Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 May 3

< May 2	May 4 >

May 3

File:Cuthbert covercropped.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. — ξ ^xplicit 05:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free image. Actually a free image does already exist at File:Britannica Bookbinding - St. Cuthbert's Gospels.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 20:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested replacement image is unable to show the colour and quality of the leather tooling, which is the point of its use in the article. Consequently it is not replaceable in line with fair use guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fae. The other image has already been pointed out previously. There is very detailed analysis of the design and the four colours involved in the article, which is an FA. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as this book is still in existence, can't the current non-free photo be replaced with a free photo? Kelly ^hi! 04:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. As the image file says, the library does not allow photography. Please research nominations more carefully than this, especially if you are nominating something off TFA. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a general matter, I'm not sure that a technical prohibition on photography would actually prevent a motivated visitor from obtaining a photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any photograph that would be likely to fulfill the stated purpose of being a better illustration than the old black-and-white one from Britannica, and in particular to give the reader a better idea of the relief and the colouring, would almost certainly require lighting conditions very different from those that are typically found in museum rooms used for displaying ancient manuscripts (which invariably have dimmed light, protective glass etc.) And encouraging Wikipedians to illegally try doing flash photography in such a room, with valuable old manuscripts around, would be a seriously, seriously bad idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't the library release an image under a free license if the Brittanica one isn't acceptable? Kelly ^hi! 03:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone contacted the library in this regard? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 00:56, 3 May 2012 (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:Moravola design.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. Not seeing very convincing keep arguments. — ξ ^xplicit 05:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CAD drawing of a building. I fail to see why it wouldn't be replaceable. I added {{di-replaceable fair use}}, but it was removed without explanation. The image also fails WP:NFCC#3b, so I added {{non-free reduce}}, which was also deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is irreplacable because it came from the computer system of the Architect and is therefore unique.

Can you also explain what your other concerns are? I am not so familiar with WP and all the other tags you have there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes88 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is replaceable because anyone else could use a CAD program to create a similar image. It fails WP:NFCC#3b because the resolution is too high. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see you try to replace the image? How are you going to do it? With what CAD system, and with what original contour site data? The resolution on he original CAD system is much much higher. You need the higher resolution to actually build. I fail to still fail to understand your arguments, It is almost like saying I have paint, therefore I can draw the Mona Lisa. And therefore the Mona Lisa is replacable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes88 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a task of me replacing it with someone but of someone being able to replace it. Compare with maps (always replaceable: you could draw your own map) or satellite images (always replaceable: you could take an image with your own satellite). --Stefan2 (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 00:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious NFCC#8 failure: not the object of sourced commentary. This would only be legitimate if something in the visual details of the plan was being discussed as indicative of the architect's creative work. That is not the case. As it is, it is mere decoration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets address the concerns:

1) Is the drawing replaceable

I agree in that say you had a picture of a doughnut. That doughnut picture can be repaced with a free non copyrighted doughnut picture and it would work just as well.

I thought that the picture would make a nice description of the site and would go well with the article. I asked the Architect, and he kindly agreed to sent me the CAD drawing and allowed it to be shown here. I think it would not be polite to ask him to give up all his copyright of his work. I think that no one else can replace the drawing. This is because no one else has access to the site data and therefore it is not possible to replace the drawing. The building and contours were laser site surveyed. And that data was then loaded into the CAD prgram. Not all CAD programs can do this, certianly not the cheap ones. A professional Architect program was used. So for someone else to re-create the drawing, that person would need site access and then spend the next 5 days or so with a helper to site survey. Then to put in the data to a computer. Then you would need to spend maybe, if you knew what you were doing another 3-4 months CADing the drawing up. So in recreating the drawing I would say not possible.

I agree that if you did jumped through all these hoops then you can recreate it. But as with the Mona Lisa argument, you can also recreate that, or anything else for that matter.

2) Resolution

CAD drawings that you need to build from are big. Think A0 pieces of paper. Or guys in hard hats looking at pieces of paper on the bonnet of a construction vehicle. Usually they are accurate to 1mm in "real-world" dimensions. The picture included here is not at that level or resultion. I guess some US layer advised on this so lower resolutuion is better from the legal point of view.

3) Can we get another picture that would work just as well.

I think no because this is the best there is. It is from the same system that was used to build. The drawing though is not "usuable" to build, but does provide the "best" representation of the site. I.E. a reader would then know how the building is layed out and the arcitecture of the building, which is the main point of the article.

4) Reason for use

The reason for use is not "here is a great CAD picture" or even this Architect is good or bad. The reason for use in the article is because I wanted to show the layout of the building and this drawing is the best available. We can make the article better in adding some references to the CAD picture and explain the building. I was planning to do that at some later date before running into this issue on just putting the picture there, which is frankly very discoraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.197.9 (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When determining whether something is replaceable, sweat of the brow is irrelevant. Maps are replaceable, yet it may require a lot of work to draw a detailed map.
Check the FUR: it says "Non-free media information and use rationale for Torre di Moravola". Obviously, the purpose is to display the image in the article Torre di Moravola. The copy of the image used in that article is much smaller. Per WP:NFCC#3b, no need to keep a version which is bigger than that.
The answer is obviously yes: someone else could draw a picture of the same area, and that picture could be used instead.
The article doesn't contain any section about CAD drawings of the property, so your claims are irrelevant: there is nothing in the text which is even remotely related to the image. Clear WP:NFCC#8 failure. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have added some text. But seems like I cannot add the picture. So not much point in adding any text. If I want to add the picture, is there a way do do it? Or is there no way to do it? If there is a way to do it tell me. If there is not way tell me too. Please do not just cite, like a lawyer soem weird WP XXXX which I guess is some rule. Give it to me in plain english. I think the picture is good for the article. So if=s this a copyright issue? Or is this some other issue?

