Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 24

< June 23	June 25 >

June 24

File:JoseAvelino.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Not deleted, source fixed. If there are other issues, it can be renominated for those reasons, but none are mentioned in the discussion below. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JoseAvelino.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mk32 (notify | contribs).

I can't find this image at the source website, so source is unconfirmed. I could just be missing this, however. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless source is found (and it does not raise other problems). --Damiens.rf 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the image and now has this specific source: http://www.senate.gov.ph/senators/senpres/avelino.asp Please inform me if there is still a problem Mk32 (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:643301 6dfe33d5 120x120WStrt.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 ⚡ 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:643301 6dfe33d5 120x120WStrt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre (notify | contribs).

Not used, very low resolution and horrible filename. Sherool (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. Terrible Filename... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:StrangeTales-110.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 ⚡ 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:StrangeTales-110.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Asgardian (notify | contribs).

Web site that the image is sourced from - http://www.howardhallis.com - is the home page of a "collage" artist. Based on more reliable sources - [1] (larger view) and [2] (larger view) - the image uploaded is a fan mock up and not the cover as published. J Greb (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oneworld 10th Anniversary Logo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oneworld 10th Anniversary Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aviator006 (notify | contribs).

OB - Oneworld 10th Anniversary Logo.png - A .png version of the image has been uploaded to replace the .jpg version. Aviator006 (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#F1. Image is redundant to File:Oneworld 10th Anniversary Logo.png. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DPP protesters give Ma Ying-jeou the finger.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 ⚡ 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DPP protesters give Ma Ying-jeou the finger.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arilang1234 (notify | contribs).

non-free image in an article replete with free ones. While the image is marked as non-free the associated flickr licence is CC-by-SA-2.0 but looking at the flickr accout (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32687447@N07/) it is clear that the flickr user does not own some or all of the images and the licence is so incorrect. There are sufficient free images in the article and this non-free one is not sufficiently justified. Peripitus (Talk) 06:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:517 anti-Ma Yingjeou protester kicking 5 star red flag.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:517 anti-Ma Yingjeou protester kicking 5 star red flag.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arilang1234 (notify | contribs).

non-free image in an article replete with free ones. While the image is marked as non-free the associated flickr licence is CC-by-SA-2.0 but looking at the flickr accout (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32687447@N07/) it is clear that the flickr user does not own some or all of the images and the licence is so incorrect. There are sufficient free images in the article and this non-free one is not sufficiently justified. Peripitus (Talk) 06:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Machine-Cancellation.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 ⚡ 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machine-Cancellation.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alex756 (notify | contribs).

Derivative of non-free polish stamps (see this discussion for explanation of copyright status). No fair use rationale given. Could easily be replaced with a free image such as File:US405 Flag.jpg Papa November (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This stamps has already been replaced with a free image. ww2censor (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BWitched-Cest-La-Vie.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 ⚡ 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BWitched-Cest-La-Vie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Rogue Leader (notify | contribs).

non-free image that is very similar to the existing one in the article's infobox. The small differences can easily be described with text alone (a free alternative) and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1. Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CestLaVieBW.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 ⚡ 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CestLaVieBW.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Rogue Leader (notify | contribs).

non-free image that is very similar to the existing one in the article's infobox. The small differences can easily be described with text alone (a free alternative) and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1. Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DTLI clean.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 ⚡ 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DTLI clean.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LukeTheSpook (notify | contribs).

Extra album cover in an article with an existing very similar one. The small differences (colour posterised and text moved) can easily be described with free text and as replaceable with a free alternative this cover fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ATFPoster.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 ⚡ 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

purely decorative image that is mostly a black-and-white version of the exisiting non-free cover in the article. The small differences can be, if required, described with text alone and this image does not add significantly to reader's understanding. fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is a tour poster from when the trio were on tour promoting this album. This tour was one of their greatest tours throughout North America that helped launch their career in the USA, therefore the picture is accurate, and should be allowed to remain on wikipedia on this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriskodai (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SamuelMudd.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thumbnail of Commons img with same name (not identical image, so I can't speedy delete) Papa November (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Missy and Frankie Rayder.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 ⚡ 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Missy and Frankie Rayder.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).

No catalog scan is necessary to prove they modeled for Gap (fails WP:NFCC#8); identifying the subjects can just as easily be done w/ a free photo (fails WP:NFCC#1). Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not fair usage of an ordinary ad campaign. This image depicts a very topical subject in the biographies of both models. Thus, the image qualifies for the fair usage exception. I have just expanded the FUR to justify its use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - Contrary to what is said in the (so called) rationale, this scan gives is not needed for understanding the articles about the models. --Damiens.rf 18:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What the article really needs is a good, free image of the model. If it had that, and good text to describe her appearance in that ad campaign, the image would not be needed to fully understand anything in the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mbinebri consulted w me before this nomination, and I agree that the picture fails the criteria set out in the nomination. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Madonna-Blond-Ambition-Posters.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: Withdrawn nomination; the "replacement" image turned out to be a copyvio. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna-Blond-Ambition-Posters.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jwad (notify | contribs).

non-free image, replaced in Blond Ambition World Tour by a free image, so it's no longer used – Quadell ^(talk) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Desmond Tutu Portrait.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 ⚡ 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desmond Tutu Portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cazo3788 (notify | contribs).

Excessive non-free content. The article does not discusses the official portrait of Tutu (it's not notable), and there are lots of freely licensed Tutu images. Damiens.rf 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely decorative usage that does not significantly increase reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 22:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thomaspaine'smontageofDetroit request2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Kept, sourcing issues fixed.

