Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 4

< September 3	September 5 >

September 4

File:Alesha Dixon in Drummer Boy.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 ⚡ 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image has since been replaced by more appropriate version Patyo1994 (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]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:Fartbarf promo2.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 ⚡ 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of encyclopedic use this file has. It has no links to any articles. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 01:49, 4 September 2010 (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:Double you bluealbumcover.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 ⚡ 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

album cover used on artist page without any critical commentary Skier Dude (talk 02:16, 4 September 2010 (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:Dorothyshay.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 ⚡ 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

album cover used on artist's article with no critical commentary; no FuR (2006 upload) Skier Dude (talk 02:53, 4 September 2010 (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:Dorian Yates Video.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 ⚡ 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

video cover used in subject's infobox; no critical commentary Skier Dude (talk 02:56, 4 September 2010 (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:Doomedrepeat.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 ⚡ 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book cover used on author's article without any critical commentary Skier Dude (talk 03:00, 4 September 2010 (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:Vollney and Gill Wilson.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 ⚡ 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DiscoverLife (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reason - Orphan, not ready for publication.[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:Donald,Robyn-BrideAtWhangatapu.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 ⚡ 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book cover used on author's article without any critical commentary Skier Dude (talk 03:22, 4 September 2010 (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:Didier Lestrade - The End (cover).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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book cover used on author's article without any critical commentary Skier Dude (talk 03:28, 4 September 2010 (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:Didier Lestrade - Act Up - une histoire (cover).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 ⚡ 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book cover used on author's article without any critical commentary Skier Dude (talk 03:28, 4 September 2010 (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:Didier Lestrade - Kinsey 6 (cover).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 ⚡ 08:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book cover used on author's article without any critical commentary Skier Dude (talk 03:28, 4 September 2010 (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:P-cdart-porterhall-01.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

self-designed album cover - no target article, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk 03:48, 4 September 2010 (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:P-cdart-porterhall-02.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

self-designed album cover - no target article, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk 03:48, 4 September 2010 (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:P1010202.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, wrong rotation Skier Dude (talk 03:51, 4 September 2010 (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:PCS.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, photoshopped with red circle, no encyc value Skier Dude (talk 04:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without any data on what it's about, it's pretty useless. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 04:51, 10 September 2010 (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:PENIS.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned; how many of these do we really need? Skier Dude (talk 04:06, 4 September 2010 (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:PH3.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, yet another - how many are there? Skier Dude (talk 04:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it hasn't been used since 2007? AGF, but interesting that uploading that was the editors first action on WP. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 04:47, 10 September 2010 (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:PHYLLIS & LAWRENCE ROYALS.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPA only edit - subjects not ID'd - no encyc use Skier Dude (talk 04:12, 4 September 2010 (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:PIC-0020.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maybe a picture of a blurry ankle? no need for this Skier Dude (talk 04:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, poor picture. No info on what it's meant to show (Maybe a dislocation or Oedema?) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 04:56, 10 September 2010 (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:POSC 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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned "flag" sourced to POSC members , no target article or encyc use Skier Dude (talk 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we have no idea what it stands for and it's unused? 220.101 talk^\Contribs 05:02, 10 September 2010 (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:POSTERING3.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPA sole edit - looks like fake movie poster, no encyc value Skier Dude (talk 04:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, unencyclopaedic. NB Google says the same user has vids of this name on YouTube - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 05:17, 10 September 2010 (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:PRAKASh.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, very bad photoshopping - no encyc value Skier Dude (talk 04:33, 4 September 2010 (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:PRR Winner Poster2.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

film poster; source= freewebs.com/prrfilminfo IDave McRae); unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk 04:38, 4 September 2010 (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:PYHS Church.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPA only edit - appears to be their business card Skier Dude (talk 04:44, 4 September 2010 (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:Poster 2.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned; fake (?) book cover; no encyc value Skier Dude (talk 04:53, 4 September 2010 (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:Hock2.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned fake (?) poster, no encyc value Skier Dude (talk 04:54, 4 September 2010 (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:Poster for email nrityam 2007.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

