Wikipedia:Files for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Shortcuts:
WP:FFD
WP:IFD

Files for deletion

Files for deletion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised. Undeletion requests should be brought to deletion review.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

Examples of what you may request here


  • Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality - The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright.

[edit] What not to list here

I. For speedy deletion candidates, do not use this page; instead use {{db|reason}}. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.

II. Files that have no source, or have an unknown copyright, or are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:

  1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated
  2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information
  3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but isn't used in any articles
  4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but could be replaced by a free file
  5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed
  6. {{subst:frn}} if a file has no non-free use rationale and was uploaded after May 4, 2006

If the source or licensing information of an image marked as being freely licensed is disputed, please list the file on Possibly unfree files

III. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use

  1. {{isd|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
  2. {{subst:ncd|image name on Commons}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{subst:ncd}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)

IV. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}

V. Suspected copyright violations shouldn't be listed here.

  1. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  2. For other suspected copyright infringements or licensing issues, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.

VI. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.

VII. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criteria 8 for files.

Instructions for listing files for deletion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2009 July 14}} to the file page.
2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:ffd2|File_name.ext|Uploader= |Reason= }} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:fdw|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:fdw-multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2009 July 14}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted. Some common reasons are:

  • Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name (often abbreviated OB)
  • Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} . (often abbreviated OR, not to be confused with original research which generally doesn't apply to images)
  • Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia. Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos). (often abbreviated UE)
  • Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. (often abbreviated LQ)
  • Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright. (often abbreviated CV)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to delete a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

Since abbreviated deletion reasons will not be familiar to most Wikipedians, especially newbies, please consider using full words. A few extra keystrokes now can save paragraphs of explanation to a panicked uploader wondering what's wrong with their image.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Deletion policy

Process – Log – Tools
Guide – Images – Admins

To force the server to update this page immediately, purge the cache.

Contents

[edit] Instructions for discussion participation

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

[edit] Instructions for closing discussions

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps at Deletion Process.

[edit] Old discussions

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

[edit] Recent nominations

[edit] July 8

[edit] File:Goodmorninggoodnightdusk.jpg

File:Goodmorninggoodnightdusk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Antoine g92 (notify | contribs).
  • Additional non-free image that is very similar to the existing non-free image in the article. The differences (colour changed, image reversed and some text added) can easily be described adequately for reader's understanding and this additional image is not needed. Replaceable with a free (text) alternative (fails WP:NFCC#1) and excessive use of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hyneria.jpg

File:Hyneria.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gryffindor (notify | contribs).
  • Moved from WP:MFD. The original reason was Does not constitute fair use. Image is being used to identify the Hyneria genus rather than the Walking with Monsters series. Reason "difficult to find" is not strong enough. Also checked the license on this, it is copyrighted by BBC and strictly for their use and personal use. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC) MER-C 06:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - the image claims fair use, but is not used in any articles, and is therefore eligible for relative Speedy Deletion, which I have tagged it for.--Unscented (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:New Nightmare Claw.JPG

File:New Nightmare Claw.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scarce (notify | contribs).
  • Seems to be in violation of NFCC#3a. This image is used to illustrate a section discussing the claw, but the new claw is already well illustrated on the publicity photo at the start of the section, which also illustrates the change in the character's overall appearance. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The image depicts the claw in a different aspect, you can hardly see the claw in the new photo, that what just uploaded for the hat, trenchcoat, face and shirt depiction ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems to me that the claw is far better portrayed in the other, as you actually see it on the person. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - we already have an adequate image of the glove in the publicity photo. From what I can see the difference between the photos is not going to significantly impair someone's understanding of the article - Peripitus (Talk) 21:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Now that I compare the two, I can see further the better angle you get with the claw photo, the claw tips and the end of fingers are greatly depicted in the claw photo, you can barely see them in the promo pic. Because the pose he's doing and because the claw is so massive in this film, the claw gets bundled together and you can hardly see it's aspects. Look at the claw photo, how it shows everything with great detail, then look at the promo photo, it shows him wearing it. I couldn't think of a better combo of photo to show off his difference in New Nightmare. Freddy is always remembered for wearing the brown fedora, the dark red and green sweater and the very homemade looking claw. In New Nightmare, everything about his appearance changed, and i think these two photos very nicely showcase New Freddy ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 00:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Freddy Krueger Fonzies.png

File:Freddy Krueger Fonzies.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scarce (notify | contribs).
  • This minor appearance is only mentioned in passing, and an image illustrating it is not justified as per NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A new depiction of Freddy? Sounds pretty important to me ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 14:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Then why is it only mentioned in passing? J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not exactly mentioned in passing, it does have it's own paragraph, plus the comment on the image in the thumb gives a description ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 23:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the problem with this image is two things. The first is that the source doesn't actually talk about his physical appearance (i.e. how it compares to the films), which means the critical commentary is on the commercial itself and not on anything specifically seen (not to mention that the source looks like someone's web blog). Second, the image is so dark and small that you really cannot tell how Freddy looks in this commercial. Low resolution is important for non-free images, but no so much that you cannot tell what you are viewing. If we could get a source discussing how he actually appears, then a shot from the O.25 sec mark would be good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've changed the image, it's at the 0.23 mark ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 04:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Also I've added an additional citation ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 05:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can see no discussion of the image that this is required to aid understanding for and there is nothing iconic about a simply profile shot of a character we already have images of. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thisusedtobemyplaygroundmusicvideo.jpg

File:Thisusedtobemyplaygroundmusicvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
  • This image is merely a non-free depiction of the artist, and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article as required by WP:NFCC#8. It is used only as decoration in the article and is not the subject of critical commentary. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Borderlinemusicvideo.jpg

File:Borderlinemusicvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
  • This image seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. It is merely a non-free depiction of the artist. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bedtimestorymusicvideo.jpg

File:Bedtimestorymusicvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
  • This image fails WP:NFCC#3a as four non-free images are being used when one would suffice. Should be replaced by a single screenshot. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tinchremix.jpg

File:Tinchremix.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jayy008 (notify | contribs).
  • Two album covers being used in the article when one would suffice. May, however, be PD-ineligible. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep' The digital remix cover is quite different from the main single. - Epson291 (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And why, exactly, does seeing the cover significantly improve readers' understanding of the article? Stifle (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is the cover for the remix single, it was released a different times so should be seperately shown Jayy008 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Same question as above. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:EddieCrushKent Cap.jpg

File:EddieCrushKent Cap.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mikecrush (notify | contribs).
  • There is a separate, free, image of this man, so this non-free one fails WP:NFCC#1. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tbtcvidsnap.jpeg

File:Tbtcvidsnap.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Suede67 (notify | contribs).
  • This image is little more than a non-free image of the performer and fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
There's no non-free equivalent, as the video is copyrighted. And it does improve understanding, in my opinion. The millenium mill is not widely seen in the video and is only seen in some shots, as the video mostly features the singer walking through the city, and stop motion shots of him are more prominent. Suede67 (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Will someone reply?! Suede67 (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I need some feedback. As I see it, it's perfectly acceptable use. If someone doesnt think so, which they do, because they cared to revert my edit, tell me why! Suede67 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of my opinion about the image, removing the discussion was wrong. --Damiens.rf 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
And since you asked: delete: this non-free image is being used purely as a decoration, and not as a necessary visual aid for a well-sourced discussion about the visual merits of the music video it was taken from. --Damiens.rf 19:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That's better. Should've done that before. Suede67 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stevie Nicks in Talk to Me.jpg

File:Stevie Nicks in Talk to Me.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Roodngis (notify | contribs).
  • This image is only a non-free image of the artist, adding nothing to readers' understanding of the article. See WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stevie Nicks in Seven Wonders.JPG

File:Stevie Nicks in Seven Wonders.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Roodngis (notify | contribs).
  • This is only a non-free image of the singer, and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stevie Nicks in Edge of Seventeen screenshot.JPG

File:Stevie Nicks in Edge of Seventeen screenshot.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Roodngis (notify | contribs).
  • This is only a non-free image of the singer, and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree...it's also, frankly, an awful photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.94.182 (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stevie Nicks in Dreams.JPG

File:Stevie Nicks in Dreams.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Roodngis (notify | contribs).
  • This is only a non-free image of the singer, and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:SpielbergCyndiLauperGoonies.jpg

File:SpielbergCyndiLauperGoonies.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LordHarris (notify | contribs).
  • This image is unlikely to meet WP:NFCC#8. Also, the rationale appears to have been copied from another image and is generic. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jimmyhatlo43.jpg

File:Jimmyhatlo43.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pepso2 (notify | contribs).
  • Rationale claims image is "To identify the art style of the cartoonist profiled in the encyclopedic article", but there is already an example of the author's work. Image is also extremely high resolution. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Now changed to more specific rationale, plus resolution reduced. Pepso2 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hatlo did three distinctly different syndicated features. Why not show all three to clarify? Pepso2 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Other panel has been deleted, so this is now the only example of his famed feature. It's needed to show why he was such a major talent in the field. Pepso2 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced we need an example of his cartoons in an article, tbh. Regardless, though, we already have an FU image, File:Jimmyhatloself.jpg. If this is kept, the other one must be deleted as excessive use. ÷seresin 18:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:MyersFenech.jpg

File:MyersFenech.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hnatiw (notify | contribs).
  • Image is used to decorate a list of characters. What this character looks like is not important. J Milburn

(talk) 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The word "decorate" would indicate a superficial slant to the contribution - this is not the case; The appearance of a character is of general interest to anyone who would be inclined to read the short character bios as presented within the article. To question the image's validity is to question all visual references that accompany character bios and articles. Shall we remove the picture of Mike Myers that sits atop his article as well? What defines a "decoration" vs. a "visual reference"? A sensible answer will no doubt throw my opinion in your favour. Hnatiw

(talk) 12:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I would support this picture if it helped the reader visualize the character being described, assuming that there is a visual component to the character description. I don't see any such description here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.72.251 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The picture is the "visual component" of the description; A photograph - in this case - is the most neutral and unbiased way of exemplifying the character's appearance. The written description should complement what is known visually - not the other way around.Hnatiw (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I found the picture useful. Myers character's have a wide range of physical appearances, and I think it is useful to see how the character is being portrayed. Is the picture absolutely necessary? Of course not, but it certainly contributes. Rekov (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete', "useful" is not a compelling argument. The image is simply used for decoration alongside a lisst of characters with no discussion of the image. The image adds nothing significant to reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 21:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Downed LTTE aircraft.jpg

File:Downed LTTE aircraft.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Snowolfd4 (notify | contribs).
  • It's not necessary to show the reader a picture of the downed aircraft to make him understand the discussion about events involved in the 2009 suicide air raid on Colombo, nor its implications. Nice, picture, yes. Free alternatives? Unlikely. Necessary for the article? No, it's just a infobox illustration for the article. Damiens.rf 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep It is necessary to show the aircraft. For one, the LTTE disputed that it was shot down, and the picture pretty much confirms it was. There was also wide speculation as to what type of aircraft was used in the attacks, and what sort of planes the Tigers had acquired. The picture also has historical significance, as this was the first aircraft shot down in combat in Sri Lanka post WWII. It is also one of the few complete pictures ever obtained of an LTTE aircraft.
Also note, the article (picture included) may it to the front page of Wikipedia, and no one else thought that the picture "not necessary" for the article. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. We don't need to show the picture to confirm the plane was shot down. We just need to attribute the information to a reliable source.
  2. We can explain what type of aircraft was used in the attacks and what sort of planes the Tigers had acquired using only free text.
  3. The picture has no historical significance. The event does. And this is not automatically inherited by its pictures.
--Damiens.rf 02:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:LisaLopesImg.jpg

