Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 13

< April 12	April 14 >

April 13

Trekneroship.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. This is a tough one to see consensus on, but I think that the various delete arguments are better grounded in policy than some of the keep !votes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A purely decorative image that fails WP:NFCC#8, its omission would not be detrimental understanding understanding of the subject, nfcc#1 easily described with text which can be licenced under the GFDL Fasach Nua (talk)
Keep because the image is significant in illustrating the appearance of the film's main antagonist. I disagree with the nominator's claim that such a figure can be "easily described with text". The appearance is unique to the film, and it is unlikely for readers to be able to imagine it in their heads based on the present text. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it would be extremely difficult to explain the visual appearance of this significant character without this image. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - This image was nominated for deletion after these comments were added to the nominator's talk page, which seems to be in poor judgment (with a hint of bad faith). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user doesn't think it meets criteria and takes it to a larger audience; just because you disagree with him and say "of course it meets NFCC" doesn't mean it does. There's no bad faith here. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the appearance of the main antagonist is not really an extremely strong rationale for inclusion right now. The information we have on his appearance is "shaved head"-"bite mark"-"tattoos". Not that much to add distinction. Would an image aid reader understanding? Sure. Would it significantly do so? I'm not feeling it. Once the film comes out we might have screencaps which can fulfill the intended purpose of this image as well as other purposes (demonstrating more of the interior, or multiple characters, else more of the costumes, et al), strengthening the overall rationale. As it is, I dont think this meets WP:NFCC. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out the image's current rationale is pretty; the "unique look of the romulans" isn't that strong. Also, per general consensus it's been found that character images, especially of single characters from the film, are generally not accepted per NFCC. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nero doesn't have his own article and the picture is actually relevant to the text it discusses. Admittedly one could perhaps find a better shot of Nero emphasizing the design of the tattoos if there's a specific inspiration for them (unless all the filmmakers did with them was to make them look cool). Alientraveller (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The use is decorative in the Star Trek film article, but may possibly comply with the NFCC in another article. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete...but... a single image to show the content of the film is appropriate. Pick one to meet WP:NFCC#3. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#3 does not say that there can only be one non-free image for an entire film. Lacking minimal usage in this case would be a variety of non-free images displaying the character Nero from different angles. To achieve minimal usage, it is ideal to discuss which non-free image is most representative of the critical commentary at hand. This does not mean that the presence of one screenshot forbids the addition of other screenshots to the article. If multiple screenshots each illustrate different kinds of critical commentary and the rest of the criteria is met, there is no problem. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't say there must be only one for the entire film. My point is that it doesn't significantly add to the article to the point of such an image being notable. Certainly at least a single image to show the cinematic appeal/artistic creativity could be warranted, but there simply are too many images on the page to meet WP:NFCC#3. I hope that clears things up. BTW, I'm a HUGE trekkie (mostly TNG stuff). — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying sounds contradictory... you're okay with multiple images, but you're not? :P Are you saying that you are fine with multiple images as long as each of them are significant in illustrating different kinds of critical commentary? Or are you saying that even if this was the case, it should be a smaller number of images no matter what? I hate to throw around the word "notable" in a different context than for creating an article about a topic... "importance" and "relevance" are better touted, IMHO. :) We should not limit screenshots for the sake of limiting; what matters is if they can significantly illustrate existing commentary or not. The screenshots should not be treated as a collective here unless they are topically related in terms of production, reception, or themes. We don't need multiple images each of the Enterprise, nor of the antagonist, nor of set design. Just that here, the context of these screenshots are distinct and evaluated on their own merit. And that is fine that you are a trekkie -- unless you are one of those "J. J. Abrams ruined my childhood" fans?! ;) Not quite a fan myself, but I don't mind catching an episode every so often and am interested in seeing how this film delivers. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if it sounded contradictory. I'm ok "with multiple images as long as each of them are ~~significant~~ notable in illustrating different kinds of critical commentary." I just don't find that all of these meet those criteria. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

OKC_moa_red.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OKC_moa_red.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jbrown84 (notify | contribs).