Incendetly can you give me one example of a irreplaceable picture. So I can understand that rule better? It almost seems that any picture by default can be blocked, because of it is replacable. I.E. Some one can go around deleting pictures stating, hey, I can replace it. I.E. if SweAT of the BROW is not a good test as to if something is replaceable, What is the test for something is replacable or not? I the reason d'etre of the site is to attract articles, this rule / policy seems surprisingly counter productive.

A map I understand is tough to replace. I.E. yes someone worked hard to create the map, And hence it is not fair to just post it and use it. In this case I agree. The Architect has also worked hard to create this drawing. He is willing to have it posted on Wikipedia and agrees to that? Then why can we not use the picture?

I looked again at the upload procedure, did I use the wrong tag or screwed up the upload? I used the one for 2D Architecture drawings? I asked the architect and he said OK for Wikipedia. So that means to me if a school girl used it in a 5th grade project that would be fine, If someone downloaded the picture from Wikipedia that would be OK. If they claimed hey this is my work that would not be OK, If the picture was used in a document without saying that this was the Architects work that would not be OK, If someone built using a house from it, sort of unlikely because the picture only works on that site and for that building, that would not be OK . If someone used the picture in a book, so long as the Arcitects name was mentioned and quoted and the book was tastefully done, that would be OK. If someone used the picture and made lost of money off it without the Architects permission, that would not be OK. If someone changed his picture and used it for something else that would not be OK. The Architect knows enough about the internet such that there is not a lot to stop anybody doing anything with your picture. He knows this and said it was OK to use on Wikipedia. Is there a way to use the picture?

If the author has given permission to use the image the it's no longer subject to wp:FUC guidelines for fair use of content. The permission should be verified following these instructions and the image kept, not deleted. Diego (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the kind of permission. If the permission only is for Wikipedia, or is for any other kind of non-free licence, it would just remove any WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#4 claims. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK so it looks like it is a copyright issue. So can someone explain how to fix this. I need a sort of very dumb guide. Usually I struggle to just stick the picture on the site in the first place. Fortunately usually someone fixes stuff up and I do not have to worry about it. What is a non-free licence, and what is a something else licence. And what does this mean, and how do I do what ever needs to be done. I have seen something somewhere about E-mails with permission or something like that. Again I am sort of lost in the WP XXXX stuff. The Architect is my brother, I sort of maintain the article as a hobby. So every so often I put something there. He said it was OK to put the picture there. Maybe I have put the picture there incorrectly judging by all the message traffic. Neither he nor I sort of know that much about copyright stuff. Hence I just tried to answer all the requests that keep coming my way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.197.9 (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2012 (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:Camp on pooh soi dao.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image with no encyclopedic value. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:48, 3 May 2012 (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:CeraStaudacher.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:51, 3 May 2012 (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:CesarGomez.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:51, 3 May 2012 (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:Chelariu Sergiu (Ro.sense festival2007).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:02, 3 May 2012 (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:Chaung at the beach.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:02, 3 May 2012 (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:L.B.Nagar Chowrastha.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already transferred it to commons... Srikar Kashyap (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2012 (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:Massoud and Qadir 2.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: Speedy keep as an out-of-process nomination. Once DRV has ruled, an immediate repeat nomination is out-of-process and disruptive. Try again in three months, if new arguments for deletion have arisen Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV screenshot showing two Afghan warlords shaking hands in ~~2001~~November 2000, in a civil war alliance against a common enemy (the Taliban). Second nomination after a severely faulty first deletion process (nominated 16 April 2012, majority vote for keep on the basis of blatantly politically motivated "I like it" votes; closed – by myself – as delete on the basis of invalidity of the keep votes under NFC policy; deletion overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 25). This needs to be revisited for the following reasons:

The first debate failed to address the NFC issue of blatant over-use. This was claimed for as many as six articles (Afghanistan, Taliban, War in Afghanistan (2001–present), Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001), Ahmad Shah Massoud, Haji Abdul Qadir), all with identical generic rationales. (I've now reduced the FURs to the latter three).
The fact remains that despite all "I like it" votes, the image fails NFCC#8. The uploader claims that it is used to "illustrate a unique historical moment of peace (and thereby contribute significantly to the article(s)". This is false on two levels at once:
- It fails the usual criterion that the absence of the image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. The scene "Abdul Qadir and Massoud met and shook hands" is easily described in words and does not require visual illustration to be understood. This is in line with innumerable precedents at FFD, where we have consistently upheld the principle that an historical scene such as a political meeting does not get an illustration merely because the historical event is important. It gets illustrated if and only if something in the visual detail is demonstrably important for understanding it.
- The assertion that this is an historical important, pivotal scene is itself unsourced and unsubstantiated. This, too, was not taken into account in the earlier debate. The uploader, a well-known tendentious agenda editor, has spammed this image across multiple articles in an obvious attempt to promote one of the persons involved, Massoud, as a national hero, and seems to have been successful at persuading some FFD voters with his personal assertion that this is a key symbolic scene in the history of the country. In reality, there is absolutely no indication that it is. Neither the image itself, nor the event it depicts (the specific meeting between the two leaders) is the object of any sourced commentary. While the fact that the two men were both part of the Northern Alliance is mentioned (along with several other, more prominent leaders), there is not a single word of commentary in any of the six articles in question about this particular meeting, and, much more importantly, there is also not a single reliable source talking about it. (To forestall a misunderstanding: from the uploader's description one might be led to believe that it shows some decisive historic moment of reconciliation, e.g. the moment the two forge their alliance. That doesn't seem to be the case. Qadir returned to Afghanistan to join the alliance in 1999. This picture was taken in 2001. We don't know what exactly it shows – not even the uploader has bothered to tell us, and as I said there are no sources – but it seems to have been some routine meeting.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder has allowed the use of the image for educational purpose only on all Afghanistan-related wikipedia articles. The image, strikingly fulfilling NFCC#8 as User:Jimbo Wales said ("In a case like this, we should realize the educational value and learning impact of actually seeing the two leaders shaking hands"), depicts a unique moment and period of peace in the long history of Afghanistan. The image is of immense symbolic value for the promotion of trans-ethnic peace in Afghanistan. BECAUSE:

Already before, but even more when the Taliban came to power, Afghanistan split along ethnic lines.

source: split along ethnic lines

“The popularity of the Taliban during the first several years was not shared by most urban dwellers and Afghan moderates. These included ethnic groups in the countryside, such as the Hazaras and the Tajiks – traditionally at odds with tribal Pashtuns who make up the bulk of the Taliban." (Killing the Cranes: A Reporters Journey Through Three Decades of War in Afghanistan, by Edward Girardet, p. 307)

This led to horrible ethnically-motivated warfare especially from the side of the Taliban.

sources: ethnic cleansing

"Fighters and commanders of Afghanistan's Taliban militia committed systematic massacres ... These are the same type of war crimes as were committed in Bosnia" and should be prosecuted in international courts, said a UN official." (Chicago Tribune, October 2001, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-10-12/news/0110120312_1_taliban-fighters-massacres-in-recent-years-mullah-mohammed-omar)

"... the Taliban advance toward Mazar-e-Sharif destabilized the social structure of the region and caused a severe ethnic cleansing. The Taliban opened fire on the non-Pushton civilian residents ..." (The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilization, Civil War, and the future of the region, by Neamatollah Nojumi, p. 161)

"Conflict in Afghanistan seems to have become increasingly defined in ethnic terms, which suggests that Kalashnikovization has contributed to ethnic cleansing and even genocide there." (Afghanistan's endless war: state failure, regional politics, and the rise of the Taliban, Larry P. Goodson, p. 100)

“From 1999 onward, the Taliban increasingly adopted a policy of collective punishment against non-Pashtuns. … Various international human rights reports refer to one mass killing after another against non-Pashtuns during this period. ...Arab militans [allied to the Taliban] murdered hundreds of civilians captured in United Front areas, often by slashing their throats or cutting their heads.”(Killing the Cranes: A Reporters Journey Through Three Decades of War in Afghanistan, by Edward Girardet, p. 310)

Beginning in 1999, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks started to work more closely together. From 2000 onwards a process was started to unite the ethnicities. In November 2000 - THE EVENT PRESENTED IN AND SYMBOLIZED BY THE IMAGE - , the most prominent Tajik and Pashtun (as well as the Hazara and Uzbek) leaders of Afghanistan opposed to the Taliban finally all came together in one meeting and decided to end the ethnic divide and cruelty in Afghanistan and to move forward in a unified manner towards a democratic system and free elections. The video from which the image derives is from the official French media archive. The media archive clearly identifies the meeting as the meeting of the different ethnic leaders of Afghanistan. ("Bout à bout de rencontres entre chefs des différents groupes ethniques") People familiar with Afghanistan will recognize today's President Hamid Karzai there, senior Hazara leaders including todays Vice President Khalili, etc. Since the most prominent and important leaders as indentified by below sources were on the Pashtun side Abdul Haq and his brother Abdul Qadir and on the Tajik side Ahmad Shah Massoud (then representing the Hazaras and Uzbeks also), the screenshot chosen was the one depicting Abdul Qadir and Ahmad Shah Massoud.

About the event shown in the French media archive video from which the image derives: "Massoud brought together Afghan leaders from all ethnic groups. They flew from London, Paris, the USA, all parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India. He brought them all into the northern area where he was." (Massoud, by Marcela Grad/Webster University Press, p. 65)

"This grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance might finally persuade the American government to change its policy [towards Afghanistan]." (Ghost Wars, by Pulitzer Price winner Steve Coll, p. 558)

"The ‘Lion of Kabul’ [Abdul Haq] and the ‘Lion of Panjshir’ [Ahmad Shah Massoud] ... Haq, Massoud, and Karzai, Afghanistan’s three leading moderates, could transcend the Pashtun—non-Pashtun, north-south divide.” (The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and by Peter Tomsen, p. 566)

“Massoud recommended that the interim government selected by the loya jirga reestablish an Afghan army and prepare a democratic constitution. Nationwide elections would follow. “As I see it,” he said, “all favor a constitutionally based, democratic central government that will support social justice. … Political parties will contest elections and represent their communities at the center. All ethnic groups should have a place in the interim government.” (The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and by Peter Tomsen, p. 572)

The significance of that new "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" as Steve Coll called it for peace in Afghanistan is expressed also by Peter Tomsen saying, it "could transcend the Pashtun-non-Pashtun, north-south divide." The significance of the leaders involved is known by every Afghanistan expert:

Abdul Haq and his brother Abdul Qadir

“Haq had won a reputation as a Pashtun commander defending Islam during the anti-Soviet jihad. … his fame as a commander enlarged his political following outside his tribe and region. … Haq’s network of spies was much larger, reaching into the upper levels of the Taliban. Increasing number of Pashtun Taliban were secretly contacting him as Taliban popularity trended downward. … That is why the ISI had forced Haq out of Pakistan …Haq told me that he was already in touch with the Karzais. They were both part of Zahir Shah’s ‘Rome Group’ of Afghans planning a loya jirga to select a new Afghan leadership to stand against their anti-Taliban activities. … Haq explained that he was communicating by radio with Massoud …” (The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and by Peter Tomsen, p. 565)

