Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 23

< August 22	August 24 >

August 23

File:Katenashbrithday.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOST Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kathym.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, unknown subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kathryn1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, unknown subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katorrhappy.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, unknown subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katvin.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, unknown subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:3.liga080531.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: withdrawn. Turns out the replacement map has copyright issues. — ξ ^xplicit 22:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned map, replaced by File:3.liga080531b.png. — ξ ^xplicit 03:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:3. Liga 080518.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned map, replaced by File:3.liga080518b.png. — ξ ^xplicit 03:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Temp-file-Lillian Gish-edit1-comparison.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old temporary working file. Kelly ^hi! 03:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chlorpromazine.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A higher quality version of this file exists on commons as File:Chlorpromazine-2D-skeletal.png Sven Manguard Wha? 04:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ketamine.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SVG on commons at File:Ketamine.svg is used in the article. Aside from that, I've never seen a diagram using colors, and can see no reason to do it this way. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Symyxdraw (now called Accelrys Draw) does those colours as default... I always turn them off myself. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Troglitazone.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High quality version used in the article already exists on Commons as File:Troglitazone structure.png Sven Manguard Wha? 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tyramine.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High quality version used in article already on Commons as File:Tyramine.svg Sven Manguard Wha? 04:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Venlafaxine.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another version (used in the article) already on Commons as File:Venlafaxine.svg Sven Manguard Wha? 04:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acetaminophen small.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High quality version used in the article is on Commons File:Paracetamol-skeletal.svg Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Big12locationsmap.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:Big12locations1.png, but in lossless format. Same author, exact same image (before recent modification); no need to keep this version. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:File name.ext

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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan

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:Rachelpreece.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphan Stryl (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antigua 1903 five shillings.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image has been replaced with a free version at commons. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GaddafionTimemagazine.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture fails the non-free content criteria, as it is only used for illustration and doesn't enhance the understanding of the topic. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely untrue; it has historical significance as a cover because it shows 1) how prominent his fall was in Western news media (don't forget, not every African leader has his own Time magazine cover) 2) the space of time that his fall was (don't forget, this cover was months ago, and only now, in August, has the civil war reached completion 3) the entire concept that a Time magazine cover is not acceptable for use on a person's page is absolutely not right ; check Jack Kemp or Bob Dole. Their candidacy was enriched with a Time magazine cover from the time, and this is no different.--Screwball23 talk 01:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in order to be used on this article the picture would need sourced critical commentary, which is currently absolutely missing and thus fails #8 of the NFCC (contextual significance). Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this does indeed fail NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, you did not give a rationale why you believe it fails the policy. --Screwball23 talk 17:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Wikipedia:Non-free content, it's pretty clear. One of the examples of unacceptable use is "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." – Quadell ^(talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear that images are acceptable for illustrating historically significant info. It is not everyday that a 40 yr African leader is thrown out of power, receives national attention, and is featured on the cover of an American magazine. It is also important to note that the magazine was featured in February, months before his loyalist forces gave out. Don't take my word for it: check out File:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg or File:Daniel Ortega Time Magazine Cover March 31 1986.jpg. Both illustrate the importance and growing media publicity surrounding these political figures. The historical importance, and widespread attention that Gaddafi's falling regime received can be lost if this image is deleted.--Screwball23 talk 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that it's significant that he was on the cover. But I contend that that information can be conveyed by saying it, without violating Time Magazine's copyright. We also agree that the "Dole Kemp" and "Ortega" covers are similar cases. But I contend that they are also violations of our policy. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why? You agree with the importance of the images. You agree with the fact that there are multiple instances where magazine covers have been used to improve the quality of articles. I can promise you, without a shadow of a doubt, that the pictures are worth 1000 words. Think about it. How many times did you read a textbook and fall asleep? ...you know you have :-)... How many times have you found yourself looking at a photo when reading a history book? Do you think, as a student, trying to learn about some political leader, you would say, "hmmm, I can learn everything about this without images"? Of course not. I want to make it clear that I know from elementary school, middle school, high school, and beyond, the power of pictures cannot be understated. And don't take my word for it, take a close look at the Ortega article. Did you even know who he was before you saw this article? Honestly, I'm sure you understood a lot more about his public image and media attention after seeing that Time cover with him. And these are just 2 examples. You know this is not an isolated instance by any means. It's good that you don't want to violate policy - that's why I put a rationale on the article. It is historically significant, and you can agree that a magazine cover signifying the end of a 42-yr ruler won't come by too often. And its timing, in February, is just amazing to me. I mean, his regime held up about 6 months against NATO and growing resistance. I can go on and on... --Screwball23 talk 13:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear-cut case of failing WP:NFCC, specifically #1 and #8, and WP:NFC#UUI. Cover images of magazines can only be used on articles of the magazine in question or the cover itself, and cannot be used to illustrate the article of the topic of the cover. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's not true. Magazine covers can be used to illustrate historically significant events, such as his fall from power.--Screwball23 talk 23:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that he appeared on the cover of Time magazine may be an appropriate illustration of his significance and the significance of his fall, but, clearly, that does not mean that we need to see said cover. As it is, this is just an artistic depiction of his face; it is not something that really needs to be seen. This picture is adding nothing to the article; a reader is completely able to understand the subject without seeing it. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's bogus. Any person can claim that a reader can completely understand some subject without seeing it. As a real person from the real world, I know for a fact that a picture is much more valuable than you will admit. I don't see why anyone is even wasting their time trying to delete this and reducing the ability of wikipedia to illustrate history. The fact that he had a high-profile image on an American magazine, claiming his imminent removal while his hold on the country outlasted predictions, that's not notable? And what about the Dole-Kemp magazine cover? That's not notable either? I mean, the double standards and hypocrisy that I see here is absolutely disgusting. I want to take this to an impartial forum for discussion with uninvolved third parties.--Screwball23 talk 17:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any person can claim anything, yes, but this is about arguing for our claims. Asserting that, as "a real person from the real world", you "know for a fact that" I'm wrong isn't going to get you far, unless you're dealing with morons. You ask- "The fact that he had a high-profile image on an American magazine, claiming his imminent removal while his hold on the country outlasted predictions, that's not notable?" Well, no, I don't think it's "notable" as such, but what you seem to be doing is equating the significance of an appearance with a need to show a non-free image of it; they're not the same thing. For instance, it may be significant that (I'm making things up here) Gadaffi once met Tony Blair- that's fine, it can be talked about, but the fact it's significant does not mean that we urgently need to illustrate it. Non-free content is used as a last resort, and is only used when it significantly adds to reader understanding of the topic. In what way does this artsy picture of the subject, surrounded by a red border and titled with the word "TIME", do that? You ask "about the Dole-Kemp magazine cover"- what of it? I don't care. Your suggestion that this is taken to "an impartial forum for discussion with uninvolved third parties" is literally laugh-out-loud funny. What the hell do you think this discussion is? I'm one of the impartial third parties! If you don't like our non-free content criteria, that's fine, no one's forcing you to contribute to Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. Not even close to being acceptable usage. In fact, I was nominating it for deletion myself when I noticed it was already nominated. howcheng {chat} 23:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gaddafimoney.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture fails the non-free content criteria, as it is only used for illustration and doesn't enhance the understanding of the topic. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't see Obama's face on our currency. I don't know why anyone would be so narrow-minded as to believe that a person being on a monetary system for a nation is not significant. Just think about it - if you had a wikipedia page and you had a national currency with your face on it, don't you think that might be useful to know? I can't even fathom why someone would try to delete this. It's absolute nonsense.--Screwball23 talk 01:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in order to be used on this article the picture would need sourced critical commentary, which is currently absolutely missing and thus fails #8 of the NFCC (contextual significance). Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this does indeed fail NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't understand why everything I just said was ignored.--Screwball23 talk 17:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you're calling your opponents "narrow-minded", are you really hoping to persuade people, or are you just letting off steam. Yes, it's significant that his face is on the currency... but seeing that currency (as opposed to seeing that fact reported in text) is not necessary to fully understand the subject of the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are going into a deep, philosophical discussion here. Is it really "necessary" to "see" something to "fully understand it"? Come on, you know and I know that his placement on the currency is significant, and is of major importance to his public image.--Screwball23 talk 19:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear violation of WP:NFCC as the stamp is copyrighted and the article is not about the stamp itself. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the stamp collection is mentioned in the article.--Screwball23 talk 23:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to claim that any time any stamp collection is mentioned in any article, a non-free image of a stamp from that collection is justified? J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing how the appearance of this particular stamp is significant to the article on Gaddafi. J Milburn (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original image - http://www.flickr.com/photos/sludgeulper/5681760347/in/set-72157609601846384 (and the original is a huge 1191 x 931px) - is stated as "CC-BY-SA 2.0" - which would be OK here, but I'm no expert in Libian copyright law to know if that is possible. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 13:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That image on flickr was scanned and uploaded my a user named sludgegulper. He is not an agent of the Libyan government, and does not have the authority to license government works. He just scanned them. So the license on Flickr is clearly invalid. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Stamps of Libya, as works by work by a public or private legal entities appear to be copyright for 30 years from publication date, so fair-use would apply but this use clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is already mentioned in the article that stamps of Gaddafi have been issued besides which WP:NFCI #3 says that stamps should not be used just to illustrate the subject of the stamp. Unfortunately anyone can scan and copy images that are copyright and upload them to Flickr releasing them under a free licence but that does not mean they are actually validly licenced. ww2censor (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rideau falls.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F3 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, permission does not explicitly allow for derivative works as required Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Copyright violation. Web site states: "You may download and use them for non-commercial uses only." Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ScreenSHot Gadahfi airplae sculpture.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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture fails the non-free content criteria, as it is only used for illustration and doesn't enhance the understanding of the topic. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ While a photo should be included in the article on the sculpture itself (Fist Crushing a U.S. Fighter Plane Sculpture), there is no reason that we cannot have a free-ish photo (that is, a photo in which the only relevant copyright is that of the sculptor) taken by a Wikimedian. Even if now is not the best moment to have people taking photos in Tripoli, it is possible to get a photo soon enough from an uploader in Libya. Right now there is another layer of copyright (that of the Al Jazeera photographer/videographer). Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thats not exactly true. This statue is beeing demolished as we speak and before that whole Bab al-Aziziya complex was off-limits for anyone without permission. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw "public art" and did not notice that this was within the compound. I'm striking my delete vote for now, because I think one image (either this or the one below) could validly be used in an article about the sculpture. The other uses fail the NFCC, however. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in complete heart of the compound, guarded by 3 levels of walls and checkpoints. Or rather was guarded. Gaddafi made it in front of the building which was bombed by US fighters in 1986 during Operation El Dorado Canyon. And few hours ago MSNBC showed in its live feed its attempted demolition so at least one should be keeped. Second picture, screenshot from AJA report, should be maybe edited and copyrated image of channel should be removed but beside the sculpture it shows also historical and well reported event. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove from the Bab al-Azizia and Muammar Gaddafi articles, per Calliopejen. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only for the Fist Crushing a U.S. Fighter Plane Sculpture article. Whether it's a photo taken by a news agency or one of us is irrelevant in this case, because we still have to treat it as non-free regardless. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for use on Fist Crushing a U.S. Fighter Plane Sculpture only. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly fair use. 208.71.62.24 (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aziziya.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC1. While a photo should be included in the article on the sculpture itself (Fist Crushing a U.S. Fighter Plane Sculpture), there is no reason that we cannot have a free-ish photo (that is, a photo in which the only relevant copyright is that of the sculptor) taken by a Wikimedian. Even if now is not the best moment to have people taking photos in Tripoli, it is possible to get a photo soon enough from an uploader in Libya. Right now there is another layer of copyright (that of the Al Jazeera photographer/videographer). Also, we do not need this image to illustrate teh specific idea that people climbed on the sculpture. Readers can imagine that perfectly well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was corrected above and now see that this sculpture was not accessible to the public, despite being described as "public art". I think the odds of getting a free picture are basically zero. However, there should be consensus about which one photo (this or the photo above) should be used in the article about the sculpture. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:New Mexico Lobos Athletic Logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over six months ago, a user pointed out that there are curretly three logos for the same university athletics department, an apparent violation of WP:NFCC #3a. The discussion there indicated that File:UNM Lobo Logo.png should be used in all cases instead of File:New Mexico Lobos Athletic Logo.png or File:Lobo Alternate athletics logo.png. After six months, I think a decision should be made one way or the other. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lobo Alternate athletics logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see above – Quadell ^(talk) 17:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MamataBanerjeePBI-3.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is sourced to the Press Information Bureau of India which has an incompatible license, many tags were added and removed and a PUF tag was added before but not listed and procedurally kept. So bringing here. —SpacemanSpiff 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01477.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01654.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01685.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01718.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01745.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01758.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01761.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Identified based on user contribs. Not particularly valuable or high-quality, but I don't think it's bad enough to delete. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Commons could use it. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01764.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if Commons can identify it then it would be useful. We should transfer there instead. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01772.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep identified based on user's contributions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01839.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete user's only contribution, impossible to identify. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01872.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01879.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is pretty clearly the skeleton of a sperm whale, but we have better images such as [1]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC01956.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete may be Andre Agassi but impossible to know for sure based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02105.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete impossible to identify based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02197.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tentatively identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02218.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02241.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless identified by uploader - impossible to identify based on contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02539.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02559.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep identified based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02565.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete impossible to identify based on user contribs Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (move to commons), since it's a "University square", it's likely folks on Commons could identify, and it would then be useful there. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02188.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep identified based on user contribs Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your investigations, Calliopejen. Do you think it would be justified to list User:Bevon as the author, and "personal photo" as the source? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - done. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02724.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete orphaned personal photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02725.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphan, low-quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02735.