File:LisaLopesImg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by QuasyBoy (notify | contribs).
  • Lisa Lopes was a famous artist that has been photographed professionally and non-professionally a hundred of times. It's possible to produce a free image of her. We don't use non-free images on these cases. Damiens.rf 18:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep until a free image is found. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep we do when they're dead, keep until a free image is found. - Epson291 (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There's no blanket permission on non-free images of dead people. In such cases where it's not unreasonable to expect a free image to popup, we prefer to use not image in the meantime. --Damiens.rf 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mantz.jpg

File:Mantz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs).
  • Image not found at source. Can't verify copyright holder. Damiens.rf 18:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Original source is now a dead link, but image is resurrected at [www.aerovintage.com/mantz6.jpg Paul Mantz]. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC).
      • That's someone's website. We still don't know who the copyright holder is. --Damiens.rf 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
        • The original posting indicated that the Mantz family donated their photographs and other artifacts to the EAA Museum which then held the rights to the material. The image was first posted on the website with that information noted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC).
          • How am I supposed to verify this information? --Damiens.rf 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - some searching has led me to believe that this is not a family photo but part of a Hollywood publicity shot. The image is a crop of other images on the net and I expect was used with permission rather than being released under a free licence. Of course if copyright has lapsed, under the odd US rules about this, then it would be PD but without a clear source and author this cannot be verified - Peripitus (Talk) 21:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 9

[edit] File:Barty.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: speedily deleted as an attack file (non-admin closure). — Σxplicit 18:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Barty.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cradaxi (notify | contribs).
  • Nonsense attack image. MBisanz talk 02:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

[edit] File:Samandmomatbrokenglass.jpg

File:Samandmomatbrokenglass.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fleurings (notify | contribs).
  • Image associated with a deleted article. MBisanz talk 03:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:DisneyCheshireCat.jpg

File:DisneyCheshireCat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lord Opeth (notify | contribs).
  • this image is not critical to commentary on the film as claimed here RadioFan (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"In the 1951 Disney movie, Alice in Wonderland, the Cheshire Cat is depicted as an intelligent yet mischievous character that sometimes helps Alice and sometimes gets her into trouble." What do you want, a thesis on his psychological inconsistencies? This image is iconic. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Wilson images

