Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 30

< May 29	May 31 >

May 30

File:Voluntaryism.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Abel (talk) 00:04, 30 May 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:Araneus diadematus.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unused image, artilce Araneus diadematus has enough images. mabdul 08:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Commons. Nice-looking, free image. Why delete? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CharlieBriggs.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 ⚡ 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unused, File:CFBriggs.jpg in article Charles Frederick Briggs is better. mabdul 08:25, 30 May 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:Girlalternativecover.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that is very similar to the one at the top of the article. the small difference (her head is turned a bit to camera) can easily be described with text, without significantly impairing reader's understanding of the topic. This image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 12:08, 30 May 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:Baboonsavemeback.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free back cover with a completely innapropriate rationale. Image does not add to readers' understanding per WP:NFCC#8 and conveys information that could be covered with text alone. Peripitus (Talk) 12:11, 30 May 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:Soft machine-fourth and fifth.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image that is largely the combination of two existing images, both of which are in the two articles this is also in. In each article 1/2 of the image is redundant to the existing one (and fails WP:NFCC#3a) and the other 1/2 can be reached by the reader with the simple expedient of clicking once. The layout itself can be described using text alone. Image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 30 May 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:Puttheneedleonit2.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

recoloured album cover. The colour difference can easily be described with text replacing the need for this additional non-free image. Having this second one does not signficantly add to reader's understanding. Fails WP:NFCC#1, 8 and 3a Peripitus (Talk) 12:28, 30 May 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:Rolling Stones - (I can't get no) Satisfaction -Single-.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image of a 45 in its cover that shows nothing of significance for readers. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 30 May 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:Anais Deluxe Edition.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover that is largely identical to the existing one in the article. The small changes (a sticker ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly harming reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with text and NFCC#8 in that it does not increase reader's understanding significantly. Peripitus (Talk) 12:35, 30 May 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:Long John Silver's.svg

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 as an unnecessary old logo. But note that "replaceable by DM uses" is not a valid argument because it is an oxymoron. By definition DM is the inclusion of a copyrighted work that is so incidental that it cannot serve as a proper replacement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Older 2000s-era logo not subject of sourced commentary in the article, and also replaceable by de minimis uses in already-existing photos of restaurant buildings where the old logo is present on the building. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:25, 30 May 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:US-IL-Chicago-CA06.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:US-IL-Chicago-CA06.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:59, 30 May 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:US-IL-Chicago-CA01.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:US-IL-Chicago-CA01.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 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:US-IL-Chicago-CA03.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:US-IL-Chicago-CA03.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 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:US-IL-Chicago-CA02.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:US-IL-Chicago-CA02.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 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:US-IL-Chicago-CA04.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:US-IL-Chicago-CA04.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 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:US-IL-Chicago-CA05.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:US-IL-Chicago-CA05.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 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:Hassan Kobeissi old.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dubious self-taken photo, no evidence of permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 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:Anapnea.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 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:Hassan.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm skeptical of the self-taken claim considering the user's other uploads (like a formal portrait labeled self-taken) Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 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:Southern Nevada Herpetology Association.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free logo (though labeled PD), does not meet WP:NFCC8 when used in biography article Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 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:Chinese PWs Battle of Kapyong 24 April 1951 (AWM P04953).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) 08:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this image is not public domain in the US because it became public domain in australia only in 2001. since it is nonfree it fails WP:NFCC8 - it is not an iconic image, and showing soldiers sitting like this could be easily conveyed with text Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the source of the file clearly states that the copyright status of the image is "Copyright expired - public domain" in the jurisdiction of the author (Australia) - see [1]. As such I fail to see how anyone is going to assert copyright over the image. For this reason it would seem to me that WP:NFCC is not applicable. There are very few images available of Chinese forces during the battle of Kapyong and this is one of those. Anotherclown (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unless I'm missing something this image was taken prior to 1955 and the related commons licence and associated links I've read tells me that this image is clearly PD enough for commons - and we are less restrictive - Peripitus (Talk) 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see there are bilateral agreements between the US and Australia - particularly the provisions around the free-trade agreement - see here - Peripitus (Talk) 21:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: images taken by the Australian government more than 50 years ago are in the public domain in Australia per this guidance from the National Archives of Australia. The source (the Australian War Memorial - an Australian government organisation), clearly states that this image is in the public domain and that its copyright has expired (here). I clearly don't understand copyright fully, but I don't see how the US can enforce copyright on an Australian image. Could the nominator please explain this more clearly, possibly providing an example where this has occured and what sanctions would have been imposed (i.e are they going to fine someone for it and, on a related point, who would get the royalties if it wasn't considered public domain)? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image is explictly marked 'Copyright expired - public domain' at its source. A year or so ago Australian War Memorial updated the copyright tags on all its online images to ensure that they're accurate and Wikipedia-friendly and there seems to be no reason to dispute this. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image is clearly PD. Calliopejen1, this is yet another bad nomination. Please try and slow down on these. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because the Chinese can't censor everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.244.226 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stelian-tanase-cdep.ro.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 ⚡ 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

