Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 5

< September 4	September 6 >

September 5

File:Air Seychelles current livery.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat inferior crop of File:Air Seychelles new livery.jpg. Cloudbound (talk) 01:40, 5 September 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:Salesperson at Best Buy demonstrating Apple IPad.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic Taylor2646 (talk) 06:04, 5 September 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:Skids ( kevin).JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. No encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 7mike5000 (talk) 16:56, 5 September 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:Guyana's splenders.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Insufficient context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's used in the article Guyana. It's "sufficient context for encyclopedic use". It shows one the types of structures that may found in Guyana. And it should be transferred to Wikimedia Commons not deleted. 7mike5000 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good, I'm glad you knew what this picture shows. Thanks for putting it in an appropriate article. —Bkell (talk) 23:18, 5 September 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:TheSimpleLife.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Used as illustration without any kind of commentary. Bulwersator (talk) 07:09, 5 September 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:Cropped Derry Memorial.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low quality crop Bulwersator (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete7mike5000 (talk) 16:55, 5 September 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:Feudal organization.png

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Currently in use at Adalberon (Bishop of Laon). De728631 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low quality diagram Bulwersator (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt's used on the article Middle Ages and the quality is fine.7mike5000 (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in use. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 5 September 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:Ian Tomlinson as he fell.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. De728631 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file Bulwersator (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yeah so?7mike5000 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was released by the author, so it doesn't have to be in current use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's in use at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop/Eight Requests/Archive/2010. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 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:AriusIcon1.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, small, without any information about source etc Bulwersator (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:it's used on the article Arianism. Size doesn't matter it's how you use it. There is information on source. 7mike5000 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question (Delete as Inaccurate) - there's no information on provenance, etc.; how do we know it's Arius? Unlike Nestorius and the Monophysite preachers (Dioscoros and Eutyches), no group survived that would have drawn an ikon of Arius... and it's too small for me to read the inscription. 108.234.82.95 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Further, the source (s9) does not seem reliable, provides no additional references, and claims "Arius (St Arius of ALexandria)... I'm unaware of any ikonophile group (or any sect whatsoever) that venerates Arius as a saint (like the Monophysites venerate Dioscoros); the modern Arian groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses never would draw an ikon, and that ikon obviously has Greek text on it (although I can't read anything other than "RIDE?" on the second line of the right). The fact that the ikon has three crosses is typical symbolism of the Holy Trinity, which is not suited for Arius. My opinion isn't so much "delete as useless", but "delete as inaccurate", because, as a statement of fact, we don't know what any of the ancient Christians looked like, and taking a random ikon and saying, "this is Arius" is like replacing all early ikons with one of Ss Peter and Paul. If someone can show me that this is, or has any likelihood of being intended to be, a representation of the heresiarch Arius, I change my opinion from delete to keep. This comment is mine St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ[reply]

You might be up to something there. The inscription in Greek on the icon reads ΣΠΥΡΙΔωΝ, aka St. Spyridon. So we should rather rename/move the image. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if it could be very old, but no date is indicated anywhere. How do we know that it isn't a recent work? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 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:AleksaSpasic.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, unused Bulwersator (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Quality is fine. Unused does not translate to delete. it's a public ___domain image that should be transferred, not deleted. 7mike5000 (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The licence claim is inaccurate (Serbia has a copyright term of life+70 years, not life+50 years). However, the problem is that there is no information about the source of the photo. How does the uploader know that the photographer died at least 50 years ago?