"Gunston travelled to meet Haq and his commanders in Rome that month, and later told me he was astonished by the alliance of Afghans Haq had managed to build. "It's crazy you have this today," he said, "yet in Rome there were Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazara leaders. They were all ready to buy in to the process. . . to work under the king's banner for an ethnically balanced Afghanistan."" (The lost lion of Kabul, in The New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2011/11/haq-afghanistan-taliban-kabul)

“Qadir’s credentials as a prominent leader representing the eastern Pashtun (as against Karzai who is a southern Pashtun) as well as an anti-Taliban force in the United Front and a mujahideen leader against the Soviet occupation were critical in Karzai’s political juggling act [post 9/11]. However, Qadir was assassinated in broad daylight in early July 2002, which constituted a major set-back to Karzai’s efforts to create a stable government and assure the Afghans and the international community …” (South Asia in the World: Problem-Solving Perspectives on Security, Sustainable Development and Good Governance, p. 400)

Ahmad Shah Massoud

"The Afghan who won the Cold War"

(Charlie Rose quoting the Wall Street Jounal, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2911290068493351924 at 40:50)

"the [Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek and Pashtun] commanders appointed Massoud to be the military commander of all anti-Taliban forces" (The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilization, Civil War, and the future of the region, by Neamatollah Nojumi, p. 170)

"In the run-up to Afghanistan's October 9 [2004] presidential elections, one man holds a greater political punch than all 18 living presidential candidates combined. Though already dead for three years, Ahmad Shah Massoud, a leader of the Northern Alliance's Taliban resistance, has become the political weapon of choice for both President Hamid Karzai and his top rival in the country's first popularly contested presidential ballot. Since his death on September 9, 2001 at the hands of two al Qaeda-linked Islamic radicals, Massoud has been transformed from Tajik mujahedin to national hero -- if not saint. Pictures of Massoud, the Afghan-Tajik mujahedin who battled the Soviets, warlords, and the Taliban for more than 20 years, vastly outnumber those of any other Afghan including those of Karzai. This year, the Massoud cult reached new heights with a September 8 ceremony in Kabul's National Stadium attended by more than 20,000 people ...”
(Central Eurasia Project of the Open Society Institute;

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav101304.shtml)

Post 9/11, that "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" which included the Hazaras and Uzbeks also led to the establishment of a government which all parties accepted and upon that alliance relative peace was built in Afghanistan until 2004 when the Taliban started their insurgency. Today, as NATO troops are going to leave Afghanistan, we again have a situation which might cause a break-up of Afghanistan and a civil war along ethnic lines. Therefore above historical facts are of such importance and the image in question if of such symbolic value for the promotion of trans-ethnic peace and collaboration.

"Alienated by discussions between President Karzai and the Pakistani military and intelligence officials, minority leaders are taking their first steps toward organizing against what they fear is Mr. Karzai’s long-held desire to restore the dominance of ethnic Pashtuns, who ruled the country for generations. ... “Karzai is giving Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and he is opening up the old schisms,” said Rehman Oghly, an Uzbek member of Parliament and once a member of an anti-Taliban militia. “If he wants to bring in the Taliban, and they begin to use force, then we will go back to civil war and Afghanistan will be split.” ... There are growing indications of ethnic fissures inside the army. President Karzai recently decided to remove Bismullah Khan, the chief of staff of the Afghan Army, and make him the interior minister instead. Mr. Khan is an ethnic Tajik, ... One recent source of tension was the resignation of Armullah Saleh, the head of Afghan intelligence service and an ethnic Tajik. Mr. Saleh, widely regarded as one of the most competent aides, resigned after Mr. Karzai said he no longer had faith that he could do the job. Along with Mr. Khan, the army chief of staff, Mr. Saleh was a former aide to Ahmed Shah Massoud, the legendary commander who fought both the Soviet Union and the Taliban. ... “Karzai has begun the ethnic war,” said Mohammed Mohaqeq, a Hazara leader and a former ally of the president. “The future is very dark.”

New York Times, June 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/world/asia/27afghan.html?pagewanted=all

further sources: danger of renewed war along ethnic lines

"The NFA is a bloc of leaders from three major non-Pashtun communities -- the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara -- all of whom opposed the Taliban and Pakistan during the 1990s and remain hostile to both. As Karzai apparently seeks to hold on to executive power, the NFA is pushing for an overhaul of the country's political system. It advocates restructuring Afghanistan as a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation and locally-devolved power -- both of which would benefit non-Pashtuns. Karzai, an ethnic Pashtun, seeks a political settlement with the three major insurgent factions -- all Pashtuns as well -- led by Mullah Muhammad Omar's Afghan Taliban. But the NFA, as well as a large bloc of parliamentarians from a diverse assortment of ethnic groups and political parties, are hostile to talks with the Taliban, and will at the very least demand a meaningful role in the peace process."
(Foreign Policy, March 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/03/the_coming_civil_war_in_afghanistan)

"This is the first time that the leadership of the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara communities [of Afghanistan] has come to a common line of thinking ... In essence, the Northern Alliance is being resuscitated as a political entity." (Asia Times, Jan. 2012, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NA12Df01.html)

"I would say there's a greater than 75 percent probability of civil war and the thing just disintegrating." (Huffington Post, April 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/daniel-davis-afghanistan-civil-war_n_1453625.html)

THE IMAGE symbolizes this period when, for the first time since the destructive wars in Afghanistan began, serious and concrete steps were taken to unify the ethnicities. Senior Afghanistan analysts such as Pulitzer Price winner Steve Coll describe it as the "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" (which also included the Hazaras and Uzbeks). Senior diplomats and regional experts such as Peter Tomsen said this "could transcend the Pashtun—non-Pashtun, north-south divide". There exist some images which show even more of the leaders involved in the grand alliance, but there is no permission of the copyright holder to use them or the copyright holder is unknown. As outlined above, peace between the ethnicities is once again at risk in Afghanistan. As such, this image whose use is explicitly allowed by the copyright holder, fulfills the extremely important task of promoting trans-ethnic peace in Afghanistan.