File:MichaelMuhney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Kogsquinge (notify | contribs).
File:ChrisEngen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Candyo32 (notify | contribs).
File:Adammeetsvictor.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Candyo32 (notify | contribs).
File:Adamandheather.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Candyo32 (notify | contribs).
File:Adaminjail.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Candyo32 (notify | contribs).
File:Adamandrafe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Candyo32 (notify | contribs).
  • These six non-free images are use in Adam Wilson (The Young and the Restless). At most one might be used for identification of the subject of the article. But at least five of them fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Other than for identification, none of the uses significantly increases readers’ understanding. I recommend keeping the first and deleting the others. —teb728 t c 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: In my opinon, the last four images are sufficient to the article, as they explain important storyline events. Also, the pictures of the character's first portrayer is definitely beneficial to the article's explanations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyo32 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for the first two images. They provide physical identification of the character as he was while he was portrayed by two different actors. I "vote" Delete for the other four as they fail to increase readers understanding of the article.Rocksey (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the first two images and the one with Rafe. Kogsquinge (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all except the first one. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the first two images for sure and possibly the one with Rafe. The first two images are the basic images of the two actors who have portrayed him for the infobox, and using fair use character shots is what is done for fictional characters (whereas it would not be acceptable with the current guidelines for the actual actor's page). - Epson291 (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep some, per Kogsquinge and Epson 291. The infobox images are appropriate and that should be a no-brainer. The "Rafe" image has arguable value because of the significance of the storyline and the media coverage around it and Engen's departure. The rest of the images, however, merely illustrate storylines, and that purpose fails WP:NFCC.— TAnthonyTalk 14:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all except File:MichaelMuhney.jpg. All the others fail minimal use policy per WP:NFCC#3a. ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I would note that single images of alternate performers are conventionally included for identification purposes.— TAnthonyTalk 16:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Per 3a, One image can not convey equivalent significant information, they are are different actors. As for the Rafe one, per User:TAnthony. - Epson291 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
And why do we need to see the different actors? We don't use the historical flags in the infobox of United Kingdom, and there isn't even a non-free use issue there. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas states that in the template that if there are two portrayers, if an image is avaiable then to use both images of actors.Candyo32 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines issued by various WikiProjects are not binding and act as an unofficial manual of style. The cannot and do not overrule Wikipedia policies. AniMatedraw 18:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the image with Rafe, and at least other image depicting a storyline from the Engen era, other than the one in the infobox. Disneyxrulesx (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the first two pictures of the characters portrayer. I'm ambivalent on the last one, as it does involve a rare soap opera story garnering alot of main stream press. AniMatedraw 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all but the main infobox image. A single image of the character is suitable for identification, but no one has yet explained why the other images are needed, and it is far from obvious. I fail to see why two infobox images are appropriate, unless the appearance of the character while portrayed by the past actor is discussed- this is exactly the same as the way we wouldn't have multiple covers, logos or photos of a dead person. The single image of how the character looks now is acceptable, any more have to be justified, and no one has done that yet. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Can you point to policy or guideline that says that "unless the appearance of the character while portrayed by the past actor is discussed" there should only be one? The character has been portrayed by two different actors it is reasonable to have both actors visually protrayed for indenfication purposes. You wrote that "a single image of the character is suitable for identification" but with only one image a person would be unable to identify the character when portrayed by the other actor. - Epson291 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and that's the current incarnation of the character. Using your logic, we would be justified in showing 30 images if the character had been portrayed by thirty actors. What about comanies? Every alternative logo? Books? Every alternative cover? Per our non-free content criteria, an image must add significantly. The character is already illustrated by the main image- so, what is the second one showing? The character with a different actor? Why do we need to see that? J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
To display what the character looked/looks like in his still most recognized incarnation. I agree that we should not have thirty images of a character to show that a character has been portrayed by thirty different actors. But, so far, there have only been two actors to portray the adult versions of this role. And Engen, who is discussed thoroughly within this article, is currently the most associated with this role. The image significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what Flyer22 is saying, and yes, if the role was played by 30 characters I would absolutely not support 30 images here. However, there were two actors representing this adult character and a significant part of the article is about the first actor in regards to his role and controversy as this character. - Epson291 (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all except the first one in the infobox, per J Milburn. Only one image is needed until the differences between the two portrayers are discussed. Then maybe two, but definitely not six. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I think with the addition of the in-depth discussion of Engen's exit from the series now in the article, the second image is relevant. I'm still not sold on the other four. AniMatedraw 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems to me that the Engen image would be acceptable only if there were sourced commentary on how similar/dissimilar the two actors appear. But even then the current image version's dark blurry screenshot is not appropriate; perhaps one of the previous versions would be better. In any case the Rafe image is not needed for readers' understanding of the accompanying text. —teb728 t c 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've never believed that screenshots are necessary to illustrate characters who have no costumes or makeup, and so look exactly like the actor portraying them. So I'm inclined to delete all of them. Outside of that though, the only two images that aren't blatantly unjustified are the infobox ones; all others are excessive and should be deleted. ÷seresin 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the two infobox images, per what others have stated in favor of keeping those two images and what I stated to J Milburn above. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A significant part of the article may be about the first character, but that doesn't suddenly mean that how he looked in the role is significant. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Of course it does. Visual identification of a character is important, and it is something words cannot convey. - Epson291 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
        • And that's why I don't support the deletion of the main infobox image. I am challenging the need for the second. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
          • So you agree that to be able to identify the character is important, but you still want to delete the image, enabling that impossible. The second image is of a different actor, and as has been pointed out, who's portrayal of the character was very notable. - Epson291 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
            • The character is identified by the first image. The second image is how the character used to look- yes, maybe that actor's portrayal of the character is important and worth discussing, but how he looked when playing the character is not. As you yourself said above, it would be ridiculous to show every incarnation of the character if he was played by 30 actors, and I see this as no different- we're showing two images of the character when one is enough. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
              • I disagree with "how he looked when playing the character [not being important]." It is not about how he looked portraying the character; it is about the fact that this is how the character looked in his most substantial and notable incarnation; and that, within fiction, he will always look this way, due to fiction unfolding in the present for every new viewer who witnesses that part of the story for the first time or a viewer returning to that part of the story (meaning that olds clips of this character's original adult form on YouTube will always show him looking like Engen). I highly doubt that many different actors portraying one role would all be significantly substantial and notable to that role, which, besides the number, is the difference in this case.
              • With James Bond, only a few models and actors are significantly substantial and notable to that role...and you clearly see that the article at least shows more than one physical incarnation of the character. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
                • If that is the more important image of the character, then maybe it should be that one in the lead position, and the other one should be deleted. Regardless, I still fail to see why multiple images are needed. Again, would you support thirty different pictures, if it had been played by thirty actors? J Milburn (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • J Milburn, I have already given my reasons for why both images should be kept, and have already replied to your various actors question. The fate of this debate is now up to its closing administrator. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ATT00048.JPG

File:ATT00048.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hueydoc (notify | contribs).

[edit] File:New pic 1.2.JPG

File:New pic 1.2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hueydoc (notify | contribs).

[edit] File:Alicia Keys - Songs In A Minor UK album.JPG

File:Alicia Keys - Songs In A Minor UK album.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Funk Junkie (notify | contribs).
  • Image fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice. Alternatively, the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it does not convey significant information that would be detrimental to the readers' understanding of the subject if the image was omitted. — Σxplicit 05:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The UK album is different, if it was removed it would be detrimental to the readers' understanding of what the cover album looks like. - Epson291 (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, readers don't need to know what all the different album covers look like to understand the article. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete- if the cover's so important, where is the sourced discussion of it? J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ICT HW LOGO.JPG

File:ICT HW LOGO.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Schoolkaadon28 (notify | contribs).
  • Nonsense PD image. MBisanz talk 05:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
File:ICT HW LOGO 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Schoolkaadon28 (notify | contribs).
  • Delete another nonsense PD image ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Artistpraveen's images

File:Artistpraveen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen8.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen9.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen10.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen11.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Nature(AP).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artistpraveen File-black and white nature.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Black and white nature.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).
File:Artist praveen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Artistpraveen (notify | contribs).

[edit] File:ChileCongress.jpg

File:ChileCongress.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cantus (notify | contribs).
  • works of the chilean govt don't seem to be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: as a copyright image it is replaceable so fails WP:NFCC#1. Surely we can find a freely licenced image of this building. ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gotbattling.png

File:Gotbattling.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jeremjay24 (notify | contribs).
  • Lacks a real rationale, and I am not seeing what this extremely large screenshot really adds to the page. J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - I made this picture for these reasons: 1. The VG images department requested a screenshot and I chose the battle screen. 2. It easily explains the article, and I also added it because my article had a lack of pictures. ... -- Jeremjay24 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:NFCC#10b. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - If you follow those rules, you should delete half the uploaded files on Wikipedia. - Jeremjay24 (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps; perhaps not. But the fact that we have not got around to listing all the images that should be deleted does not mean that we should not delete this one. One has to start somewhere. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep, That rationale is so ambiguous that it's easily fixed in just a few seconds. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I can't think of a rationale that would pass WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PeterPan1.jpg

