Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 10

< July 9	July 11 >

July 10

File:DSC01489.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 ⚡ 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Dark/Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 00:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. File:CasioClassPad300.JPG is superior in every way. Jheald (talk) 19:27, 10 July 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:DSC01493.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Dark/blurry/Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 00:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very poor photo; and as noted above we already have an excellent one for this calculator. Jheald (talk) 19:29, 10 July 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:SyracuseTipperaryLight2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, and unencyclopedic because of the overlaid text. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, per nom. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnamed !votes don't count. ~~(signature omitted solely for irony)~~ [signature added as a sign of contrition] Buffs (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, sig now added. Even if the text were cropped, ~~I don't see anything particularly useful in this pic of a garden-variety traffic light.~~ Okay, I see the point now -- the green light being at the top, and the red at the bottom. No opinion on keep/move to commons. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move to Commons offending text could be taken out/cropped by OP/others. Certainly useful in Tipperary Hill Buffs (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other photos of the same traffic signal, and as long as the offending text is there, it is unencyclopedic. If all of the offending text is removed, only then should it be removed to Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has anyone noticed the uploader's original comment? "I made this photo myself, Syracuse, NY. Green on top. Edited previous, as it showed red light illuminated." That greatly calls into question whether or not the uploader is actually the photographer or whether he is simply taking credit for cropping/adding text/whatever. (In other words, what is this "previous" version that he edited?) If this were a long-time user with a history of contributing suitably licensed photos, ok, fine, but that's not the case here. --B (talk) 13:53, 17 July 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:Allentown parking authority.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned; no encyclopaedic value or target article given Skier Dude (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is, as it claims to be, a self-made campaigning poster against the parking authority, it has no place here. Jheald (talk) 19:32, 10 July 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:Picture 071.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity. Upload is user's only contribution. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:09, 10 July 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:Picture 072.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 ⚡ 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User photo of long gone user. Only contributions were to create a self-bio, which was deleted, now this image is used in her user page, which is her new self bio (also up for deletion per FAKEARTICLE) Sven Manguard Wha? 03:45, 10 July 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:Picture 250.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 ⚡ 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting along with above image and user page per FAKEARTICLE. User's only contributions were to a bio of her (deleted), her user page bio, and the upload of user photos of her. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:59, 10 July 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:Picture 081.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, no encyclopedic value, upload is user's only contributions. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:04, 10 July 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:Picture 090.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly a copyvio, low quality, orphaned photo of a painting. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:08, 10 July 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:Picture 097.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 because the newer pic, which seems to be the one deemed worth keeping, lacks authorship and license information. The description was not changed once the image was changed, and so we must assume that this is a no-source image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the original image nor the usurping image can be identified, therefore they are unusable. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The newer pic is of the mid-1970s Godavari Bridge in Andhra Pradesh, India, the second longest road-rail bridge in Asia. We have a commons:Category:Godavari Bridge for pictures of this bridge and the other two bridges across the river, so I would suggest keep, rename, add descriptive summary and move to Commons. Jheald (talk) 19:48, 10 July 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:Picture 098.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 ⚡ 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic user photo. Upload is user's only contribution. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:17, 10 July 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:Picture 104.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: problem solved, moved to Commons as File:Thanumalayan Temple, Suchindram.jpg, kudos to SpacemanSpiff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty picture of an unidentified landmark. User has no other contributions to help with the identification. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've asked at WT:IN if anybody can identify it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the side view (including the Marthanda Vinayaka shrine) of the Suchindram temple and could be used in that article. [1] and [2] are other photos taken of the same part of the temple at similar angles. The green board with lettering visible on the image states "Udayamarthanda Vinyakar" (many more transliterations), one of the shrines within the temple. —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You rock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons:File:Thanumalayan Temple, Suchindram.jpg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 10 July 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:Riddhi dogra.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 ⚡ 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small web-resolution photograph, claimed to be a self-taken photograph of a film star during a film premiere, from known unreliable uploader. Likely copyvio. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 10 July 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:Sharad Kapoor.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 ⚡ 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small, web-resolution photograph of a film actor, unlikely "own work" claim, from known unreliable uploader. Likely copyvio. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 10 July 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:Picture 109.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo from long gone user. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:38, 10 July 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:Large logo cmyk.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 ⚡ 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo from long gone user with COI. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:40, 10 July 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:Picture 110sm.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 ⚡ 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo of long gone user. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:41, 10 July 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:Picture 112FORD.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 ⚡ 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality image of a well imaged car (I think it is the Ford Falcon Australia). Sven Manguard Wha? 07:58, 10 July 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:Picture 113.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 ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned photo of unidentified people (possibly user and family) sitting at a table. No encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A photo with a slightly different choice of family members, File:Sudhanssaltlake.jpg, is in use at Sudhan in a gallery at the end of the article "Typical Sudhan members around the world". No opinion as to whether it would be useful to create a category for these pictures on Commons, and include this one. I hope others will come forward to give their views. Jheald (talk) 19:57, 10 July 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:Picture 117.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 ⚡ 06:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo of long gone user. No encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:01, 10 July 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:Picture 1194 Stone1.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 ⚡ 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned photo of am unidentified stone sculpture. Based on how the photographer is handling it, I'd be surprised if the stone itself is of encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is better than the next three; but as you say, no indication as to its provenance or of any encyclopedic value. Jheald (talk) 20:02, 10 July 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:Picture 1195 Stone3.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 ⚡ 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned unidentified stone sculpture. Part of series of deletions, see item directly above this. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:04, 10 July 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:Picture 1193 Stone2.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 ⚡ 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned unidentified stone sculpture. Part of series of deletions, see item two listings directly above this. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:04, 10 July 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:Picture 1196.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 ⚡ 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned unidentified stone sculpture. Part of series of deletions, see item three above this. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:05, 10 July 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:Picture 122.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 ⚡ 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a screen showing a baseball game, no indication of time, importance, etc. No encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:07, 10 July 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:Picture 1360.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 ⚡ 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity. (Orphaned user photo.) Sven Manguard Wha? 08:08, 10 July 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:PictishTrail.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 ⚡ 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned band photo. Band was prodded. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:11, 10 July 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:Hmrc.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 ⚡ 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No pages linking to this file (now the same logo rendered as SVG - different file) kashmiri (talk) 11:43, 10 July 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:Barlowconner.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 ⚡ 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative fair use image. There is another photograph of the subject of the article being used under a claim of fair use. This one depicts her and another person, however neither the photo itself nor this other person are mentioned in text. The image therefore fails WP:NFCC#8. B (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this image from Nadine Conner, so now it correctly appears only on The Voice of Firestone. Pepso2 (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have an identificatory picture at Nadine Conner; as for The Voice of Firestone, in my view the pairing of Barlow and Conner is too tangential to the subject of the article to justify its use there. The picture certainly adds decoratively very much to the article; but per policy we need more than that to justify a non-free photo. The one possible get-out I can see would be if somebody could establish that the copyright had either never been registered, or had never been renewed as required. I suspect that is very strongly possible; but we need it to be actually established as a fact before we could declare the picture public ___domain. Jheald (talk) 20:15, 10 July 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:Ian Beale Shooting.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 ⚡ 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from a TV series, used in plot sections of two articles. Not necessary to understand the plot event, which is merely mentioned but not analysed in detail; nothing in the visual detail of the scene is relevant to the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs)
Delete - there is nothing about this image that can't be conveyed in text. --B (talk) 16:44, 11 July 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:Kongresi i 10-te i PPSH, 12 qershor 1991.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free press photograph of an historically important party congress in the early 1990s. While the event was undoubtedly important, the picture conveys no crucial visual information required for understanding the event. Meaningless FUR. Source/copyright owner not specified. Fails NFCC#8, possibly also #2 (likely commercial source). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obtained from the newspaper Zeri i popullit what was an state newspaper. I think even