"...Commander Abdul Haq [Abdul Qadir's brother] who was attempting, with the ex King and senior tribal leaders and defecting Taiban, to put in place an internal peace plan for Afghanistan when September 11 happened. In July of 2001 Abdul Haq met with General Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance, in Dushanbe ; the two agreed to work together with the ex King ... Abdul Haq’s plan still matters if the West is to begin to extricate itself ..." (The Afghan Solution, by Lucy Morgan Edwards, http://lucymorganedwards.com/books/the-afghan-solution/)

JCAla (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and where in this ridiculously long quote farm describing your political motivation is there a reliable source that says that this picture is symbolic of anything? And where is the reliable source that talks about this particular meeting between Massoud and Qadir? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you were able to read all the sources in 5 minutes, which is the time it took you to comment on my statement. I won't even comment on you simply disregarding consensus two times, casting a supervote and your repeated incivility not just against me but also other editors involved in this discussion. JCAla (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, indeed, I only skimmed through them, because what you wrote gave me no reason to expect anything in it would be relevant. I saw enough to understand that none of the quotations contained the only thing that would be relevant here: a reliable source explicitly discussing this particular image. Admit it: you have none. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open your eyes and you will see two reliable sources explicitly dealing with the event at hand and three further sources explaining the immediate context of the event as well as the importance of both the event and the context. JCAla (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly no such thing. It's not there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as keep. Please accept the result of the deletion review with good grace. If the DRV had overturned the close to "no consensus", then a renomination would have been acceptable. It did not. The defective close has been struck out and amended to "keep", and when something's kept at FFD, you don't get to renominate it for deletion on the next day.—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave a very clear explanation why the earlier debate was defective. This is a legitimate new nomination. Any XfD can be revisited at any time if there are new arguments that the earlier one did not consider. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, you've had the opportunity to make these points in two recent debates now. You've had two weeks to introduce new arguments. A third try and a third week in a fresh debate is quite unacceptable. You are not entitled to WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Also, your nomination statement for this debate is unnecessarily bitter and too full of rancour directed at "keep" !voters and the original file uploader; it's not conducive to a collegial and reasoned debate. I realise you feel strongly that this file should be deleted, but on Wikipedia, sometimes debates don't go the way you think they should go. Please accept this now.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't introduce these arguments in the first FFD because partly (a) I was only involving myself as an admin and considered them irrelevant to judging those arguments that had by that time been expressed by others, and partly (b) some of them hadn't yet occurred to me. I didn't introduce them in the DRV because there they were procedurally irrelevant (remember "DRV is not FFD round 2" and all that jazz). The place to discuss substantially new, different arguments from those considered in the first FFD is here, now. And that is well within policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by Fut.Perf. again violates consensus. JCAla (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that FP and I will not agree, so rather than continue to argue, I will raise this on WT:DRV for further input.—S Marshall T/C 16:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears that JCala has provided a number of reliable sources and strong argumentation in conjunction for why the image should be kept.Pectore^talk 14:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read those sources? Which of them do you think is referring to this scene? And, what in this scene is in need of visual illustration to make that source understood? And, why was none of these sources actually cited in connection with the image in any of the articles in question? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have not read in detail any of the arguments in this case, and don't have any strong feelings about the image itself. However, I !vote for Keep, because I believe that you should not attempt to overturn a WP:DelRev decision by immediately renominated the subject, and hoping that no-one notices. It is noticeable that one the primary people now arguing for deletion is the very same admin who erroneously closed the previous discussion (supposedly as an uninvolved observer). Bluap (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "hoping that no-one notices"? That's a rather insulting accusation. If you had read my nomination, you would have seen that I stated everything up front. This is a new nomination, and it will be decided on its merits, so if you have no opinion on that, don't opine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologise for the strong language. The point that I was trying to make was that, while FFD regulars might spot this re-nomination, there is no guarantee that the people who expressed opinions in the original deletion request (or in the subsequent deletion review) would have notices the re-nomination. As a result, my primary argument for opposing deletion is that the consensus in the deletion review was "Overturn and keep", and that there is no reason to believe that consensus would change between the deletion review and this re-nomination. (If the deletion review consensus had been "Overturn and relist" then my opinion would be different.) Bluap (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete this specific copyright image and the copyright newsreel from which it is lifted hold no significant historical value in and of themselves as notable images. And while a visual image of friendship may indeed provide a grease to help heal intercultural wounds, such a basis is not an accepted rationale for using a non-free image. For encyclopedic usage, text description works the same. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original nominator. This image still is not contextually significant nor are there any reliable sources that specifically critically discuss it. The event it notable, and I think everyone understands that, but that does not get inherited to any non-free screenshot depicting what happened. Permission to use this image is irrelevant as that's not the concern that was raised. Much like the last FFD nomination, I'm already seeing 'keeps' without even addressing the concern or properly applying NFCC. Consensus on one image discussion can not overturn a huge Wikipedia policy that carries legal considerations like NFCC does. — ξ ^xplicit 20:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as keep.