File:PeterPan1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SFTVLGUY2 (notify | contribs).
  • I fail to see what this image is adding. Yes, the portrayal is significant, and is worth mentioning. How she looked when in role as the character is unimportant. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Mary Martin as this character is one of the most famous roles in Broadway and television history. It also adds a great deal to see Martin and her costume in color. Pepso2 (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Merely stating that it does doesn't make it so. If the appearance of the character is so important, why is there no sourced discussion of it? If you actually read my nomination, you'd understand why your argument is completely invalid. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
And merely stating "I don't get it" doesn't make it not so. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis that it is an historic role,and there should be no problem finding sources to that effect. From the WP article, ref 10,--source is Time: ""Mary Martin, America's favorite leading lady of musical comedy, as Ens. Nellie Forbush in "South Pacific," Maria von Trapp in "The Sound of Music" or the title role in "Peter Pan," died Saturday afternoon at her home in Rancho Mirage, Calif. She was 76 years old."" Evidence for it being one of his 3 most famous roles. From ref 7, similar evidence. --source is again Time: "Mary Martin, 68, star of Broadway's original South Pacific and TV's first Peter Pan, in good condition (after an automobile accident). --source is Time. DGG (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete: All that is true and perfectly understandable without showing this image. The criterion for use of a non-free image is, "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." —teb728 t c 06:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The image is particularly useful at Producers' Showcase where the broadcast of Peter Pan is discussed at length. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment I just want to say that if non-free content was used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, then there would be hardly any illustrations in Wikipedia. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
We accept that there are a lot more than there should be, but you are pretty much quoting our non-free content criteria there. If you accept that this does not significantly increase reader understanding, then you're arguing for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment I know I was quoting the non-free content criteria. The point I was trying to make is that I don't agree with it! 209.247.22.164 (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually strict enforcement would not have that great an effect on the number of illustrations in Wikipedia as a whole: Most illustrations are either free or PD and so are not covered by NFCC. —teb728 t c 20:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
So, 209, what you're actually saying is "this violates the NFCC, but, because I don't agree with the NFCC, I support it being kept". Not only is this a non-policy argument, it's an anti-policy argument. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Historic image of one of Martin's most iconic roles; rarely shown in color. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. A photo of how this woman appeared when she played the part of a young boy - which is not at all obvious just from closing one's eyes and imagining - adds considerably to one's understanding of that role. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but it's not frightfully important. If it was, it would be discussed in the articles. Yes, in Mary Martin's portrayal of Peter Pan, it would be useful. However, in these articles, it adds little. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I adds something that would be absent from the articles without it. By the way, it now is discussed in Mary Martin. The impact of her performance in the role is discussed in Producer's Showcase. Both observations should be better sourced, but since most of the material about Martin is available only offline, that can't easily be done on demand. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Christian Center Church,Anaheim,Pastor Staff.jpg

File:Christian Center Church,Anaheim,Pastor Staff.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ctrups (notify | contribs).
  • Unclear source. Possibly in the public domain due to being published prior to 1978 in the US without a copyright notice. I've declined the speedy, and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although it could be PD it probably isn't, and the burden of proof is on the argument for PD. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Melodyland,Ralph Wilkerson,1970.jpg

File:Melodyland,Ralph Wilkerson,1970.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ctrups (notify | contribs).
  • Unclear source. Possibly in the public domain due to being published prior to 1978 in the US without a copyright notice. I've declined the speedy, and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RamBahadurBamjan.jpg

File:RamBahadurBamjan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mskadu (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned, permission incomplete and not compatible with stated license Hekerui (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ANON.JPG

File:ANON.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Saint Malice (notify | contribs).
  • Delete: Orphaned, unencyclopedic file that has no foreseeable value or use ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:P2260009.JPG

File:P2260009.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Saint Malice (notify | contribs).
  • Delete: Orphaned, unencyclopaedic file that has no foreseeable value or use. ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jionu.jpg

File:Jionu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Saint Malice (notify | contribs).
  • Delete: Orphaned, unencyclopaedic file that has no foreseeable value or use. ww2censor (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Abcc5722.JPG

File:Abcc5722.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wad572 (notify | contribs).

[edit] File:Aboutnext splash.gif

File:Aboutnext splash.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Accaldwell (notify | contribs).
  • Delete: Orphaned obviously non-free image for which the uploader cannot own the copyright as claimed. ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 10

[edit] File:Finished station.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: deleted by Lenticel (talk · contribs) by author's request. — Σxplicit 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Finished station.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by J.reed (notify | contribs).
  • duplicate of File:BSicon uTurmBHFAo.svg j.reed (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since you're the author of both images, you can request deletion by adding {{db-g7}} to the image you want deleted. — Σxplicit 03:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Lenticel (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Since this was taken care of, I'll go ahead and close this. — Σxplicit 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

[edit] File:Csjdmmayor.jpg

File:Csjdmmayor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ramz Trinidad (notify | contribs).

[edit] File:Arto Alanenpaa 2007.jpg

File:Arto Alanenpaa 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aadesig (notify | contribs).