This photo is PD, but the underlying sculpture is not. As non-free, it's unused. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Photo is not PD, despite claims to the contrary as the art depicted is copyrighted. Accordingly, this is a derivative work. Seeing as how it isn't being used anywhere, delete the orphaned image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jalwa.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned, probably used on deleted film article Skier Dude (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dreams.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned, probably used on deleted film article Skier Dude (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be something someone just made up (orphaned), out of project scope. TheAE talk/sign 21:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, unencyclopedic. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nashikll.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned, too small to be of real, incorrect license Skier Dude (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic value, no way to determine correct license. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nasiknight.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned, very small image, pixelation/blur Skier Dude (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic value, no way to determine correct license. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nasikcity.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: Kept and moved to Commons

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

orphaned, appears to have lint & debris on lens/scan Skier Dude (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move to commons We've kept worse images and it's worth salvaging. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you say so. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elysiantown.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: Kept, moved to Commons

File:Elysiantown.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Glxt87 (notify | contribs).

No source listed. It appears that it could plausibly have been created by the uploader, but he doesn't say. All his other uploads have been deleted for various problems. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move to commons Don't think we should delete something simply because other images were deleted; it doesn't mean there's something wrong with this one. Wouldn't be the first time someone uploaded something with problems on other images but this image is fine. I see no clear reason to delete. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ust flag.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ust flag.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ashurockstarboy (notify | contribs).

orphaned, very low quality 'flag' image Skier Dude (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic value. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Code.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned, probably used on deleted film image Skier Dude (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic value. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Germanymap.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: Kept

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

Map of Germany. Unused except in talk page archives, and there are copyright concerns. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I only created a PNG from the original GIF. Thus the copyright status should be strictly inherited from File:Germanymap.gif. I've updated the status accordingly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears the map was made from Online Map Creation. I don't see a release there. I don't know if the maps generated by that software are copyrighted or not, but I think we have to assume they are. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked a bit deeper. OMC is only a trivial front-end to GMT, which is under the GPL. More importantly, the political boundaries are not copyrightable, and the physical earth data is from US government PD data. The transformations to produce the actual maps are mechanical and hence non-creative. Thus, I would assume that the PD claim is indeed correct. On the other hand, the newer version available here explicitly releases the maps under a CC-BY-SA license, which is fine for Wikipedia as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantastic detective work! Withdrawn. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above...and bookmarked source for future reference/use. Cool website!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Babbka.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned, version 1 is incorrectly licensed, version 2 was probably used on deleted film article Skier Dude (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, unencyclopedic, license is irrelevant in this case. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ust.svg.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ust.svg.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ashurockstarboy (notify | contribs).

orphaned, low quality 'flag' image Skier Dude (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, no encyclopedic use. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Argentina Latvia Locator.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argentina Latvia Locator.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Groubani (notify | contribs).

OR, UE — Once used on the page Argentina–Latvia relations, now deleted at AfD. This image is now unencyclopedic because there is little use for it outside of that article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: useless now that its non-notable article has been deleted. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic use. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

DJ-Skees-American-Godfather-mid9415.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DJ-Skees-American-Godfather-mid9415.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hotsaucejr (notify | contribs).

orphaned, badly photoshopped, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete copyvio of movie logo/poster, orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic use. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blkwhtshihtzu3.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blkwhtshihtzu3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Msuh24 (notify | contribs).

orphaned, better images on commons for this breed Skier Dude (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic use. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pandg.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pandg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Msuh24 (notify | contribs).

orphaned, low quality, better versions on commons for this breed Skier Dude (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic use. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wfhulogo.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: kept

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

no source, if legit logo, uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The image is PD, per {{PD-textlogo}}. Retagging appropriately. While the image is Certainly there's a fair use application of this image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alter.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andrew J. Maher (notify | contribs).

orphaned, damaged (line of pixelation) Skier Dude (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, no way to determine encyclopedic value. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weddinglog.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weddinglog.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Armenian historian (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image uploaded to support a hoax article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian wedding log. Deor (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weddinglog2.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weddinglog2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Armenian historian (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image uploaded to support a hoax article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian wedding log. Deor (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weddinglog3.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weddinglog3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Armenian historian (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image uploaded to support a hoax article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian wedding log. Deor (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weddinglog4.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weddinglog4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Armenian historian (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image uploaded to support a hoax article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian wedding log. Deor (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ken cotter400x400.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ken cotter400x400.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zuni (notify | contribs).

orphaned, Ken Cotter redlinked Skier Dude (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic value. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

WbNORTHterrace_gallery_470x312.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: Kept

File:WbNORTHterrace_gallery_470x312.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NimChief (notify | contribs).