Wikipedia is different from Commons in that it is only necessary for the image to be free in the United States, but the image doesn't have to be free in the source country. The man died in 1920 and all works published before 1923 are in the public ___domain in the United States, but the uploader didn't provide any evidence of publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 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:NAeSP.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, small Bulwersator (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:used,big enough,public ___domain that should be transferred to Wikimedia Commons not deleted.
Move to commons as a free image. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But note that it is required to attribute the source as "Centro de Comunicação Social da Marinha". The file information page claims something else. The source is no longer available but can be accessed here using the Internet Archive. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 12 September 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:Logo of the University of the Philippines Diliman.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: move to Commons. If the status is murky on this, but Commons leans free on this, then it seems the best course of action is to give it to Commons and let it be handled over there, especially when it's orphaned locally, and if Commons decides to delete it, then they delete it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since this the logo of a national Philippino institution, it appears to be in the public ___domain. See Commons:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov. There's also File:Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.png with a FUR that might be converted to a PD license as well. De728631 (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia treats Philippine government works as unfree whereas Commons treats them as free. Compare {{Non-free Philippines government}} with {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. Very confusing and both templates have been kept in deletion discussions on both websites. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 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:TheHobbitFilm13Dwarves.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 following responses to my inquiry. Seems to meet requirements now. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed in article Bulwersator (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the cast is discussed in the article, this is most of the primary cast. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the image is not discussed Bulwersator (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Used in the section about the filming, so apparently the purpose of the image is to give a better understanding of the filming process. However, I fail to see how this is going to make me understand the filming process any better. Thus, the image fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the photo isn't covered in the article in sufficient depth. So either delete the photo, or add some text (for example, on the makeup or costumes) which uses the photo as an illustration. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a press commentary on that photo to the article, so we've got it covered now. Keep. De728631 (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Was about to close this discussion, and went to verify the press commentary on this image, but was unable to determine where it is. Could you please point to the passage(s) that satisfy WP:NFCC#8? Thanks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  "Commenting on a promotional photograph that depicts Thorin and his company..."' Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Exactly. Currently this is the last sentence in the "Filming" section. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 13 September 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:West nile virus rash.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though there is a well thought out rationale - this is a non-free image of a rash in what news reports show is a relatively common disease. A free image could be taken - Peripitus (Talk) 12:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Peripitus (Talk) 12:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really? So so maybe you can volunteer to go stand in a swamp, get bitten by infected mosquitos and hopefully get infected and develop a nice rash. Then we can take your picure and release it into the public ___domain. It's been 75 years since discovey of the virus and no clearly public ___domain images to date. Lots of pictures "could be taken". I possibly could take a picture of an alien doing the rumba.7mike5000 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per User:7mike5000: he explains how a free replacement can be created. However, a less painful way to create a replacement would be to put up a request somewhere asking people to take photos of themselves. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt at sarcastic humor is pretty lame and very sad. You should stick to yodeling. Also considering I voted against some of your deletion requests your response is obviously in retribution and therefore meaningless. And where exactly would you put up this rash request: in the bathroom of your house? I know it's cold there and your bored but try creating instead of being disruptive. 7mike5000 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 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:82Pb Lead stable isotopes.pdf