{{pd-because|Publishing during the socialist period, prior to copyright legislation. Newspaper carries no (c) mark. PPSH is dissolved, there is no legal inheritor of its property. {{PD-Albania-exempt}} provides that publications of state organs are exempt from copyright, albeit PPSh or Zeri i Popullit was theoretically not a state organ, it might be treated as such for legal matters today. Article 3 of Albania's 1976 Constitution identified the Party as the "leading political force of the state and of the society."}}

is on it's place. --Vinie007 13:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How often do I have to quote the actual Albanian law to you before you go and read it? The copyright law of 1992 established copyrights retroactively. Also, if this newspaper was state-owned and later dissolved, its assets are still owned by the state; that doesn't mean they have fallen into the public ___domain. The thing about "insignia of state organs" is obviously irrelevant. Please look up the meaning of the word "insignia". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't anymore the state paper but now of the socialist party, please check again. This is a historical important picture. This picture makes it understandeble that PPSh those people after it are still the same that are after the socialist party --Vinie007 14:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it wasn't legally dissolved after all? If the newspaper still exists and is still owned by the successor party, then of course its copyright assets are also still owned by it. Duh. And about the new argument, regarding an NFCC#8 justification, I don't need to see those people in the picture in order to understand that they are still in politics. In fact, the picture doesn't help me in the slightest in understanding that idea (none of the faces in the picture, except perhaps one, are even recognizable, and even if more of them were, the average reader would have no idea who they were). Only text makes me understand it, and text can do so sufficiently and all by itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop seeing everything black or white, you must see the combination to understand its importance --Vinie007 16:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW all faces that are watching in our direction are regonisable to me, i think thst with even a little knowlegde about PPSh you should recognise the Komiteti qendror members --Vinie007 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it makes clear thaht PS is still a Nomenklature Party --Vinie007 16:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use images to "make clear" such things, especially not POV-sensitive "facts" like these, and most certainly not with non-free images. We use text to explain facts. If you want to get the message across that this party has continuity with the old communist party, then find a reliable source that says so, and cite it. But watch out for NPOV while doing so. Don't try to use images to make an end-run around our NPOV rules, sneaking in your messages through a non-verbal medium. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this still is an historical image with great importance, text have a minor role compared with picture --Vinie007 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. How is the image itself (not merely the event it depicts) of great importance? --B (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because you can't describe in words what for great importance this picture had to the Albanian history; I still think this template can be added

{{pd-because|Publishing during the socialist period, prior to copyright legislation. Newspaper carries no (c) mark. PPSH is dissolved, there is no legal inheritor of its property. {{PD-Albania-exempt}} provides that publications of state organs are exempt from copyright, albeit PPSh or Zeri i Popullit was theoretically not a state organ, it might be treated as such for legal matters today. Article 3 of Albania's 1976 Constitution identified the Party as the "leading political force of the state and of the society and it's newspaper as only legal newspaper."}}