The earlier deletion discussion initiated by Explicit (above "delete" voter) had the consensus of "keep" which was ignored by the current nominator who acted as the closing administrator. This led to a DRV which overturned the nominator's supervote to keep.
Both the earlier and this nominator have a habit of passing undue judgement on those who make clear statements in favour of keeping the image. All the while the earlier nominator again brings forward his old "reasons" which have already been opposed by the consensus on how strikingly the image fulfills NFCC#8 and thus wikipedia policy.
As presented in all those very reliable sources the event is notable, as the earlier nominator Explicit also states above: "The event is notable, and I think everyone understands that ...". The current nominator, however, has based his renewed nomination solely on him contesting whether the event is notable or not. Therefore, Explicit above has also opposed the current nominator's cited reason.
As shown by the extremely reliable and partly academic sources above, the event is notable as is its context. THE IMAGE symbolizes the period when, for the first time since the destructive wars in Afghanistan began, serious and concrete steps were taken to unify the ethnicities. The nominator's lapidary and misplaced description of "two Afghan warlords shaking hands" stands in stark contrast to senior Afghanistan analysts such as Pulitzer Price winner Steve Coll describing it as the "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" (which also included the Hazaras and Uzbeks). The Webster University Press published: "Massoud brought together Afghan leaders from all ethnic groups. They flew from London, Paris, the USA, all parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India. He brought them all into the northern area where he was." Senior diplomats and regional experts such as Peter Tomsen said about the context of the event, this "could transcend the Pashtun—non-Pashtun, north-south divide". Journalist and author of the "The Afghan Solution" Lucy Morgan Edwards writes, the plan which underlay the event (the internal peace plan which included all ethnicities, as well as all political spheres such as the Northern Alliance, defecting Taliban, former communists and the king's supporters) "still matters if the West is to begin to extricate itself". As pointed out by the presented reliable sources, Afghanistan is in danger of renewed civil war. The image presents a unique moment of peace, it promotes peace between the two largest ethnicities of Afghanistan which are in danger of ethnic war again. As Jimbo Wales said: ""... it strikes me that the photo easily meets WP:NFCC#8 ... In a case like this, we should realize the educational value and learning impact of actually seeing the two leaders shaking hands." JCAla (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - I regret having to intervene again, but this in danger of seriously misleading other voters: JCAla is again misusing distorted quotations. None of the sources he cites appear to be describing this particular meeting. If this meeting was so important, then why has none of our articles ever mentioned it? Why couldn't you even be bothered to tell us when and where it was? (and, of course, you have still not addressed the core NFCC#8 concern: why do we need the image to understand it?) – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I respectfully ask you to refrain from putting out your false and keen accusations here without any evidence. There is no misleading and there are no distorted quotations in my above post. You will be reported according to policy if you keep accusing here. I have had enough of your incivility. The quote, "Massoud brought together Afghan leaders from all ethnic groups. They flew from London, Paris, the USA, all parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India. He brought them all into the northern area where he was." describes the event. Additionally the event is described in French on the website of the French media archive (from which the video and its image/screenshot derive) as the coming together of Afghanistan's ethnic leaders. The other quotes used in my above statement describe the internal peace plan and its immense importance, which is as such the immediate context of the event. I. e. senior diplomats and regional experts such as Peter Tomsen said about the context of the event, this "could transcend the Pashtun—non-Pashtun, north-south divide". Journalist and author of the "The Afghan Solution" Lucy Morgan Edwards writes, the internal peace plan which underlay the event (the internal peace plan which included all ethnicities, as well as all political spheres such as the Northern Alliance, defecting Taliban, former communists and the king's supporters) "still matters if the West is to begin to extricate itself". The image is both a symbol for the event and its context - both a moment and period of peace and working towards peace between the ethnic leaders of Afghanistan. Your last question was already addressed by large consensus in two different reviews, one being the DRV. JCAla (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just because a meeting is symbolic, does not mean that any image taken at that meeting is "symbolic" in the way needed to meet wikipedias fair use standards. The particular image itself has had to have achieved a symbolic resonance established outside of wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a consensus on the notability of the image. This consensus passed a DRV. JCAla (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I would still warn against buying JCAla's assertions about the significance of the meeting itself. He has still not brought any evidence that any of his sources even refer to this specific meeting. (There's only one of them that might, but from the wording he quotes it might just as well speak in general terms about the overall situation of those months. Unfortunately I haven't been able to verify that one. All other sources that I have been able to check speak merely about various general plans and initiatives at forging an alliance during those months, but they definitely do not mention this specific meeting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources speak for themselves. The wording of your nomination as well as in your above post stands in stark contrast to what the reliable sources actually say. Enough said. JCAla (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. And the do not speak about this image.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still do not understand the discussion. We are past this point. Consensus in that regard was already established TWICE. JCAla (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody actually watched that video from which JCAla took the screenshot? [1]. It's described as "Bout à bout de rencontres entre chefs des différents groupes ethniques", i.e. a montage of scenes of meetings between Massoud and various other leaders. These are at least four or five different events in different places and at different times. That he had a series of such meetings is indeed supported by the sources. But the one where he met Qadir was apparently only one among several, and nothing, either in the video or in any of the other sources, supports the assertion that this specific meeting with Qadir was of any particular significance, symbolic or otherwise. Those of the sources that do indeed pick out specific meetings to mention are talking about other events, not this one. The alleged "event" wasn't one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R I D I C U L O U S. Last try.

PICTURES OF THE EVENT showing the "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" (which Fut.Perf. claims is a Fata Morgana)

(All the other images in above picture have unknown copyright holders or there is no permission for them to be used.) Why is it important:

1996-2001: Ethnicity and war

“The popularity of the Taliban during the first several years was not shared by most urban dwellers and Afghan moderates. These included ethnic groups in the countryside, such as the Hazaras and the Tajiks – traditionally at odds with tribal Pashtuns who make up the bulk of the Taliban." (Killing the Cranes: A Reporters Journey Through Three Decades of War in Afghanistan, by Edward Girardet, p. 307)

"Conflict in Afghanistan seems to have become increasingly defined in ethnic terms, which suggests that Kalashnikovization has contributed to ethnic cleansing and even genocide there." (Afghanistan's endless war: state failure, regional politics, and the rise of the Taliban, Larry P. Goodson, p. 100)

1999-2001: Ethnicities coming together

Beginning in 1999, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks started to work more closely together. From 2000 onwards a process was started to unite the ethnicities. In November 2000 - in the event shown on the picture - the most prominent Tajik and Pashtun leaders of Afghanistan opposed to the Taliban officially came together in one meeting and officially decided to end the ethnic divide and cruelty in Afghanistan and to move forward in a unified manner towards a democratic system and free elections.