publicity poster, no source; unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk 04:56, 4 September 2010 (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:Poster2400841.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fake poster created for hoax article Skier Dude (talk 05:03, 4 September 2010 (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:PosterA.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPA sole edit - appears to be fake movie poster, no encyc value Skier Dude (talk 05:04, 4 September 2010 (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:PosterK.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPA sole edit; orphaned; no encyc value Skier Dude (talk 05:06, 4 September 2010 (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:Posterized2.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uploaded for deleted probable-COI/autobio article; no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk 05:08, 4 September 2010 (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:Nemo logo.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

band logo; no article or other encyc use Skier Dude (talk 05:10, 4 September 2010 (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:Alexis Cohen.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 Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown author means that we cannot be sure that we are not infringing their rights with this image and that it has not been properly attributed. Therefore does not meet the NFCC Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well can you help me out, instead of trying to delete everything? CTJF83 chat 06:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if we can't attribute it properly, I can't see that we can use the picture. Who owns the image? What license does it really have? Is allmusic the rights holder? Do they have a history of misusing other people's work? Are we infringing on someone else's commercial exploitation of the image. How does the image add to the readers understanding of the article or is it just a pretty picture that adds no encyclopaedic value? I really can't see how we can justify using this under the NFCC Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It understands what she looks like...and obviously no free image can be taken. CTJF83 chat 06:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does knowing what she looked like add encyclopaedic value and the other questions? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then why don't you go through and delete every copyrighted image of a person or tv/movie character, as that would apply to all of them too. CTJF83 chat 06:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go and find a file with a clear attributation? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well please help then...I'm far from an image expert. CTJF83 chat 06:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on an even closer look I found the actual page this came from. the image is clearly a copyvio there and has no source, author or license details so I have speedied this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 4 September 2010 (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:Bluelady07.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image largely used to show a vessel, of which we have free images, with a different paintjob. I cannot see what significant understanding this image brings to readers. Fails WP:NFCC#1, 3a and 8. Is redundant to existing images, the small differences can be described with text alone and does not add significantly to reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 06:11, 4 September 2010 (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:CentralLondonfromCentrepoint.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 ⚡ 17:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice image, but the licensing terms as viewable under http://www.skyscrapernews.com/image_useage.php are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. I can't see any potential usage under fair use, since it doesn't appear to be necessary to illustrate the article. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2010 (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:Huguette-Clark.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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. This photo is available only from the Montana Historical Society, which has it in its collection and sells one-time-use rights to authors and publications. An editor has copied the photo from the online site of one such publication and posted the photo here. The claim is being made that the photo is in the public ___domain because it was surely taken before 1923 -- one of the people in the photo died in 1919. What is not at all clear is when the photo was first published. The first use, with permission and paid rights for one-time use, seems to have been in the past 10 years, in a book published only in French. Then it was used this year, with permission and paid rights for one-time use, on msnbc.com, where the editor grabbed it and is trying to throw it into the public ___domain without paying for rights. BlackberryHacks (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It seems likely that Montana Historical Society is engaged in some kind of copyfraud – or that is at least what BlackberryHacks is implying. They do not own the copyrights and cannot charge for the copyright. They can charge for their services – most photo archives do, but they cannot control the reuse of the photo once it published. It seems that BlackberryHacks has been in contact with Historical Society. It would be most useful if he made available the name of the photographer, or the fact that the work is anonymous. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you have it backwards. I'm sorry if I was not clear. I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm saying that the Montana Historical Society owns the photo, and the Wikipedia editor who posted it does not have the right, and does not know when it was first published, and therefore does not know whether it's in the public ___domain. Without that information, the photo should be removed. I do not know the name of the photographer.BlackberryHacks (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you been in contact with the Montana Historical Society or where does your information come from? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me help. The picture was credited, by its uploader, to this msnbc.com article, published in June 2010. The msnbc.com article itself credits the picture to "Montana Historical Society Research Center". The Montana Historical Society Research Center's terms and conditions, which msnbc.com will have adhered to, require that anyone wanting to publish or republish the image obtain the MHS's written permission first. It's not licensed on terms that are anywhere near resembling free content. We as yet have no evidence that this photograph was published in 1917, and little evidence that the June 2010 article wasn't in fact its first publication anywhere. It is the uploader, Urbanrenewal, that you should be addressing your questions to. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - BlackberryHacks, looking at your edit history you may have a conflict of interests which you have not fully disclosed. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there is a difference between the Montana Historical Society's Reproduction Charges for making a copy of the photo available and its copyright status. Please see my discussion below. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is my belief that this photograph should be considered to be in the public ___domain. I don't think there is any question that this photo was taken in 1917. The only question was whether the image was published in 1917 or kept in some private collection and never published. I was in contact with Lory Morrow the archivist at the Montana Historical Society by phone to get more information. The archivist said there was very little informaiton about the photograph other than that it was donated to the Montana Historical Society in 1969. The donor information indicated that it was not a Clark family member and the way the information had been recorded on the back of the photo indicated it was likely from an organization. I think claiming this was a personal photo would require further information about the donor which the archivist was reluctant to provide. I asked the archivist whether they had also received a transfer of the ownership of the copyright and she had no record of that (and is highly uncommon prior to the passage of the 1976 Copyright Act). The other information was that the photo was taken in 1917 (as mentioned this is confirmed by the presence of one individual in the photo who died in 1919 and the general ages of the girls in the photo) and the names of the individuals in the photo. The only reason this photograph would not be in the public ___domain is that it was never published. Based on the information available there is no reason to believe that this photo was kept in a private collection and therefore never released into the public. My conclusion based on the information from MHS is that this is not an image from a private family collection the kind that would be exempted. I doubt that the Montana Historical Society could successfully claim to be the copyright owner even though they owned the image. There is little way to determine if the original creator of the image has been dead 70 years as the image has no information about the photographer. That they made available a good copy of the image in exchange for a fee is irrelevant to the discussion of the copyright status. If the image is still under copyright it would likely be an orphan image without a clear copyright holder. Nevertheless, I believe there is a very strong argument that this 93-year old photo is in the public ___domain due to the date of its creation and almost certain publication (at least for copyright purposes).
If the consensus is that this photo is not in the public ___domain, then I think it should still be kept and changes to usage under a claim of fair use as the subject is a 104-year old recluse of whom there is unlikely to ever be a free image produced. It would be a justifiable claim of fair use to portray her in a 93 year old photograph in the absence of a free image as the primary means of identification. There are a small group of non-free images that could also be used but I would propose this image be kept.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Montana Historical Society Research Center's terms and conditions are copyfraud. For copyright purposes consider to be published anonymously in 1969, i.e. Public Domain. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This doesn't seem the place for a political debate.) There is no evidence that the photo was published previously. Certainly not in 1967. If we're going to err, let's err on the side of obeying the law. This photo doesn't belong to the editor who uploaded it.BlackberryHacks (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You nominated the image for deletion - you can comment repeatedly but it is inappropriate to try to add another "vote" - not that this is a vote
Delete Not sufficiently sourced to determine public ___domain status. The first publication date we know about means it's still copyrighted. The author is unknown, so we can't know date of death. Last time I checked, unpublished photos by unknown authors were protected by copyright for 120 years after creation. That's not really relevant anyway. If we don't have a source that can confirm a free licence, Wikimedia always assumes non-free. The way the image is currently tagged, the image should be moved to commons. However, the image would be deleted from commons because of inadequate sourcing. Jay32183 (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is not a free image it should still be kept as a fair use image per above as a free image is highly unlikely to be created (i.e., similar to somone who is dead). |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fair use doctrine -- which is a defense, not a license -- tests have four prongs. Not one of them is, the person in the photo is a recluse, and I can't take another one, so therefore publishing the photo I have is allowed by a claim of fair use.BlackberryHacks (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it is - if there is no free alternative then to use a non-free image is permissible under a claim of fair use per WP:NFC. Typically you would assume a free image could be created but in this circumstance the woman is isolated in a hospital secluded from potential photographers. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you're not reading the page to which you link. WP:NFC says, "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." See, right there it is: "all 10." What is the second criterion: "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Fail. Placement on Wikipedia of this photo, which is owned and sold by the Montana Historical Society, would of course replace the market role of the original copyrighted media; in plain English, no one would pay to use it if they could get it free from Wikipedia -- in fact, that's already happened since you posted this photo, which you don't own, on Wikipedia. Again, Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackberryHacks (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your argument sucks! Keeping the photo here would prevent the Montana Historical Society from engaging in copyfraud. The Society does not own the copyright and cannot sell licensees to the copyrighted material. They are free to charge what ever they want for their services – but that has nothing to do with copyright. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this. We don't have adequate sourcing to use the image. We don't have sources that show it's free. If we assume non-free the sources we have show them as the current license holder. Your argument is based on nothing. Get sources, then we can talk. Jay32183 (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is one issue - should we delete the image. There are two strong reasons not to do so - in order:

We have a strong basis to conclude that the image is in the public ___domain. To summarize this argument: We know the date of creation as 1917 and the fact that this did not come from a private archive. The precedent on these images is that if the image came from a private collection (i.e. a family photo album) it would be assumed it was not published. However, if it came from another such source then the clock would start ticking. There was no attempt to keep this image private therefore given the amount of time that has passed this image should be in the public ___domain. The Montana Historical Society has the actual physical photograph which has allowed it to sell the image to MSNBC, however, based on our research, this image should be in the public ___domain.
The donation of the image without clear transfer of the copyright to a state archive could be also considered a granting of the image into the public ___domain in 1969. I do not think there is any evidence that suggests that the Montana Historical Society would have any claim to the copyright for this image. But that in itself is not the determining factor as to whether the image is in the public ___domain.
If, despite all of the evidence to support the claim that this is a public ___domain image, we conclude that we do not want to rely on that claim to keep the image, there is a strong basis to claim fair usage. Nothing about our usage prevents a hypothetical copyright holder from profiting from this image - it is a relatively low resolution copy of the image. Presumably - MHS is offering "licensees" a much higher resolution copy. Usage in wikipedia in this context is highly defensible from a fair use perspective and if all else fails I would support keeping the image under this licensing until more evidence can persuade all parties that the image is actually already in the public ___domain.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominating editor believes he can get more information to support his position, I would suggest he seek to do so.

- Slight problem with your summary. The sources we have suggest copyrighted, not public ___domain. The public ___domain claim is a guess. If we aren't certain of public ___domain status, we assume the image is copyrighted. When in doubt, delete. Giving an image to a state archive is not the same as releasing it to the public ___domain, especially if the state archive claims copyrights. Get a source that indicates public ___domain status. We need a date of first publication or date of death for the author. There's no non-free content rationale, so we should delete the image for non-free anyway. I don't see how this image significantly increases the readers' understanding. Jay32183 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2010 (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:Thriller2001SpecialEdition.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; does not meet the non-free content criteria. BigDom More tea, vicar? 13:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The slipcover for the 2001 Special Edition of Thriller serves no encyclopedic purpose by its inclusion in Thriller (album) article infobox. The image is not discussed anywhere in the article, and is not the primary visual means by which the album is identified (that would be with the the original album cover. Fails WP:NFCC #8. —indopug (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It shows the cover for the 2001 Special Edition of Thriller and it is mentioned in the article. 02:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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.