[edit] File:Nancy Reagan at Republican debate January 30, 2008.jpg

File:Nancy Reagan at Republican debate January 30, 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Happyme22 (notify | contribs).
  • Unjustifiable FU image. It is likely that a free image exists. Even if one does not, this scene is not significant enough to warrant an FU image. It's a picture of her at a debate. Does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. ÷seresin 04:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously replaceable. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Flag of Communist California.jpeg

File:Flag of Communist California.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Subman758 (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopedic. Being used solely in a userbox that is a questionable political statement. Editor who uploaded has admitted they are selling this photo commercially. No articles link use this image, nor is it likely they ever will. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No encyclopedic value, strictly being used for political reasons. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Many users have single purpose pictures adorning their userpages. Does this hit too close to home for some people who want to censor it? Besides, I bet that flag will be used soon enough.My cat's breath smells like catfood (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I have to respectfully disagree with this nomination. There is no problem in employing userboxes to make personal political statements -- last year saw userboxes advocating the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns, for example, and I don't believe any effort was made to have those statements removed. Whether this statement is "questionable" is a matter of opinion; as it stands, policy is not being violated by having it online. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Pastor Theo, what about the statement "I have started selling these as bumper stickers, to protest the unjust taxing of Californian by our Socialist State Government. I started handing them out at the Tax Tea Parties in Orange County, until I was told I should start selling them. I sell them at 4.00 a piece"...is commercial use/advertising of an off-wiki product not a concern? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Besides which, California voted down a bunch of tax requests recently, which doesn't happen in Communist countries. How about if I fly a Nazi flag and call it the Texas state flag? Would that be OK in the eyes of that user? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, it's a long ways from posting support of legitimate political candidates, to posting self-invented stuff for the sole purpose of agitation. Look at the history of User:Axmann8's page for a case study. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • KEEP Bwilkins, and Baseball Bugs obviously have a problem with me. This is the second time in less then 24 hours Bwilkins has tried to delete this. They both obviously suffer from sour grapes. They both tried to block me and delete this photo yesterday and were turned down. It is true, while I now sell this Image, that only started two months ago, while image has been on Wikipedia for well over a year. I also said the original intent for it was to create a userbox. Bwilkins you say I am trying advertise it, then why does the photo only appear on my user page and no where else. Bwilkins I feel the real reason you are nominating this a second time in 24 hours, is so you can bait me into a fight, so I will be blocked. It will not work. I am way more mature then you, and I will not let your sour grapes put me down. If it does get deleted, I won't cry. You won't stop this image from being seen. It is appearing on cars in South Orange County, and soon the entire state. By the Bwilkins the article Tea Party protests may soon see this image, as I was at some of those Tea Parties, and pictures of me were taken, holding a blown up copy of this image.--Subman758 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's try a little WP:AGF here. I don't play games. I never tried to have you blocked. I originally CSD'd the file, now it's at XfD. That kind of mentality is a little beyond the concept of congenial editing. Answer this: why does this file belong on Wikipedia instead of say ... Photobucket. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, users are entitled to their opinions. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep even though I think it is silly, there are many many political-centric userboxes and this images inclusion in one (or on his user page) is no more offensive (maybe the wrong word) than any of those. Also I don't see him actually trying to sell the image here (if he is/was that is/was easily fixed without actually deleting the image).--kelapstick (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Unlike the photo of mine I caught him stealing on Panoromio, and despite his past history of incivility, this image is harmless --its hardly an offensive view, politics breeds all sorts of silly ideas. I don't think holding amusing views like that necessarily violates Userbox content restrictions. --Bobak (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Feel free to do so. I don't agree with Nazism, but it is your right to do so. If it is ever nominated for deletion, I will say keep it. What is really sad is that the Swastika is a symbol of good luck. That is until it was hijacked by the Nazi's. In case you misinterpret the meaning of my flag Bugs. I do not support Communism. I merely feel, that if our state government here is going to embrace it so much, why try hide it?--Subman758 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • How does voting down 7 of 8 proposed tax increases qualify as "embracing communism"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • In any case, equating the citizens of Texas with Nazis is every bit as absurd and offensive as equating the citizens of California with Commies. It's not appropriate for a user page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, it's not the citizens of California that are being called commies. It's the government.My cat's breath smells like catfood (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
          • No, he says here [1] that "it is really the people's fault", and he's got it right. They elect their politicians, and if they don't like it, they can elect someone else - something you can't do in an actual communist country. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This is ridiculous. This image, along with the userbox it is associated with is the exact reason Wikipedia:User page says:
Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive.
Userboxes are generally for the purpose of showing an expression so that editors can coordinate contributions to the project and can work together on the topic of the userbox. Userboxes (and the images created for them) used in any other way should be deleted. Obviously the notion that California is a state run by communists is neither brings together editors for the purpose of editing nor does it reflect anything logical.
@Subman758 And this logic coming from yourself, a user who claims to be a United States Navy veteran, is particularly disgraceful. — ℳℴℯ ε 04:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP I to live in California, and I have to say, sub is right the state government is so far left leaning they migh as well be commies. I love the flag he made, and would love it if it were real.--Opattie (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

— Opattie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • I'm of the impression that we should only host unencyclopedic images for userpages when they're not going to be a problem or reasonably allowed for expression. This is not such an image; Wikipedia should not be hosting images used for political advocacy. ÷seresin 10:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • KEEP I also, live in California, and I tool feel our State government, is out of control. I usally vote Democratic, however in 2010 I intend on voting Republican across the board. Thanks for the flag. We need a symbol that shows the world just how pissed off we are!!!!!--Bubblehead77 (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

— Bubblehead77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment A quick reading of WP:SOCK might not be a bad idea :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dennis and Linda Daugaard.jpg

File:Dennis and Linda Daugaard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tonywiki (notify | contribs).
  • Web resolution, no meta-data, looks like a publicity shot. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:DebutGalexia.jpg

File:DebutGalexia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by WindKun (notify | contribs).
  • Unused, it is unclear what this actual shows. No forseeable use. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a higher resolution version of File:Album600.gif, which was uploaded by the same user. It's an album cover for an album by Galexia, and appears to have been uploaded by a member of the band. The band's article was deleted so it probably won't be needed. snigbrook (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Myspaceandrew-006631-199x300.jpg

File:Myspaceandrew-006631-199x300.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cass81 (notify | contribs).
  • Low resolution, no meta-data. Title suggests it may have been taken from MySpace. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Twkssnippet.JPG

File:Twkssnippet.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cass81 (notify | contribs).
  • Screenshot of a webpage. Unlikely to be released under those licenses. J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Brand-Site---Chart.jpg

File:Brand-Site---Chart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Brand-Site---Chart.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([[[:Template:Fullurl:User talk:]] notify] | contribs).