--Vinie007 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Assuming the 1991 state-organ newspaper publication is a publication by the State, could the image be exempt as "the official texts of a legal, administrative, legislative, political nature and their respective official translations" under Article 9 of the Albanian Copyright Law of 2005? Or is there an interpretation against that view? Thanks.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, an image is not a text, and a journalistic report in a newspaper is not a work of "legal, administrative, political nature". That rule, like in most other European jurisdictions, only pertains to laws, court rulings, regulations and the like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't a picture that is part of a text publication fall within that exception? Surely a photo contained within an Albanian court decision, would be excepted, right? I'm looking for some interpretation of Albanian copyright law before I opine either way.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll hardly find anything official about this, I'd guess. The only thing that is consistent about copyright law in Albania is that nobody gives a flying fuck about it. Albanian Wikipedians [3] are no different in that respect from everybody else in that country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So true, from the little I've seen. That's a bit of why I'm loathe to delete if a defensible rationale to keep can be asserted. In Albania, Zeri i popullit was an official state organ at this time, publishing texts of a political nature. And there's the insignia argument too .. (just kidding...).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:09, 12 July 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:Like a hole in the head.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that contains watermark unrelated to license-owner. Subject still exists, so is replaceable by scan that does not contain it. DMacks (talk) 14:33, 10 July 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:KimberProAegisII.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of a Kimber Aegis gun being used under a claim of fair use. The gun is still in existence today and, if froogle is any indication, still being sold today. There are six flickr photos of it - all of them are marked "all rights reserved", but someone so inclined could contact one of them and ask for appropriate permissions. That the gun still exists means it's necessarily replaceable. B (talk) 14:45, 10 July 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:Spartan310.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a gun being used under a claim of fair use. It was sold from 2005 until 2009 so surely at least one of them still exists. The image is therefore considered replaceable. B (talk) 14:49, 10 July 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:BerettaAL391Urika.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a Beretta AL391 being used under a claim of fair use. According to the article, the gun is still manufactured and sold today. The image is therefore considered replaceable. B (talk) 14:50, 10 July 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:StoegerCondorSupreme.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a Stoeger Condor gun being used under a claim of fair use. A froogle search shows plenty of places to buy the gun today. The photo is therefore considered replaceable. B (talk) 14:52, 10 July 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:EclipseTarget.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a Kimber Eclipse gun being used under a claim of fair use. According to the article, it is still manufactured and sold today. It is therefore considered replaceable. B (talk) 14:53, 10 July 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:RugerM77MarkII.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a Ruger M77 gun being used under a claim of fair use. We already have a free image of the same gun on commons. B (talk) 14:54, 10 July 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:BrowningCitori525.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a Browning Citori gun being used under a claim of fair use. According to the article, it is still sold today. The image is therefore replaceable. B (talk) 14:56, 10 July 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:Bushmaster-acr-cropped.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of an Adaptive Combat Rifle being used under a claim of fair use. The article has two free photos of the same gun. B (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one fee photo of a predecessor design (not the same gun, the Magpul Masada that was the design predecessor) and the other one of this gun is mislabeled at commons - it's at Picasa as CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 but listed at Commons as CC SA 3.0. I need to recheck if Commons can compatibly keep a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0; if not, we can put that image here locally and delete this one. But I would appreciate a week's delay on any action while we figure out what to do with the Picasa image. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading the policy pages... It's not clear that the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 image license is usable here on WP at all, so we may have to delete the other image after all. Question - is it better to keep and FUR the CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 image (for which there seems to be no proper policy support) or to keep the non-free image Bushmaster-acr-cropped.jpg with its FUR? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NC licenses aren't usable either here or on Commons. In principle, an NC-licensed image under fair use would be somewhat better than some other (let's say fully commercial) non-free image under fair use. But in any case, any non-free image in a case like this counts as replaceable, so we can't use any of them here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: about the other image, see my comments on commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bushmaster normal.jpg. The Picasa license, be it NC or not NC, is probably bogus anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Fut.Perf. says, non-commercial licenses are not acceptable (the policy was changed in 2005). According to the article, this gun is still in use today and so, under our fair use policy, it is considered to be "replaceable". (Photos of people and things that are still in existence and not in bin Laden-type hiding are generally considered replaceable.) The Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy says that Wikimedia projects may not use under a claim of fair use "material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". If the gun is still in existence, we have a reasonable expectation that a member of the military or someone with access to it could take a photo and provide it to us. So to answer your question, neither image is acceptable to use.--B (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off to Bushmaster to get them to release an image under a free license, then... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:59, 11 July 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:Aadmin mbm.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no context to determine what it is a chart of. It should be an SVG if it's something we need. B (talk) 15:23, 10 July 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:MBMCU PLACEMENTS PIE.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no context to determine what it's a chart of. It should be an SVG if it's actually needed. B (talk) 15:24, 10 July 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:Jarmann volley sight.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the sight of a Jarmann M1884 gun being used under a claim of fair use. We have several free photos of this gun, some of which were provided by this same uploader. If the gun still exists, then it is possible to get a free photo of the sight. B (talk) 15:44, 10 July 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:FDF 8.6 TKIV 2000 or Sako TRG-42 sniper rifle.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a Sako TRG gun being used under a claim of fair use. According to the article, the gun is still in production today, meaning it is a replaceable image. B (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where can a free image of a Finnish Defence Forces Sako TRG-42 rifle (8.6 TKIV 2000) to replace the above image be found? Please provide such an image source, since I can not find a free replacement image.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Francis, that's a good question, However, it's not required that we know already of an alternative, just that an alternative could reasonably likely exist or be made. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose the Finnish Defence Forces release their photos PD like the American armed forced do? If they do, then the Finnish Defence Forces would likely have an image somewhere. The other alternative, with all products, is to ask the company that owns the item to send over a free picture. Free publicity is free publicity. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:54, 11 July 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:7.62 TKIV 85.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of a 7.62 Tkiv 85 gun being used under a claim of fair use. According to the article, this gun is still in use today. It is therefore considered replaceable. B (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where can a free image of a Finnish Defence Forces 7.62 TKIV 85 to replace the above image be found? Please provide such an image source, since I can not find a free replacement image.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that for WP:NFCC#1 it is irrelevant if a free replacement is already readily available. What matters is that one could be created. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 11 July 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:Wimmersperg Spz-kr.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced drawing of a gun used by Nazi Germany uploaded by a now-banned editor. He credits "imageshack" as the source. We have no way of knowing whether this is a drawing from the Nazi archives (possibly even PD, but likely legitimate fair use) or something that someone made up in school one day last year. B (talk) 19:02, 10 July 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:Gac3.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, poor quality, unknown subject. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:24, 10 July 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:Gabyg1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, unknown subject. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:24, 10 July 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:Gaby.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 ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, Not notable subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:25, 10 July 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:34twaeta.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, unknown person. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:51, 10 July 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:395px-Keratoconus1-800-edit.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 ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, very similar to Image:Keratoconus_eye.jpg on commons. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:56, 10 July 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:16a Paghagupit.JPG and 32 others