Tagged as public domain, but is of web resolution, and was originally tagged as non-free. If the uploader genuinely took this photograph, then presumably, s/he could upload a higher resolution image? PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stuffed up the original tagging as I didn't quite understand tagging rules. The resolution is lower because I resized all my photos when I was moving them to off my old harddrive. Sorry for the confusion.NimChief (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I find this to be a dubious claim, I've resized some of my images too. With no other evidence to the contrary, I say keep. Suspicion isn't proof. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I searched online, but couldn't find this photo anywhere. – Quadell ^(talk) 05:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sdar2tn.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sdar2tn.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ozdaren (notify | contribs).

Replaceable. I assume enough soldiers with these hats exist in NZ for someone to take a photograph of them. Sandstein 15:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not replaceable (in the short term). Only replaceable if you live in NZ. Use of this image is allowed under NZ copyright. Why remove it when it is allowed? Why not just make a request for someone in NZ to go out and take a photo. I'm not sure why you've decided on this curious course of action. Ozdaren (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not curious at all; it's Wikipedia policy. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose. Whilst this photo may indeed be replaceable (either short term or long term), is that a rationale for deletion? Someone has taken the time to upload the picture because they felt it added to encyclopedia. If it is not a copyright breach, which it doesn't seem like to me based on the information on the Wiki Commons page (I am not an expert, though), then deleting it because it is simply replaceable is basically an insult to the person who uploaded it. If we were to delete every "replaceable" image just because they were replaceable a lot of people would decide that it isn't worth wasting their time contributing and the whole resource is impacted upon. Unless it is a copyright violation, I believe the image should remain. Besides, it seems to provide a good example of the slouch hat as used by the Kiwis. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was uploaded as a copyrighted image. Accordingly, it must meet our WP:NFCC. One of those is replaceability. Since this image's depiction can still be produced under a non-copyrightable image by someone in New Zealand, using it on Wikipedia under our policies is inappropriate. If the image is not copyrighted, the uploader should change the license and explain the discrepancy. This isn't personal and isn't insulting. It is merely the way Wikipedia is set up. I recommend reading WP:AGF. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replaceable by an image that exists or could be created. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first item of the Non-free policy - image is replaceable with a free equivalent. PhilKnight (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replaceable by existing images already on the article page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Libtorrent client test.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libtorrent client test.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ArvidNorberg (notify | contribs).

Taken from here: http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/client_test.html . There is no evidence that the Rasterbar source has released the image as GFDL or BSD or any other free license. Also, Mac OS X window decorations are non-free. And it cannot be PD (like Feydey suggests in edit summary), because there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Ysangkok (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

IMG 0353.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 0353.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Infant90 (notify | contribs).

non-free use image of living person, replaceable with free use image. Ejfetters (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Henderson Avenue.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henderson Avenue.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Canadian Roadgeek (notify | contribs).

orphaned, superseded by .png version Skier Dude (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete superceded image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Csrareizitso.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't significantly add to the reader's unserstanding of the article. PhilKnight (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete back cover. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Al Thieme - Amigo Mobility.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al Thieme - Amigo Mobility.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Layla364 (notify | contribs).

orphaned personal image Skier Dude (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, probable web image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anders Fríden live Tilburg 013.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: Kept, moved to Commons

File:Anders Fríden live Tilburg 013.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rolfeijg (notify | contribs).

orphaned, Anders Fríden redlinked subject Skier Dude (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move to commons the band he's in has a pretty decent sourced article. Certainly worth keeping. Redirected former redlink. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andres Friden 2008.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: Kept, moved to Commons

File:Andres Friden 2008.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Redsoxidiot05 (notify | contribs).

same as above Skier Dude (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep same as above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anne.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anne.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhyshuw1 (notify | contribs).

orphaned, subject not identified Skier Dude (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it's Anne Robinson. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of source information. In other words, why is this web resolution? PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PhilKnight. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Awlaki 1009.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Awlaki 1009.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Muhammaduddeen (notify | contribs).

orphaned crop of File:Awlaki 1008.JPG Skier Dude (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chihuahua waiting in vehicle IMG 0541.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: Kept, moved to Commons