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphan, low-quality, we have better images[2] Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC02743.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned File, Unknown Subject, no use to keep Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MrPerfection.ogg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture fails the non-free content criteria, as it is only used for illustration and doesn't enhance the understanding of the topic. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion Added FUR for use on List of snooker player nicknames. Disagree file is only used in illustrative capacity; it is used as an alternative to currently inaccessible footage included in the source so provides an important function. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-free photos are not used in lists like this, and I don't see why non-free sound files should be treated differently. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because audio and video is often used in a fundamentally different way to images on Wikipedia. As explained in the file description, the audio recording is used as a substitute for the currently inaccessible audio recording that a claim on the list relates to, so its inclusion enhances the reader's understanding. Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hide1990.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3. A non-free image of the individual is already used in the infobox, this additional image is not merited. — ξ ^xplicit 20:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His looks (which are an important characteristic of him and most other visual kei musicians) in this photo are very different than the one in the infobox, which was taken around ten years later. Therefore having this one does not violate WP:NFCC#3. Xfansd (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you could cite critical commentary which discusses the characteristics of this specific look, that would be helpful. I'll admit I'm not well verses in visual kei (I'm a K-pop kind of guy), but the time period of the image and being different from the main image is really insufficient by policy's standards. — ξ ^xplicit 01:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would support keeping it if it had more context in the article, for example a well-cited, in-depth analysis of his costuming. But as it is, in my opinion the article does not discuss his appearance nearly enough to warrant an additional non-free image. The only reference to his appearance mentions "wildly colorful outfits and with his trademark pink hair", which is ironic considering that the photo in question shows him wearing a black and white costume with mostly blond hair. Ibanez100 (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet if you go to X Japan's article, in the intro it says "They were known in their early years for their excessively large hairstyles resembling fountains," which is what you see in this photo. I added it so that both these notable styles were depicted. I do plan on expanding the "1987–1997: X Japan" section in his article, putting what is in X Japan's article about them being one of the founders of visual kei (which is "characterized by the use of make-up, elaborate hair styles and flamboyant costumes"). Xfansd (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But as the article stands at present, "they were known in their early years for their excessively large hairstyles resembling fountains" in the X Japan article is just one sentence and is not even cited. I wouldn't mind that photo or Hide1990.jpg appearing in their respective articles if they helped illustrate and explain something which is discussed in detail in the article, but it's got to be well cited and it's got to be more than one sentence. I think this would definitely be achievable in the X Japan article at least (at which point I believe the use of the second non-free photo would be warranted), since there are a pretty good number of sources (like the ones in the visual kei article) that mention their wild costuming back in the day and how it was notable and critical to the development of visual kei. In fact I may work on this if I get the time, unless you or someone else beats me to it. Ibanez100 (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Liao Hua TV Serial.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot of a modern TV series, used to illustrate an article about an historical figure. Purely decorative; the TV series and its fictionalized portrayal of this character are not otherwise the object of discussion in the article (unlike the fictionalized portrayal in a medieval narrative that the TV series is based on; that is in fact discussed, but it's not the same thing). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sun Ce TV Serial.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot of a modern TV series, used to illustrate an article about an historical figure. Purely decorative; the TV series and its fictionalized portrayal of this character are not otherwise the object of discussion in the article (unlike the fictionalized portrayal in a medieval narrative that the TV series is based on; that is in fact discussed, but it's not the same thing). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taishi Ci TV Serial.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot of a modern TV series, used to illustrate an article about an historical figure. Purely decorative; the TV series and its fictionalized portrayal of this character are not otherwise the object of discussion in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Xiahou Dun TV Serial.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot of a modern TV series, used to illustrate an article about an historical figure. Purely decorative; the TV series and its fictionalized portrayal of this character are not otherwise the object of discussion in the article (unlike the fictionalized portrayal in a medieval narrative that the TV series is based on; that is in fact discussed, but it's not the same thing). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hua Tuo TV Serial.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot of a modern TV series, used to illustrate an article about an historical figure. Purely decorative; the TV series and its fictionalized portrayal of this character are not otherwise the object of discussion in the article (unlike the fictionalized portrayal in a medieval narrative that the TV series is based on; that is in fact discussed, but it's not the same thing). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zhang Liao TV Serial.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot of a modern TV series, used to illustrate an article about an historical figure. Purely decorative; the TV series and its fictionalized portrayal of this character are not otherwise the object of discussion in the article (unlike the fictionalized portrayal in a medieval narrative that the TV series is based on; that is in fact discussed, but it's not the same thing). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1st Chess Olympiad.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: speedily deleted by uploader. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by File:1st Chess Olympiad.PNG, by the same uploader Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coats of arms of the Republic of the Congo.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by File:Coat of arms of the Republic of the Congo.svg, in lossless format Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The svg is up for deletion at Commons. If the gif is deleted here, perhaps the svg should be moved here as well with the same non-free rationale that the gif currently has. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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