[edit] File:Sharon Marko.jpg

File:Sharon Marko.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Reaverdrop (notify | contribs).
  • State senators are not covered under federal copyright exemption. MBisanz talk 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:David Race Bannon.jpg

File:David Race Bannon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scb_steve (notify | contribs).
  • State police agency is not within federal copyright exemption. MBisanz talk 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RIPJuan Ortega.jpg

File:RIPJuan Ortega.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mcguaffy (notify | contribs).
  • Resolution and texture of image indicate it is a screen capture and not PD as claimed. MBisanz talk 22:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Millerknoxmap.gif

File:Millerknoxmap.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Qrc2006 (notify | contribs).
  • State government works not covered by federal copyright exemption. MBisanz talk 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Peter Pitseolak's wife.jpg

File:Peter Pitseolak's wife.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rbraunwa (notify | contribs).
  • Canada doesn't have US Federal exemption. MBisanz talk 23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is MBisanz's point relevant? The relevant tag appears to be "This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide." PKT(alk) 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Proof, please. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Peter Pitseolak in the textile shop.jpg

File:Peter Pitseolak in the textile shop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rbraunwa (notify | contribs).
  • Canada doesn't have US Federal exemption. MBisanz talk 23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is MBisanz's point relevant? The relevant tag appears to be "This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide." PKT(alk) 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Proof, please. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 11

[edit] File:Srinivas G Phani.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Srinivas G Phani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Srinivas (notify | contribs).
  • I am the one who uploaded it and now I would like to delete it. Thanks. Srinivas 12:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

[edit] File:Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate.jpg

File:Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Disavian (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned non-free image. Orphaned by myself as only use was in Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate which was an article on the rivalry, not the book and was thus clearly contrary to NFCC 1 and 8. CIreland (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Images like this should be tagged {{subst:orfud}} and don't need to be listed here. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Playgirlatkinscover.jpg

File:Playgirlatkinscover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fallout boy (notify | contribs).
  • Two images have been added since the Playgirl cover was uploaded in 2005. The fair use rationale is no longer valid. APK that's not my name 18:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-free image of a living person; free alternatives exist. — Σxplicit 21:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Alania 10 12.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Alania 10 12.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PANONIAN (notify | contribs).
  • This personally drawn map of Alania is not supported by any source, see here, here and here. As such this orphan image as no usefulness and thus it is unencyclopedic. Martintg (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

[edit] File:Nazi-SovietRelations Six.png

File:Nazi-SovietRelations Six.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mosedschurte (notify | contribs).
  • Contains non-free elements. As a decorative image, this should be replaced with a completely free image, or at least have the non-free elements cut. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • keep - as the page clearly explains, the image is not "decorative" and the proper tags are included with each image. There is no problem.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you explain what an image of men holding a piece of paper is adding to the respective articles? J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I've just realised that this image was primarily being used on a template. Non-free images (which this is, due to the non-free image within it) are not appropriate for use on a template. This kind of "picture to show relations" should be entirely free. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • FIXED - To solve the problem, I just replaced the one non-free image within the file with a free image here. Note, this was after this deletion request was started.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The problem was fixed by Mosedschurte.Biophys (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Issue resolved, consider nomination withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep good to hear issues was resolved--Jacurek (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sailor sculpture (Kirkland, Washington) crop.jpg

