Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 18

< April 17	April 19 >

April 18

File:HMG IS2 Full Accreditation statement.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: deleted for several reasons. Nobody in this discussion has made any effort to explain how this image complies with WP:NFCC#8. The image itself gives the explanation that it is used to show what a real accreditation looks like to distinguish it from fakes. As interesting as that may be, it's not necessary to the reader's understanding of the topic. And if, as the description page claims, the thing that distinguishes the authentic accreditation is only that "the auditor's reputation being put on the line, as well as the legal liability shouldered by such an audit", then you can say that in text - you don't need a scan of the accreditation statement (NFCC#3b). Graywl says below that he is currently asking for an opinion as to whether they would find it acceptable for us to keep the redacted version of the image, but this is completely irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. Unless they are willing to provide it under an acceptable free content license, it is not appropriate for use here. (As an aside, I'm hesitant to endorse NFCC#4 as a reason to delete this image. NFCC#4 was originally added to the policy as an embodiment of our no original research rule - see diff - and if the image were to have met all other standards, I'm not sure that this would be a reason to delete it.) The bottom line is, there is nothing about this image that could possibly be argued "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" and even if there were, it could be accomplished with words alone. --B (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image violates WP:NFCC#3b, WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#8, see talk and PUF. Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [[User talk:Stefan2 as well. On the one hand, the image does violate the criteria that Sefan misrepresents as actual Wikipedia NFC policy. OTOH, I feel that Stefan has been mis-referencing and misrepresenting NFC policy. Use of this file is obviously Fair Use. I see no evidence of NFCC violations either. Mangoe's arguments below apply. A commercial value claim cannot be made for this because Accreditation Statements are inherently intended for public consumption, and re. the (dubious) alleged 3b violation, WP:SOFIXIT. --Elvey (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As author of the document, I can confirm that the document is for official use and not for publication in the public ___domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George27001 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr McLeod, thanks for stopping by, and welcome to Wikipedia (I see that the above is your first edit). We are told that George McLeod (you, presumably) has asked for the document to be removed from the public ___domain. But only an act of government can remove something from the public ___domain. Furthermore, whether your Accreditation Statement is in the public ___domain or not is somewhat peripheral to the question at hand, because Fair Use does not require that it be in the public ___domain. --Elvey (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of using Wikipedia and thanks for your welcome. The issue is primarily a privacy one. The document was provided in confidence to the company and I have not given any permission for it to be shared, publicly or otherwise. I would appreciate your support. Best regards. George27001 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just to add that accreditation statements, in this context, are not, in my view, "inherently intended for public consumption" but are a statement to the owner of system. George27001 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elvey, please read WP:BITE.

George27001, what Elvey means is that your use of the expression public ___domain isn't correct. Public ___domain means that the copyright has expired, something which usually happens 50 years after publication for documents like this which are made by the British government (see Crown copyright#United Kingdom). I assume that you meant to say that the document wasn't meant to be publicly available or available for public inspection or something similar.

The image isn't permitted on Wikipedia because it violates the policy WP:NFCC on three points:

WP:NFCC#3b, because it contains the whole text. The policy says that you shouldn't use an entire work, but the entire document is used here.
WP:NFCC#4, because that part of the policy appears to be meant to prevent leaks like this.
WP:NFCC#8, because Wikipedia doesn't allow images like this unless it would be detrimental to the understanding of the article to remove them from there. I understand the article just as well without the image, so I can't see why anyone would think that the image satisfies that part of the policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, thanks for the clarification, yes I was using the term "public ___domain" in the sense, "publicly available". Can I say that I really admire the efforts of all the volunteers who keep Wikipedia up to date and make it such a useful asset to everybody. And the complexity of all the policies to make sure it all works and stays legal is staggering. So, apologies to Elvey for confusing things further! I guess my issue is a much simpler one and it's simply one of privacy. WP:BLPPRIVACY talks about the need to protect people's privacy and I can't believe it's in the spirit of this policy to publish an image of my "wet ink" signature. I would really like to have this image removed from a publicly available area as soon as practicable. Many thanks. George27001 (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted your signature (please note that due to server caching issues, it may take some time before all of the thumbnails are regenerated, but if you look at File:HMG_IS2_Full_Accreditation_Statement.jpg#filehistory, the current version is the redacted one and the article - HMG Infosec Standard No.1 - shows the redacted one). I have also redacted the link to the archive URL and your name from the image page. This is not an endorsement of the existence of this image, rather, it is the fulfillment of a reasonable request to remove personal information while the discussion is underway. --B (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There we go ... I figured out a way to do it ... I moved the image and that gives it a new thumbnail. The image is at File:HMG IS2 Full Accreditation statement.jpg and the signature is now completely redacted for the duration of this discussion. --B (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, much appreciated. I guess, though, if I understand how this works, that a final decision is still to be made. Every day's a school day. George27001 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Image deletion nominations are generally left open for at least seven days after which an administrator will make a decision. --B (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for realizing that a win-win solution was out there and stepping in, B! We hadn't thought of removing the authors name and sig as a way to make everyone happy. It's equally effective without them. --Elvey (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the accreditor for an opinion on this as it is my current belief that the image should be removed as per my original request. I'm grateful for at least respecting the 'wet ink' privacy issue though. Thanks. Graywl (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2013 (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:Macy's coupon as example of fine print.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. Fails the replaceability test; fine print can be illustrated using any of a number of free examples, and nothing in this discussion has given any reason why this non-free image is needed. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#8. It would be just as easy to understand the article without this image.