A note about license compatibility: It's true that cc-by-sa-1 cannot be automatically relicensed as cc-by-sa-3, but the licenses are extremely similar. cc-by-sa3 mostly just clarifies definitions and grants the original copyright-holder additional rights (such as the right to choose to "attribute" an organization, instead of oneself). Looking at the original images, I think it's clear that all of the original authors intended for their works to be adaptable in exactly the sort of way that was done here. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomaspaine'smontageofDetroit request2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mikerussell (notify | contribs).

Unattributed collage of images. Without sourcing, it is not known if this is a valid and legal combination. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do not delete. These photos are all freely licensed on wikipedia and this is mentioned by the creator on the photo page. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment They are not free licensed if the license is not being fulfilled, assuming for a moment that all the images are in fact released under a CC-BY-SA license or as public ___domain (witch we can't verify without knowing what the source images are) the fact that none of the original authors are being attributed makes the license null and void. Even if all the images are public ___domain we still require to know the source so that can be verified by a 3. party. --Sherool (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply Sources added and authors attributed on montage page. Please keep, do not delete. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now, due to the improved sourcing. Well done! – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks ok now (I'm assuming there is no problem re-licensing a derivative of a CC-BY-SA-1.0 image as CC-BY-SA-3.0, since it only calls for a simmilar license, the rest are either PD or GFDL / CC-BY-SA-3.0 thanks to the license migration. --Sherool (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per above reasons, sources added.Mike Russell 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Licensing doesn't appear to be compatible... cc-by-sa-1.0 is not "similar" to the 3.0 per [3], which says that "A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically put under the new license, however." Unless all of the images are relicensed explicitly to be 3.0, I'm not sure if the current license is accurate. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only CC-BY-SA 2.0 and later can have derivatives relicensed under later versions of the same license. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to incompatible licensing. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thomaspaine'smontageofDetroit request1.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. Licensing updated appropriately. Unlike with the above one, I have no concerns over this one because of the licenses used on the source images. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomaspaine'smontageofDetroit request1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mikerussell (notify | contribs).

Unattributed collage of images. Without sourcing, it is not known if this is a valid and legal combination ViperSnake151 Talk 15:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do not delete. These photos are all freely licensed on wikipedia and this is mentioned by the creator on the photo page. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment They are not free licensed if the license is not being fulfilled, assuming for a moment that all the images are in fact released under a CC-BY-SA license or as public ___domain (witch we can't verify without knowing what the source images are) the fact that none of the original authors are being attributed makes the license null and void. Even if all the images are public ___domain we still require to know the source so that can be verified by a 3. party. --Sherool (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply Sources added and authors attributed on montage page. Please keep, do not delete. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fixed, good job. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like source & attribution have been added (actualy spent about an hour tracking it down myself and noticed the edit conflict when I tried to save :( ). --Sherool (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we are "lucky" the Foundation descided to go for the Wikipedia:Image license migration, several of the source images where orignianly released only under the GFDL license, making them incompatable with the Creative Commons license, if this had come up before the re-licensing came into play it would have had to be delted for using incompatable licenses. --Sherool (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per above reasons, sources added.Mike Russell 22:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Young Mandela.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Not deleted, free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young Mandela.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ezeu (notify | contribs).

Excessive fair use. We don't need to see what young-Mandela looked like to understand the section about his early accomplishments. Damiens.rf 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this was published 1958 or prior then it's public ___domain. It was certainly taken prior to that date. The texture on the photo indicates that it may be scanned from a half-toned printed work of that time - Peripitus (Talk) 22:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC). I am fairly convinced this is Public Domain. The photo dates from 1937. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ShirleyBooth2.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 ⚡ 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShirleyBooth2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kb2arizona (notify | contribs).

One non-free image is already used in this biography; this image serves only a decorative purpose. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a video cover image and neither the video release nor the cover itself are discussed in the article, so it is purely decorative, as noted by ESkog. Rossrs (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jhgh.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 ⚡ 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jhgh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Richdick96 (notify | contribs).

Unused, no description, no conceivable encyclopedic purpose. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TANK IN PARKARMA.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TANK IN PARKARMA.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legaleagle86 (notify | contribs).

Image's stated purpose is not present in the article, which is already well illustrated. No need for this non-free image. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of debate as to whether tanks were actually necessary for the Operation Blue Star, this picture shows how tanks were used in narrow confines of urban structures to flush out combatants. Thus this illustration greatly syncs with the flow of the article in question and would be necessary for a common reader to appreciate the article to a fuller extent especially the use of heavy armour in the operation. LegalEagle (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Recesscast.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Effectively 12 separate non-free images, which is clearly overuse. Most/all of it is not needed (the voice actors are certainly not needed) and much is replaceable. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly excessive use. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vid-tntl.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 ⚡ 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vid-tntl.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bwmoll3 (notify | contribs).

NFCC#8. Song is barely mentioned in article, video clip adds nothing to understanding. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:16929928a400077906b868107758l.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 ⚡ 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:16929928a400077906b868107758l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tommojones (notify | contribs).

Unused personal photo, no potential educational use. Sherool (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sxephil.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 ⚡ 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sxephil.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Den5328954 (notify | contribs).

Almost certainly a screenshot (no image source provided) and since he's living, unjustifiable fair use. ÷seresin 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Screen shot of one of Defranco's videos; replaceable image of a living person. — Σ xplicit 21:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shoeonhead.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 ⚡ 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is claimed to be non-free movie screenshot, yet contains insufficient fair-use rationale. Image source cannot be verified as none is given. The image is of low-quality, unencyclopedic, and the purpose of use is not stated. Image is currently used only on the userpage, User:General Wesc. However, if the FUR claim for the image is valid, then this is a violation of Wikipedia:Userpage#Images on user pages. FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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