About the specific event shown in the French media archive video from which the image derives:

"Massoud brought together Afghan leaders from all ethnic groups. They flew from London, Paris, the USA, all parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India. He brought them all into the northern area where he was." (Massoud, by Marcela Grad/Webster University Press, p. 65)

The immediate context in which this meeting took place:

"This grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance might finally persuade the American government to change its policy [towards Afghanistan]." (Ghost Wars, by Pulitzer Price winner Steve Coll, p. 558)

"The ‘Lion of Kabul’ [Abdul Haq] and the ‘Lion of Panjshir’ [Ahmad Shah Massoud] ... Haq, Massoud, and Karzai, Afghanistan’s three leading moderates, could transcend the Pashtun—non-Pashtun, north-south divide.” (The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and by Peter Tomsen, p. 566)

As above sources clearly show that Massoud and Abdul Haq (with his brother Abdul Qadir) were the pivotal leaders in this "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" (Coll) which "could transcend the Pashtun—non-Pashtun, north-south divide" (Tomsen) and was based on an internal peace plan (which included all ethnicities, as well as all political spheres such as the Northern Alliance, defecting Taliban, former communists and the king's supporters) that "still matters" (Edwards), the image of Massoud and Qadir shaking hands shows a moment of peace but also besides this symbolizes that context of coming together of the two largest ethnicities engaged in a bloody war (which the New York Times writes might come again post 2014). Anybody who still does not realize the meaning of that image, "the educational value and learning impact of actually seeing the two leaders shaking hands", doesn't want to. JCAla (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You still have not provided a reliable source about that event where all those leaders "officially came together in one meeting". Why don't you at least tell us when and where it took place? And again, if it was so important, why is none of our articles even mentioning it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I did your homework for you. The images you assembled at [2] are mostly from a meeting that took place on 16 November 2000 [3] (not in 2001 as you claimed above), and our screenshot with Qadir is probably from the same event. But isn't that then half a year before the events described in your other sources, e.g. the meeting with Abdul Haq in "July of 2001" (your source quoted above). The "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance [that] might finally persuade the American government to change its policy" [4] is described as a plan that was yet to materialize in June of 2001. Same for this [5] source, which is about talks in May 2001 and also mentions the alliance between Massoud and Abdul Haq only as a thing of the future. If Massoud and Abdul Haq agreed on their grand coalition only in mid-2001, what role did the meeting in November 2000 play? (Still no reliable sources describing it?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the exact date, was about to provide it. Had a look at the Webster University book which also mentions the November 2000 date (changed that as I had initially gone with the wrong date). Both Steve Coll and Peter Tomsen speak about the period 1999-2001 with regards to the "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" which "could transcend the Pashtun—non-Pashtun, north-south divide". The event on which the image was taken was the official coming together and photographed by senior media agencies such as Corbis (you provided the source yourself) or the famous photographer Reza Deghati (also seen on the picture collection provided above). Any other meeting involving those specific senior Pashtun-Tajik leaders was low-key, not in the open, not photographed by senior agencies such as Corbis. You do understand though that one event will not "materialize" a peace plan for a whole country but that this is a long process which was being "put in place" "when September 11 happened" as my source also writes. As I wrote above, the image of Massoud and Qadir shaking hands shows a moment of peace but also besides this symbolizes that context of coming together of the two largest ethnicities engaged in a bloody war. JCAla (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still waiting for a source describing this meeting. (And don't forget, that will be only the start. Then comes the explanation of why we need a photo under NFCC#8.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You are wrong. This is the end. Why we need a photo under NFCC#8 has been established TWICE. You may not like the consensus, but it is there. It has been established that this image was taken on an important event photographed by international agencies on which the most senior Pashtun and Tajik leaders met, representatives of ethnicities for years involved in a terrible war also running along ethnic lines. The image symbolizes both the meaningful event itself but also the immediate context of it which was a "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" (Coll) which "could transcend the Pashtun—non-Pashtun, north-south divide" (Tomsen) and was based on an internal peace plan (which included all ethnicities, as well as all political spheres such as the Northern Alliance, defecting Taliban, former communists and the king's supporters) that "still matters" today in 2012 (Edwards). The image of Massoud and Qadir shaking hands shows a moment of peace but also besides this symbolizes that context of coming together of ethnicities engaged in a bloody war (a war which the New York Times and other senior analysts warn might come again after 2014 because of re-emerging schisms). If you'd read your own Corbis source plus those provided by me countless times, you'd be enlighted about the reasons for the event itself which was among other things about "a Loya Jirga, or a traditional council of elders, to settle political turmoil in Afghanistan" (part of the Pashtun-Tajik peace plan which did eventually materialize). Another account published by the Webster University Press ("Massoud", p. 65): "In 2000, when I was there ... I happened to be there in a very interesting time. ... Massoud brought together Afghan leaders from all ethnic groups. They flew from London, Paris, the USA, all parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India. He brought them all into the northern area where he was. He held a council of ... prominent Afghans from all over the world, brought there to discuss the Afghan government after the Taliban. ... we met all these men and interviewed them briefly. One was Hamid Karzai; I did not have any idea who he would end up being ..." Last but not least you should recall that this is not between you and me. We have a consensus of many editors about this already. JCAla (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just cause I cannot fit it in where the original claim is made the claim "The copyright holder has allowed the use of the image for educational purpose only on all Afghanistan-related wikipedia articles." is irrelevant. "We reject licenses that limit use exclusively to Wikipedia or for non-commercial purposes" The image must either be fully released under an appropriate "free" license or there must be a specific justifiable fair use. Under the UNACCEPTABLE are "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." emph added and "An image whose subject happens to be a war," or say a meeting between leaders "to illustrate an article on the war." or say the building of friendship/alliance between the leaders. Despite what Jimbo might have said, this fails.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not completely irrelevant but it is in this case. In my view, "the copyright holder doesn't mind or has given permission" takes NFCC 2 out of the equation but NFCC 2 was never an issue with this image. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2012 (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:LogoWSPA.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:World Society for the Protection of Animals Logo.svg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:48, 3 May 2012 (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:Looks can be decieving.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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §3. Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious NFCC#8 and #1 violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a WP:CSD#F7 speedy to me. The fair use rationale provided in the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template is objectively false: Thriller (genre) "as a whole" is certainly not "dedicated specifically to this work". 74.74.150.139 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And it fails WP:NFCC#10, too, misattributing the image source to Machiavelli (who's quoted on the web page the image was lifted from, but, ahem, didn't take the photo himself). 74.74.150.139 (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2012 (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:Verex Syzygy (O. V. Shaffer).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2012 (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:Easter Island Sculpture (Boyum).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2012 (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:Mother and Child (William Zorach).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2, but maybe {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2012 (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:ACT (King).