Violation of WP:NFCC#3b. The image contains an entire textual work. To satisfy WP:NFCC#3b, a significant portion of the words would have to be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't see the 3b violation, and anyway, that's a WP:SOFIXIT on an image by cropping it. As far as the NFCC#8 issue, obviously an image of some fine print is useful. A commercial value claim cannot be made for this particular because it is, after all, a coupon whose value has expired. Criticism of material like this is what fair-use was made for, so I'm not seeing the compulsion for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be examples of fine prints which are in the public ___domain, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - They aren't examples unless they are discussed at their source. I would have to wonder whether a ninety-year-old image from a book of an example of fine print would be legible. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the input, Mangoe. Stefan, please stop making up policy. Please stop misrepresenting your own views as policy. --Elvey (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see why the example would have to be 90 years old. There should be lots of fine prints which can be tagged with {{PD-US-1989}}, for example. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Advertisements published without copyright notices in 1976 are public ___domain right? Here's two right here [1]. Here's another from the same paper [2]. I bet there are plenty of others on Google News ... also, there are probably some US government publications that have fine print. --B (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - And a Consumerist rant about a coupon is a reliable source? If the purpose of the image is to give the user an example of fine print, we just need an example of fine print - we don't need an example of fine print that someone else has opined about. For example, most of our images in advertisement are just examples of advertisements - most of them are not ones where a reliable source has discussed the advertisement. --B (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neither WP:NFCC#8 nor WP:NFCC#3b requires deletion.

With respect to WP:NFCC#8, it seems clear to me that an example of "fine print" in the context of deceptive advertising is very helpful in showing what "fine print" in the context of deceptive advertising is. A real-life example makes it far more clear than a mere textual description.

With respect to WP:NFCC#3b, that factor (which is derived from factor #3 of the fair use provision) never says that the entire work may not be used. It requires that the "entire work is not used if a portion will suffice". There's no indication here that a mere portion will suffice when the point of the use of the image is to show the overbearing amount of fine print in the context of deceptive advertising. If you cut out part of the coupon text, you will not be accurately reflecting the extent of the deceptive advertising that is at issue here.

I mention fair use factor 3 above, because that's the source of WP:NFCC#3b and the key to understanding it. In light of that, here are plenty of instances of courts allowing copying an entire work as fair use. The most famous one is one you probably do every day: recording a television program in its entirety, which was recognized by the US Supreme Court as a fair use in Sony v. Universal City Studios . But the one that's most on-point here is Belmore v. City Pages where a newspaper republished a racist poem authored by a candidate for police chief; the whole work (which was longer than this one) was published. It was held to be fair use, because, as here, the entire work was required to get the point across. The point of citing these cases is not to argue the law, but just to point out that there is no requirement that the work be trimmed, and it's not reasonable to infer that requirement from WP:NFCC#3b, which derives from this factor, and does not contain such a requirement. TJRC (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- While you're correct that 3b does not necessarily require deletion (the image could be replaced with one that uses a smaller portion), I'm unclear on why you believe that NFCC#8 does not require deletion, should an image be shown to violate that criterion. Just adding a minor piece of trivia (and then from somewhere that is hardly a reliable source) doesn't make the image substantially increase a reader's understanding of the topic. --B (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#8 reads "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This coupon does not meet that criterion, because the inclusion of such an extreme example as this significantly increases readers' understanding of the use of fine print in deceptive advertising. Omitting such an example is detrimental to the readers' understanding. It's no more subtle than that.

