Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 29

< June 28	June 30 >

June 29

File:Black and white.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, subject(s) not ID'd, generic wedding picture, not needed Skier Dude (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Better than Today 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image does not have a valid rational for use. Its inclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the article in which is it included, and does not form part of the critical commentary. Per WP:NFCC it means that this image is inappropriately used and thus a viable candidate for deletion. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr-Dre kush screenshot.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image does not have a valid rational for use. Its inclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the article in which is it included, and does not form part of the critical commentary. Per WP:NFCC it means that this image is inappropriately used and thus a viable candidate for deletion. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Asan Logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, user-created logo; no target article provided, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hole in the wall.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, no target article or other encyc use foreseen Skier Dude (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TESTING.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding File:TESTING.jpg, same uploader, near-identical image

orphaned, no target article; states "showing the apparatus used to perform the Concrete Slump Test." - but I'm not seeing apparatuses(?) Note to closing admin - whichever way this goes, this image name needs to be salted. Skier Dude (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Testing.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, summary says 'just testing for my userpage'; note to closing admin, whichever decision is made, this image name needs to be salted Skier Dude (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons as image:Matterhorn (Zermatt, Switzerland).jpg, and salt this name. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EXAMPLE.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, no target article or hint at specific encyc use; note to closing admin, whatever the decision on this file, the file name needs to be salted Skier Dude (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ted Weems.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replaceable non-free image Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Building.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pretty clearly not a logo - which also makes the source suspect (says 'this logo available...'; note to closing admin, whatever the decision on this file, please salt this image name Skier Dude (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the pic doesn't appear to (currently) exist on the ISS website, or anywhere else on the net. User appears to be reasonably active (last edits just over two weeks ago), and quite focussed on this one article, so maybe we can ask him. Jheald (talk) 01:34, 2 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:Trinity 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: withdrawn file moved & used now. Skier Dude (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, exact ___location not provided, nor an article or use suggested; possibly in Ottawa (uploader's name?) - p.s. to closing admin, if church is identified, please move to a more precise file name Skier Dude (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Skier is correct to bring this here for attention as it is indeed orphaned, I had forgotten I uploaded this image. The the church was built in 1877 in St thomas, Ontario as the successor to Old St. Thomas Church, so the picture was technically meant to go into that article, however I hadnt got around to expanding the article (recent time commitments) to note that with some valid secondary refs- I dont mind if the image is deleted now, but it could be used for those keen on expanding the above article. Thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to File:Trinity Episcopal church Ontario Canada.JPG and put on article. Skier Dude (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trinity 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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, exact ___location not provided, nor an article or use suggested - to closing admin, if church is identified, please move to a more precise file name & maybe? salt this image name Skier Dude (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Boston, Copley Square. The glass building to the right is the John Hancock Tower. We have an article on the church, and a commonscat. IMO this is quite a good pic, and might be better than the present one for the article infobox. Jheald (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons no reason to delete, actually decent and wouldn't have been hard to find which church it is (I recognised the tower as well) —innotata 22:17, 6 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:TheCastle.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, exact ___location unknown, possibly left over from deleted article The Castle (University Group) or University of Pennsylvania? Skier Dude (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality copy of commons:File:The Castle.jpg. It is indeed apparently University of Pennsylvania. Jheald (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate. —innotata 22:18, 6 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:The fall.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

___location unknown; not possible to determine specifically from user's history; without ___location, no real encyc use; note to closing admin, whatever the decision on this file, this is probably a saltable file name Skier Dude (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find it. Very little to go on. Jheald (talk) 17:50, 1 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:Harley.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file which does not seem to have any encyclopedic use. Fleet Command (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be interesting to somebody interested in Harley Davidson. It is a very, very early press mention, at a time when the company had sold no more than ~50 machines. Move to commons:Category:Harley-Davidson ? Jheald (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move to Commons also could be used on Wikisource, to transcribe the article. —innotata 22:20, 6 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:As built.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, unclear if this file name is the name of the boat;; watermarked with 'baracoola'; no target article or encyc use suggested; note to closing admin, if kept, please rename to a more specific file name Skier Dude (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baracoola (or perhaps ''Baragoola'') is indeed the name of the ship. Writing is presumably original, if this is a 1920s postcard. For a current photo, see [1]. If it's a 1922 photo (and was published in that year), that should make it PD-US as well as PD-AUS. Should then be usable on that article, and on various commons cats. Jheald (talk) 03:16, 2 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:Floor plan.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned; unclear what this is supposed to be a floor plan for... without a target article this doesn't have any encyc use. Note to closing admin, regardless the decision on this file, this is another saltable file name Skier Dude (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the floor plan drawn from my memory when I worked in the TXE1 exchange. It was used on the TXE page until I came across a printed one. I suggest it shouls be retained in a reserve capacity. Deben Dave (talk)
- Article is TXE. On the face of it the whole lot could be shifted to Commons (apart from some of the schematics, and also what might be some official publicity shots (?), which are possibly still copyright, but where there may be a certain encyclopedic value in the actualité of the original material; I wouldn't have thought there's any conceivable commercial value in them). Jheald (talk) 22:39, 1 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:A dog with balls.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's dog (!) with insufficient scientific data (breed, type, etc.) No foreseeable encyclopedic use. Fleet Command (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But at least it does have balls! Delete. Jheald (talk) 17:44, 1 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:Floor Plan.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Floor plan of unidentified ___location; unused and orphaned; no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Fleet Command (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment isn't it the ground floor of the Amalienburg ? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename' to File:Amalienburg (Grundriß).jpg 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No information on source, though: not likely to be "own work". —innotata 22:24, 6 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:Three on a Match Dvorak Wellman.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Big Dom 16:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image whose only rationale (for use in Pre-Code Hollywood is insufficient. The article already has several public ___domain photos of these sorts of situations, so this image is duplicitous and replaceable. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, the photograph illustrates a specific situation in pre-code films, as explained by its caption: "Situations such as this, a man about to kiss a woman who is in bed in her nightgown (Warren William and Ann Dvorak from Three on a Match), were one of the things the Production Code took aim at. After 1934, a scene such as this would not be seen in a Hollywood film for decades." No other image in the article comes remotely close to illustrating this situation, so it's irrelvant whether there are other non-free images in the article, as none are pertinent to this particular circumstance, one of the primary concerns which led to the promulgation of the Code. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Picture and caption together serve a purpose neither could alone. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with the FuR updated to match the caption's statements (more-or-less) regarding the use therein. Skier Dude (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have updated the FUR with a version of the text above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beast Wall.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, no real encyclopaedic use; no target article/use provided Skier Dude (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Rcsprinter (talk) 20:18, 4 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:Borton-LawsonBlank.GIF