File:Chihuahua waiting in vehicle IMG 0541.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billy Hathorn (notify | contribs).

orphaned, better images of breed on commons Skier Dude (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move to commons no reason not to keep the image. It's a pretty high resolution and could easily be used. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

DWW 07-05-2008 11;49;26PM.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DWW 07-05-2008 11;49;26PM.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billy Hathorn (notify | contribs).

orphaned, subjects not identified Skier Dude (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Irene Williams Friday5.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Irene Williams Friday5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billy Hathorn (notify | contribs).

orphaned, source of "gift" not provided Skier Dude (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Darren Jones.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darren Jones.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Darrenjn5 (notify | contribs).

orphaned personal image Skier Dude (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

101 0574.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:101 0574.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nimbley66 (notify | contribs).

orphaned, no description of location Skier Dude (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless we can confirm this is from the location where this image was originally posted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

101 0576.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:101 0576.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nimbley66 (notify | contribs).

orphaned, no identification of location Skier Dude (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

WY ch 07-05-2008 12;31;56PM.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: not deleted

File:WY ch 07-05-2008 12;31;56PM.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billy Hathorn (notify | contribs).

orphaned, location/building not identified Skier Dude (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Episcopal Church of the Transfiguration in Grand Teton National Park, WY.Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arb 07-04-2008 01;03;13AM.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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arb 07-04-2008 01;03;13AM.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billy Hathorn (notify | contribs).

orphaned, series of undefined images Skier Dude (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate of File:Dallas AR 07-04-2008 01;23;47AM.JPG — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, still not useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arboretum 07-04-2008 12;57;46AM.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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arboretum 07-04-2008 12;57;46AM.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billy Hathorn (notify | contribs).

orphaned, series of undefined images Skier Dude (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inferior version of File:Dallas AR 07-04-2008 01;23;47AM.JPG Keep now defined. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, still not useful, collage of the same images as above – Quadell ^(talk) 23:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

BPCC building IMG 1362.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: Not deleted

File:BPCC building IMG 1362.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billy Hathorn (notify | contribs).

orphaned, building not identified (BPCC) Skier Dude (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep uploader appears to be in the process of fixing these. I have no problem relisting later if necessary. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, I drove by this this morning and didn't put 2 + 2 together. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be of Bossier Parish Community College. MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nadine63.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. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nadine63.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SickBoy (notify | contribs).

Orphan. No source explicitly given. It could well be the uploader's own creation, but the uploader lied about many of his uploads and was blocked for vandalism. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the photo metainformation contained. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think it's all too likely he snagged it from somebody's photo collection on the web. He did this for many other photos. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely against you on this one, and suspicions are certainly there, but there's no direct evidence that there is anything wrong with this picture. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User Account Control.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: Kept, but removed from all articles except User Account Control

File:User Account Control.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Akhristov (notify | contribs).

Rationale is an inappropriate "not going to hurt the copyright holder" boilerplate. Additionally, it claims to justify four distinct uses, and in fact justifies none. Each use needs to be reviewed and explained, or the image should be deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the tag is not good, then fix it, I see absolutely no point in deleting this image SF007 (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some users do not understand how to write appropriate fair use rationales (myself included). The licence on this image seems to indicate that it is fair use, however, if the uploader did not justify it correctly perhaps someone with more knowledge on how to make a valid justification (for instance the person who nominated the file for deletion) could offer assistance to the uploader and explain where they went wrong. I agree that the rationale seems a little "loosely written", however, is it really fair to contributors who (assuming good faith) are only trying to improve the encyclopedia if we delete every image that is not appropriately justified because the uploader didn't know what to write? That would not seem to me to encourage people to contribute.
- The problem is that I don't honestly know why the image is being used in the articles outside of User Account Control itself, so I would certainly be unable to write a rationale for it. The other uses seem to be clearly decorative. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove from all articles other than User Account Control as inappropriate decorative use. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This image illustrates UAC quite well and it makes little sense to nominate for deletion because of a minor fair use issue; why not just tag it for an improper fair use rationale? But even so, the rationale seems perfectly reasonable to me, so I question if this nomination was made in good faith. GraYoshi2x►^talk 04:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Stifle here: Keep, but remove from all articles other than User Account Control. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per stifle. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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