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 G4 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicode uploaded as a PDF file. Clearly out of scope. Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be the same file, or one very similar to it, that was uploaded by the same user and that was previously deleted (Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 15#File:Models1.jpg). --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This file is an attempt to show in a chart format the significance of the characteristic data of the isotopes of 82Pb lead. It has the capability to indicate the fundamental stability characteristic of the isotopes of 82Pb lead over the range of atomic numbers where stable and unstable isotopes of 82Pb lead are reported (in the isotopes of lead article) to exist. It also shows the interrelationship of the characteristics of the individual isotope values with in a cognizable manner. It also points out discrepancies in data relationships that are not understandable and in need of further information.WFPM (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Upload a new version, change the file extension. ~~give yourself an enema.~~ 7mike5000 (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uploader provides the same rationale above that he provided the first time the file was deleted, which rationale fails WP:OR, WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:NFT. The only part of the file/image that doesn't fail those policies and might find use (with some tweaks) is the half-life vs atomic mass graph. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone check if this is the same as the previous file? If so, the file can be deleted immediately per WP:CSD#G4. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 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:Modified chart of the nuclides.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This file is a Modified Nuclide chart that shows how the range of stable nuclides can be vizualized in a vertical column manner together with their percentage constituency and how the individual element chart data can be associated with the neighboring elements. It also determines and shows "stability trend lines" related to the existence of a sequence of stable isotopes that run through a series of stable isotopes and have the formula A = 3Z - an even number.WFPM (talk) 21:53, 6 September 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:YSM Wiki screenshot.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, extremely small, without OTRS ticket Bulwersator (talk) 15:40, 5 September 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:Spinning Ashoka Chakra 50x50.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unlikely to be used Bulwersator (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose; it might be used in future. Do you have any reason/postulation that why this can't be used in future.JPMEENA (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia does not engage in fortune telling. How do you know it may not be used? 7mike5000 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Commons:COM:COA#Coat of arms "found on the internet". There is no evidence that this particular rendering of the symbol is an official symbol. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that this particular rendering of the symbol is NOT an official symbol. Ja. 7mike5000 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is an official symbol, you need to prove this and you also need to prove that it was published before 1941, as required by {{PD-URAA}} and {{PD-India}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a part of official work is official work, like some lines of national anthem or articles of constitution; by the same logic any rendering (more importantly to reflect some value as described for a work's part or work like singing of national anthem) is official. Now come to 1941 point, none of national symbols of India got created/ published before that. {{PD-URAA}} and {{PD-India}} say that it should be in public ___domain in India as on January 1, 1996 (equivalent to publication before 1941); and obviously this official work is in public ___domain from Independence of India.JPMEENA (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source for your PD statement. Normally, official works enter the public ___domain 60 years after they were first published. Why is this different? Also prove that this exact animated rendering of the work is an official work. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion : Keep, reasoning of both deletion request and support are opposed, so discussion can be closed.JPMEENA (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work that way. You (and everyone else with an opinion) are welcome to voice them, but you obviously think you are right and therefore obviously you are not an impartial observer who can weigh all of the comments. If the strength of your reasoning overcomes others', someone else will recognize that in due time. DMacks (talk) 05:19, 12 September 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:Wang lun.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This file is in the public ___domain, because the work depicted was published in 1916 " -- it may be later edition, photo itself may be unfree (image of 3D object etc) Bulwersator (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: wantonly deleting things, while it may make some feel good about themselves does nothing to improve the quality of Wikipedia and also pisses people off. The image requires a fair-use rationale, and it most definitely meets the criteria for Fair Use use on the article The Three Leaps of Wang Lun.7mike5000 (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - image is definitely of first edition. (And I second the above.) Sindinero (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, published in 1915/1916 per source page and this page. I've changed the license to {{PD-1923-abroad}}. De728631 (talk) 20:23, 12 September 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.

I have reuploaded the file to Wikipedia since it is most likely not out of copyright in the source country Germany. Hence it can't be used on Commons but can still be hosted over here. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bonnie_Tyler_and_Lorraine_Crosby.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the wrong file - one with a watermark I added on. File:Bonnie_Tyler_and_Lorraine_Crosby.jpg. Bonnietylersave (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no file here by that name. You need to add a deletion request on Commons. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:29, 6 September 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:14message02.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons, tagged here as "NotMovedToCommons", nominated for deletion on commons, kept on commons, can be deleted as F8 Bulwersator (talk) 19:15, 5 September 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:Yamato LA Film Logo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to commons, tagged here as "NotMovedToCommons", nominated for deletion on commons, kept on commons, can be deleted as F8 Bulwersator (talk) 19:16, 5 September 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:White1990 LaD dvd.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. De728631 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: superfluous to File:Whitesnake lad.jpg which is almost identical. Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 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:Westendorf.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. NB: A different image of the same name is being hosted on Commons. De728631 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo. The subject is apparently the uploader. Was used in a vanity article that was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Westendorf). No further encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and unencylopedic. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:31, 6 September 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.