And just to be clear, NFCC#3b does not require "using a smaller portion." That's my point; it is fine as-is. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the WP:NFCC#1 violation is all which is needed to delete it. As B (talk · contribs) showed, there were plenty of PD replacements in that newspaper. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the image should be retained, it should be renamed to a less POV (and more descriptive) name, e.g., File:Macys fine-print coupon.jpg. TJRC (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, you are correct on that point. --B (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly that would respect at least the spirit of our NPOV rules. (I'd rename it, but I only have filemover rights on commons.) And re. NFCC#8: like the image below, a file evidencing the practice significantly increases the article's credibility, and hence the readers' understanding of the topic. A fake could not do that. --Elvey (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the meantime, I've cropped it to only show the coupon (as opposed to the large red area around it) and renamed it to File:Macy's coupon as example of fine print.jpg. — Scott • talk 13:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't solve the WP:NFCC#1 issue, though. Since there are PD replacements, as shown by B, this simply can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:Macy's stupid coupon.jpg to File:Macy's coupon as example of fine print.jpg by Scott Martin (talk · contribs) at 13:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 20 May 2013 (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:WalMart-Fairtrade-coffee-bag.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: The consensus seems to be to delete the file as failing WP:NFCC#8. One article where the image is used is about fair trade in general, another one is about fair-trade coffee. To use the file in these articles, one needs to show that the articles would be less understandable if the image is not there. It was not shown, and there are serious doubts it can be shown, hence unfortunately I have to delete the file.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10b. There is no discussion about this coffee brand in the article and it would be just as easy to understand the article without the image. Stefan2 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no notification at Fairtrade_certification, or its talk page, of this discussion? It used to be the case that a file being considered for deletion was flagged as such where it was used. --Elvey (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usual thing is to post a notification only at the talk page of the original uploader (using {{fdw}}) and on the file information page (using {{ffd}}). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive discussion where the file is used - of WalMart, Fairtrade, AND coffee.--Elvey (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elvey, could you please link to the discussions in question? Also, could you please address WP:NFCC#1? In other words, I'm asking why this image could not be replaced with a photo of some other Fair Trade product where the packaging is ineligible for copyright? For example, from googling, I found http://money.howstuffworks.com/fair-trade1.htm . This package appears to be sufficiently simple that it would not be protected by copyright in the US. (See Threshold_of_originality#Typefaces_and_geometry.) We would still need our own photograph of it, but the rights of the company that created the product would not be an issue - only the photographer's rights. Is it necessary to show this particular fair trade product, or would any fair trade product be adequate to the reader's understanding? If the latter, then this image does not comply with our policies. --B (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could have been clearer. By discussion where the file is used, I meant in-article discussion - links already provided. I was using the word just like the OP had ("There is no discussion about this coffee brand.").

Re. NFCC#8: Impressive find of the copyright-ineligible image. But it's inadequate. Where the topic is the penetration of fair trade coffee into increasingly mainstream markets, the ultimate example is the world's largest retailer, and a photo evidencing this significantly increases the article's credibility (in a way words alone cannot), and hence the readers' understanding of the topic.