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

possible F2 deletion - blank image... if this was supposed to be animated it did not work; in any case, no need for a blank/defective image Skier Dude (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FcsLogo.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect license - state (possible?) image, not US Federal; orphaned & blurred (too small); no source Skier Dude (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too small to be of any use. Better version could be found here, from this web page. The appropriate article would be Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools. Jheald (talk) 18:01, 1 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:14August2006.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, meaningless title. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that this might be a family relative of the uploader, electioneering in Pakistan (or perhaps for a pro-Pak party in Kashmir); or maybe receiving some kind of official certificate. Compare other personal/family uploads by the same user. He maybe was going to write an article on them, but it doesn't ever appear to have happened. Jheald (talk) 21:28, 1 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:150Alex.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no data as to the subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be Alexis García, which the uploader was editing at the time. The strip appears to more or less match that of his club, Atlético Nacional. But do we genuinely think this was a user-taken image? The white background seems quite odd. Jheald (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ID confirmed: image was removed from Alexis García by OrphanBot on 28 June 2007, for having no source information. [2]. Jheald (talk) 21:21, 1 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:172430 10150089876319422 512719421 6415711 2411593 o (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, unknown subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:180x-Phil s res 1971 1.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, unknown subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Henny, racing driver. Image is a low-resolution version of File:Phil s res 1971 1.JPG, which is in use on the article. Some other copies on the internet, but may all be derived from here. Jheald (talk) 21:45, 1 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:1Ambre07.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, unknown subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambre Anderson. A previous image File:Ambrea.jpg had been deleted as replaceable fair use; in contrast my guess is that this was not a professional image. Image was replaced on 25 April 2008 [3] by a much more publicity-type image File:Ambre 0022.jpg, uploaded by an account apparently close to the model herself. Not entirely clear that the subject passes WP:NOTABILITY. Jheald (talk) 22:00, 1 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:Curcumin-enol.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file. Author has not removed the page size rectangle that some conversions generate (e.g. SymyxDraw to EPS). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom, "brocken". --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:59, 2 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:2 AEP.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file. Not drawn to anything resembling WP:MOSCHEM Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:200 from 84.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file. Not sharp focus. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Send to Commons, categories commons:Category:Number 200 on vehicles, commons:Category:London Buses route 200, commons:Category:Buses in the United Kingdom photographed in 1984, commons:Category:S suffix registered buses in the United Kingdom.

I think it may also go into commons:Category:Daimler Fleetline, but it might be safest to drop it into commons:Category:Unsorted_UK_bus_images and leave it to the experts, as there appear to have other buses of the period that looked pretty similar. There are also some further subcats of commons:Category:Buses in the United Kingdom that the image should probably be categorised into (compare the other cats for other similar buses in the cats above). Jheald (talk) 01:19, 2 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:2003-09-26-DSCN9987.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, Unknown subject Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like it. I like the sense of warmth, and the way the colour of the evening sun lights up the white sails. Couldn't we just send it to Commons for commons:Category:Sailing dinghies ? Jheald (talk) 23:35, 1 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:2004 0528School100004.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, Unknown school, probably in UK, but where... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image was added to Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College in March 2006 to illustrate a 2004 student prank -- the flying of a pirate flag from the school bell-tower, on the Jerningham Road site. [4]. The material was removed as "unencyclopedic" in February 2007 [5]; but on the face of it there's no reason why the image couldn't be kept and sent to Commons, presumably to join some Geograph images there.
- Update: The bell-tower is at 51:28:24 N, 0:02:28 W (OS grid TQ361767); though apparently no Geograph images. The other image of the school is on Commons at commons:File:Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College.jpg Jheald (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons quite worth keeping. —innotata 22:27, 6 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:2005MumFest02.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, Unknown ___location Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be Lake Anna Park in Barberton, Ohio where "MumFest" is an annual event. [6], [7]. Google has more pix. Probably worth noting in the article, and adding the pic.
There is also File:2005MumFest.jpg by the same uploader, showing a water-skiing team. Probably less useful. Commons has a commons:Category:Barberton, Ohio Jheald (talk) 01:48, 2 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:2006-2007 schedule.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. Big Dom 16:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no real use. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jheald (talk) 01:46, 2 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:2007.France 1 389.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 ⚡ 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, ___location unknown, somewhere in France... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently the Oceanographic Museum, Monte Carlo, Monaco. (Strictly speaking, not part of France). Superstock has a somewhat better photo here: [8]. Commons has commons:Category:Musée Océanographique de Monaco. Jheald (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons no reason to delete —innotata 22:28, 6 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.