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files only used at User:Dayapum, inactive user - not been here since 2007. Unknown ___location - might be 3D artwork issue Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures are from Cainta, Rizal in the Phillipines, according the user page, which contains an article in development. The Commons FoP page says that there is no provision in the Phillipines law to allow the photography of copyright works. Looks very much like most of these are non-free; though photography of the ones made before 1923 (the user page has dates) may be PD-US. Jheald (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all They are not going to be used in the mainspace and the user is gone, so there's no reason to keep them. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:55, 11 July 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:Remixion.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover, so presumably non-free. Orphaned, so likely an unused non-free image (which fails WP:NFCC). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:44, 10 July 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:462px-The Monster Ball - Poker Face revamped2 cropped lightadjustandglow.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned derivative file, not as good as original. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:47, 10 July 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:500px-BSicon uABZ ld.svg.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 ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail icon, does not meet normal requirements - all are kept on commons, all start name with "BSicon" (they have to - to work in the templates), and all are svg. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:01, 10 July 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:Northwestarrow.png and 3 others

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, terribly low quality (should at least be an SVG). If we really need a small arrow like this at some point in the future, a new one can be made easily. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:17, 10 July 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:60 save for web.jpg and 3 others

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, stated temp files Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fir0002 has moved on, and these are not usable in the mainspace. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:57, 11 July 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:TonThatThien1963.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 ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality due to whitespace, although that could be fixed, and no ticket number given for OTRS. Orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:31, 10 July 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:TR-40 CRA product shot.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; no OTRS number for claimed permission emails. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:34, 10 July 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:Veteran Editor II transparent.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, terribly low quality (as even the uploader noted). No foreseeable use. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I deleted this long ago. Apparently not. Kill it. -- Sabre (talk) 11:04, 11 July 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:894Adam.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, unknown subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:00, 10 July 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:98609F2 edited.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, unknown subject, poor quality, odd cropping Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:06, 10 July 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:Kit body bar0305.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 ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; redundant to superior SVG. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:38, 10 July 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:Logo acrobatconnect.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a logo, so presumably non-free. Orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:44, 10 July 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.