of the bottle. The checkered background is cute. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Logos seems the applicable guideline here, and this product/label does appear to be non-free (no evidence the company either simply adopted a freely-licensed existing logo and label-design or has explicitly released it under an open/free license for use by others). One of the product or logo files (File:Sweet Revenge Liqueur logo.jpg or File:Sweet Revenge Liqueur bottle.jpg, both presently at FfD) would certainly be acceptable non-free fair-use in Sweet Revenge (liqueur), the article about this product. I think the product would be better, because the article is about the product and part of its identity may be the classic-whiskey-bottle shape. DMacks (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2012 (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:Ratelpaws.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be in the public domain in the United States, and the non-free use claim is invalid; this could be replaced by free content. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Fauna of British India was published in the U.K., so unless these illustrations are from the first edition, which I believe they are not, they are in copyright in their source country and the U.S. —innotata 15:12, 6 June 2012 (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:Ratelglands.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be in the public domain in the United States, and the non-free use claim is invalid; this could be replaced by free content. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2012 (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:Kolonokpaws.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be in the public domain in the United States, and the non-free use claim is invalid; this could be replaced by free content. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2012 (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:Kolonokskull.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be in the public domain in the United States, and the non-free use claim is invalid; this could be replaced by free content. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2012 (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:Sibiricamoupinensis.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be in the public domain in the United States, and the non-free use claim is invalid; this could be replaced by free content. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2012 (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:Zaidi -2.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo. Is this a notable person? MGA73 (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2012 (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:Zidel333 part 2.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oprhan userpage image MGA73 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2012 (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:Zidel333.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oprhan userpage image MGA73 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2012 (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:Zomg.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No forseen usage. Is uploader the photographer? MGA73 (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2012 (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:Zorbak.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. If it is a character in AdventureQuest it is a derivative work. MGA73 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2012 (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:Zox-TheWait.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Probably copyrighted. MGA73 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2012 (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:Mozilla Firefox logo history.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free images: a collage of three non-free images and one free image. The old unfree logos are not critically discussed, so they fail WP:NFCC#8. Just displaying the free one, File:Mozilla Firefox 3.5 logo 256.png, would be enough for this section. No FUR for any article in which the image appears (the current FUR is for a different article in which it is currently not used). Note: According to Commons:Category:Mozilla Firefox logos, logos used since Firefox 3.5 are free whereas earlier logos are unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2012 (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.