invalid reason to be public domain (only certain romanian govt docs are PD[2]),replaceable photo of living person Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 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:Karl koenig 1930.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 ⚡ 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no real reason this would be PD, deleted from german wikipedia (don't know why) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this image is really PD then it should be on commons (since there are three (language) articles which could use the same image). The image is deleted on the GERMAN WP with the comment "UGV" --> de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechte beachten --> means copy right vio - so I don't know exactly why, but there seems a actual copyright status on this picture. mabdul 16:26, 30 May 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:Knights of the Lambda Calculus.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now at File:Knights of the Lambda Calculus.png mabdul 10:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Lambda.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the SVG should be renamed. This is not the lambda alphabetic character, so the name is unclear. 65.94.47.217 (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done to both see File:Knights of the Lambda Calculus.svg --Guerillero | My Talk 02:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a history of keeping the PNG versions that an SVG is based off of. I forget why--Guerillero | My Talk 02:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: can you show me this policy/debatt? Otherwise, deletemabdul 10:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - template:vva Since we claim its pd it can be deleted --Guerillero | My Talk 07:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Fat Man.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, invalid reason to be public domain Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 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:Tiny-note-02.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, scaled-down copy of File:Musical note nicu bucule 01 blue2.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 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:Kvariati.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 ⚡ 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

invalid reason for being PD, source link (which no longer includes this image) marked as copyrighted Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 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:Beagle-inside-HLS.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 ⚡ 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

insufficient permission per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_in_Category:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals - OTRS ticket wasn't valid after all Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. PETA releases all such images, as they've confirmed several times by email and the emails have been passed to permissions. This particular image was taken by one of its investigators, so they clearly wouldn't want to restrict its use. What are you saying was wrong with the OTRS ticket? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very marginal delete While it meets all our criteria, what exactly does it show? It's a beagle with some chains keeping him standing up (are these chains somehow hooked into him?). Without this context, I don't think the image is usable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BQZip01. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Systembusmodel.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 ⚡ 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete: redid with Inkscape on Commons as File:Computer system bus.svg W Nowicki (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MTC the contents of the image are different. The old image elaborates on the CPU portion. 65.94.47.217 (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that the original image was technically incorrect. The comma after the CPU makes it look like the CPU is in addition to the other items in the box, while it is comprised of the other items in the list. That is what prompted redoing it in the first place. I simplified it so that it is readable in the resolution used in the article. This .png is also now an orphan. Having the incorrect version just adds to confusion, please reconsider. The book source and Talk:System bus model are evidence for the incorrectness. W Nowicki (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since there is already a replacement with File:Computer system bus.svg. mabdul 01:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Madrid-metro-map-300px.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, not useful. Damiens.rf 22:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not needed now there is automatic thumbnailing. Angela . 05:17, 31 May 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:Fort San Cristobal.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of being public domain. Image was download from a tripod page (a free webhost). Damiens.rf 22:27, 30 May 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:Santiago Tiaguinstesco Cathedral.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. No evidence of it being released to the public domain. Damiens.rf 22:28, 30 May 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.