In fact, there was and is plenty of discussion about market penetration, and Walmart (obviously) is the single biggest corporate market. For example, see Fairtrade certification#History (and now Fair_trade#Coffee). To be specific, here are two quotes from there: "Although many attempts to market fair trade products were observed in the 1960s and 1970s, fair trade sales only became widespread ... in 1988 ... sold ... for the first time, to mainstream retailers across the Netherlands. ... The only way to increase sale opportunities was to start offering fair trade products where consumers normally shop, in the large distribution channels. The problem was to find a way to expand distribution without compromising consumer trust in fair trade products and in their origins. ... The initiative was groundbreaking as for the first time Fairtrade coffee was being offered to a larger consumer segment..." - that was all there - and 'In 2009, fair trade coffee was sufficiently mainstream that Walmart, the world's largest retailer began selling it, and pricing it about the same as regular.' is there too.--Elvey (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether Walmart is the single biggest corporate market^{[citation needed]}. Have you never wondered why we require freely licensed photos of living people, instead of a fair use copy of the most famous photo of the person? Besides, Walmart is only present in a small number of countries and probably uses different branding in different countries. The same understanding would be provided by using a photo of any other fair trade coffee brand (WP:NFCC#1), and the articles can easily be understood with any problems without the image at all (WP:NFCC#8). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2013 (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:GreekcartoonmistrustingAlbanians.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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon does not increase the reader's understanding of the subject of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. The desired concept could easily be replaced by words and does not need the cartoon to be adequately described. Fails WP:NFCC8 It is also used in the article to push a particular POV against Greek attitudes to immigration which is also reflected in the fair use arguments made by the uploader on the page of the file. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue I've restored the image to the article for now, rather than enabling deletion by orphaning. I have some sympathy for the arguments made here, but this is not the correct venue for that discussion. Please discuss image removal at the article's talk page. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically put up the image for deletion under NFCC8 and not by orphaning it. The image was removed because it is out of context in the article and the only reason it was inserted by the uploader in the article was so that they could add their own original research-based interpretation in the caption. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure what is wrong about this venue, but the image clearly fails NFCC#8. And if the purpose of the image is to show an example of anti-Albanian sentiment in Greece and it's as bad as this article says it is, then I would think a free example could reasonable be expected (a photo of a vandalized building, a cartoon from an inde newspaper that uses a free license, an old cartoon, etc). --B (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Correct venue. The image shows three people and one of them seems to start crying in the last panel. However, only people who speak Greek will understand why the person starts crying. I, for example, don't have any clue why the child begins to cry. It seems that the purpose of the image is to provide some understanding to Greek speakers, but English Wikipedia should be understandable to all English speakers, per WP:USEENGLISH. Besides, I had no problems understanding the section despite not having a clue about what's going on in the comic strip, so it seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm ... maybe I'm missing something, but there's an English translation of the Greek under each panel. It's not a funny cartoon (or maybe I just don't get non-American humor), but from the English I'm able to understand it. --B (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, I overlooked that part... --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2013 (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:Dustydayslogo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused text logo, with no indication of notability of entity. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2013 (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:Deadfish game in progress.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image, game shown is of unclear notability. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (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:DeBloafered Bids.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, which does not asert notabiliy for it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I made this image to remove the advertising part which was on File:Bloafer_Bids.png. Someone associated with the Bloafer site was using that image, I believe for Unique bid auction, and this was my alternative. It's really not necessary, though. Probably should delete the File:Bloafer_Bids.png, as well. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:00, 18 April 2013 (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:Decreasing Probability.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, academic basis is not fully explained. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed! Let's keep it.--Elvey (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's something fishy/possibly malicious going on (javascript-related) on the uploader's user page. --Elvey (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2013 (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:Green Dam Youth Escort logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this non-free logo, as it appears prominently in the non-free screenshot directly below the logo in the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:27, 18 April 2013 (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:Mix pult.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image of poor quality. No encyclopedic value, has some watermarking in top left and was only used on a userpage temporarily in 2010 -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:23, 18 April 2013 (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:Michael-FLTC-056.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image of non-notable film director Michael Raderstor. Image is of web quality/resolution, might not be owned by uploader -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:26, 18 April 2013 (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:Mic fox.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan personal photo that was temporarily used on userpage in 2010 -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:26, 18 April 2013 (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:Surdo v langosarni.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan personal photo that was used briefly on a userpage in 2010 -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:33, 18 April 2013 (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:Monster-DLP-Logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan logo for a Monster.com program, no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:39, 18 April 2013 (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:Mr. Nanda2.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan photo overexposed. No encyclopedic value, possibly personal photo, unknown who "Mr. Nanda" is. Looks like image is of uploader -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:41, 18 April 2013 (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:ModelUNkids.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan personal photo of no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:43, 18 April 2013 (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 Beach Boys 50th Reunion.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, redundant to commons image File:The Beach Boys, May 29, 2012.jpg Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:49, 18 April 2013 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestler Nova Cain, not notable wrestler. Dubious work of uploader as it is found on multiple other websites and is web resolution -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:04, 18 April 2013 (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.