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2012 (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:Alexa (Susan Walsh).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2012 (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:Awakening (George M. Cramer).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2012 (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:Blue Lantern on Tripod (Boyum).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2, but maybe {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}. Sculpture not dated. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2012 (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:Blue Urn with Dragon (Boyum).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2, but maybe {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}. Sculpture not dated. Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2012 (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:Creature Abstract Head (Boyum).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2012 (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:Polaroidnarcissist.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user photo, I guess. Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2012 (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:Justice (Watrous).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2 but maybe {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2012 (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:Self by Laura Myntti.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 File:Self by Laura Myntti.jpg as a replaceable non-free image of a living person, no consensus for the remaining two images. — ξ ^xplicit 05:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The files fail WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These images are artwork of an artist, who is the subject of the article, and cannot "be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". They are used in low resolution and are just six on a single row, and should comply with image use policy. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are six non-free images on the same row which is excessive and fails WP:NFCC#3a. Besides, non-free images are not allowed in galleries. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been edited so that all images are used in accordance to WP:NFCC. The gallery has been removed, and the Self by Laura Myntti.jpg image is used in the infobox for identification of the author in her own artistic style. Diego (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Self" has been moved to be used as a non-free picture of a person who is still alive. Delete that one per WP:NFC#UUI §1. The other pictures have been rearranged to form a kind of gallery but without using the <gallery/> syntax. Delete most of those per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you take note of where WP:NFC#UUI says "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." This article is about an artist, so you may also take a look at the guidelines for the inbox artist. WP:NFCC#3a says clearly, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This individual doesn't seem to have retired or changed her visual appearance since painting her paintings, so the exceptions you mention don't apply. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2012 (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:Current and Past users of the Crown monetary unit.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable and wrong. Many users of the Austro-Hungarian krone are missing, as is Jan Mayen. Bouvetøya and Dronning Maud Land are dubious due to no population. Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2012 (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 Grave Sluts Wallpaper.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, page being used for promotion. Acather96 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2012 (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 loonies at the port Augusta show 2007.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment if kept, (although I can see no possible encyclopedic use for keeping the image) the name of the file itself is probably a BLP issue. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a violation of WP:NOTHOST. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedied it because of the BLP problem – three identifiable, possibly under-aged persons, no sign of consent, and an unflattering title and image description. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 4 May 2012 (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:Russ2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an orphaned user photo which shadows Commons. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2012 (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:1844 hymnal cover.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low resolution and quality scan. Cloudbound (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2012 (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:Campaign results endow.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to lack of description/context. Request for description made in Dec. 2011, no response. Acather96 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2012 (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:Medlock Aqueduct.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now orphaned as a redundant lower quality copy (resolution-wise) of File:Canal at Medlock aqueduct.JPG Acather96 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2012 (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:Chris eaton 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo Acather96 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2012 (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:Canalside 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of description makes this unencyclopedic, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2012 (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:1910 Buckingham Palace.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low quality png photo derived with gif. Cloudbound (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons aren't non-animated GIFs supposed to be converted to PNG? (it is a lossless conversion) 70.49.124.225 (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2012 (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:Pius VII.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Low quality. Text not in English (mixture of Italian and Esperanto). Text suggests that the file is identical to Commons:File:Stemma-Leone-XIII.jpg which was deleted as copyvio. Shadows Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2012 (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:Candidate.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, lack of description/context makes for no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Acather96 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2012 (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:Swimsuit Competition.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, lack of description/context makes for no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Acather96 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2012 (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:Choctaw sign.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality image replaced by File:ChoctawHighwaySign.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:52, 3 May 2012 (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:1992StormFront.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low quality photo. Cloudbound (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2012 (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:Untitledalbum.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image is a CD or single cover, most likely for the band Girls Aloud no foreseeable use -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:59, 3 May 2012 (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:CIJLF.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image is a CD or single cover, most likely for the band Girls Aloud no foreseeable use -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:59, 3 May 2012 (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:300px-Kelly82fix.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low quality photo. Cloudbound (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2012 (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:2010–11 UEFA CL.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. Little foreseeable use. Cloudbound (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2012 (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:256px-Illinois Locator Map.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. Superceded in use by infobox map template. Cloudbound (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (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:2869-Olive Damsel.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low resolution image. Cloudbound (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2012 (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:31awardsrack.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low quality image. Cloudbound (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2012 (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:3Flathead.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low resolution and quality photo. Cloudbound (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2012 (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.