File:Sailor sculpture (Kirkland, Washington) crop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ed Fitzgerald (notify | contribs).
  • If non-free, this image is not justified. This particular statue is not even mentioned in the article. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This should be used in a different article. Do we have something about soldiers returning home from war? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I am considering having this image used at Leave (U.S. military), since this portrays a soldier home. This one can definately be used at I think this statue can represent the significance of a soldier returning home, as that is what many soldiers do when they are on leave. This one can definately be used at Lake Washington Shipyard since, according to the file description, this commemorates the shipbuilding at the shipyard. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Note - I altered the FU rationale so it applies to the shipyard article. I would categorize this as a Keep since I made the FU rationale acceptable. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:German Soviet.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: Speedy Delete per NFCC8, or as a blatant infringement of fair use laws. This is an obvious violation of fair use, even if it's a well-meant one. This picture shows nothing that cannot be adequately explained in words, for example "There is a well-known picture of Generals from both sides having a friendly discussion over attack plans". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the image, as majority of editors below see the FURationale as valid. At the very least, the discussion should be allowed to continue. I've asked Cavalry to unarchive this thread. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have redeleted the image, after much thought. The close was legitimate. If Cavalry believes your complaints have merit, then he is able to restore the image himself. Leaving the image sitting around but the debate closed in the mean time is not positive. J Milburn (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
File:German Soviet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Piotrus (notify | contribs).
  • Clearly unwarranted image. Yes, maybe the meeting was important, but what it looked like is not. We do not need a non-free image to know what men holding paper looked like. The copy-paste rationales are completely unilluminating, and fail to explain anything. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The articles themselves, at least the ones I've seen, discuss quite clearly the post-Poland invasion coordination discussed therein illustrated by the photo. Doesn't seem to be a problem.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubt that they discuss the post-Poland invasion coordination. They don't discuss this image though- this image is serveral men and a piece of paper. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • FIXED The image is from irreplaceable German propaganda newsreel footage (note: this might even have some sort of free rationale, but I'm not sure, and it doesn't matter here) and shows the coordination of German and Soviet troops in their September 1939 invasions. The descriptions for use in three of the articles are now contained in new usage rationales in the file just inserted here.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The licensing rationale IMHO is quite clear: a low-resolution screenshot. Whether that's ok by US Law, I don't know, I am not a lawyer. But that is the only possible issue here, whether low-resolution screenshot is copyright ok for the limited usage this one has. As for "what men holding the paper look like", I believe this is not copyright related. That would be to pass a judgement on the content, i.e. to assess the historical (non-)importance of Nazi-Soviet demarcation lines, which we have no right to do as mere editors. Dc76\talk 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue is about our non-free content criteria, specifically, point 8. Does the use of this image significantly increase reader understanding of the topic? No. You're making this far more complicated than it actually is. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, this image helps increase the understanding of the article(s) by the reader, because few (if any) other images of Soviet and Nazi officers discussing demarcation lines are available on WP. (the point 8 you mention) If such images exist, please do give me one or two links, and you will swing my opinion to your side. My point is, humbly, even simpler: the image as used where used does not infringe on copyright low. If you believe it does, it shouldn't be a problem for you to point what it violates. Dc76\talk 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that this is a standard image, I'm sure there aren't many comparable images. The point I'm making is that it's not needed. There aren't many images of me on the Internet, that doesn't mean you're justified in using one however you like. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFCC8 - doesn't add to readers' understanding at all. I have long meant to nominate this image for deletion myself. No one is going to say aha, that's what they were talking about or anything like that upon seeing this image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    The reader could however say in his mind aha, Soviet and Nazi officers were talking about dividing territory like good friends or something of the kind. Are we forbidden to add to WP material that might tint the "holy" memory of the Soviet Union? I hope not. The image has a serious information to deliver, perhaps too serious, and possibly thus is more carefully scrutinized for copyright. Dc76\talk 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    Like good friends? That's not apparent in the least from this image. Yes, they stood next to each other. But one could probably guess that without an image... Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    BTW this has nothing to do with the "holy memory of the Soviet Union", just WP image policies. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep see my comments above. Dc76\talk 01:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep see my comments above, and this was already the subject of a long deletion discussion, where it was voted to "keep". I
In addition, as a separate reason, it may be public domain anyway. People had apparently assumed that because a company was selling subject matter DVDs of cut up Die Deutsche Wochenschau films here, that it was not. That has zero bearing on whether it is in the public domain. For example, this business selling footage specifically lists Die Deutsche Wochenschau footage under "Public Domain Films And Royalty Free Stock Footage". In addition, Die Deutsche Wochenschau are available in full length in places like the internet archive, which lists them as "Open Source Movies," such as Die Deutsche Wochenschau No. 512 here. Other sites also list Die Deutsche Wochenschau as being the public domain, such as "THIS FILM IS IN PUBLIC DOMAIN! THIS IS PART OF THE German Wartime Newsreel (Die Deutsche Wochenschau)" and "Die Deutsche Wochenschau newsreels are public domain." It is also not clear if the German government or other entity that originally shot the footage retained rights or whether it is in the public domain (regardless of its capture later by U.S. forces, which is a separate issue).Mosedschurte (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The previous deletion discussion ended as keep bc the image was retagged as PD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment on copyright status Wikipedia:PD#German_World_War_II_images says that most of the Wochenschau reels are still copyrighted. I think proof is needed that this particular reel was seized if this is going to be tagged as PD. See previous discussion of this image's copyright here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with Dc76 comments.--Jacurek (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Iconic image. 'Nuff said (above). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No, not enough said. We don't suddenly get to do whatever we want with an image because we think it's "iconic". If it's so iconic, where's the sourced discussion of it? J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. These same issues have been discussed in previous deletion discussions which resulted in a "keep". There is some evidence provided by Mosedschurte that indicates this image is PD, but in any case the current rational seems to be adequate even if it is not PD. The image succinctly illustrates the close cooperation between the Nazis and Soviets between 1939 to 1941 in a way that words could never do. --Martintg (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Merely stating that does not make it so. Could someone please explain what this image actually shows? J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Keep. "Fair use" justification may be appropriate in some articles but inappropriate in others. Looking at the list of articles involved, it seems to be justified everywhere. Photo illustrates Soviet-German collaboration, and the articles are indeed about the Soviet-German collaboration.Biophys (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Again, we know it illustrates German-Soviet collaboration, but that doesn't mean that it is needed. What does this particular image add? Yes, Nazi-Soviet collaboration is important, and worth discussing, but that doesn't mean that this image is. You're kind of missing the point here. J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The crux here appears to be that some editors are missing what it "adds," why it appears in as many articles as it does, and why it is not replaceable with another image. It is not just about the activity of "collaboration". That can be just about anything. It illustrates (daresay I, with more clarity than any other image in WWII related articles) the role of Stalin actively assisting Hitler in the invasion of Poland and the start of WWII, this image of Nazi and Soviet forces (later to be opposed), coming together in mutual self-congratulation at that front line, being the moment signifying the destruction of the Polish state--in fact, Stalin posessing more Polish territory than Hitler. There is no image as meaningful, significant, evocative, or unique in its purpose of illustration of this event and its underlying circumstances — and the ensuing destruction of Eastern Europe and the Baltics between the two powers, whether in concert or conflict. Are the editors supporting deletion aware this discussion was had before and the result was "Keep"? (Personally, I see it as the antithesis to Eisenstadt's similarly unique "Kiss at Times Square" celebrating the end of WWII.) VЄСRUМВА  ☎  15:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • To the point of public domain use, per the earlier discussion: "Anyway the copyright of this image is a matter of debate, in the UK (the source listed is the imperial war museum) it is free of copyright because of the enemy property act of 1953, and I believe the same applies to the US since the National Archives holds copies of the Wochenschau news reels from WWII Bleh999 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)"
      • As was said above, the last discussion closed as keep because it was determined that this was PD, which it seems it is not. I'm afraid I find your arguments completely unconvincing- yes, this may show a rather important point in the war (the "coming together in mutual self-congratulation at that front line"), but that doesn't mean that the image is needed. I am not challenging the importance of what the image shows, I am challenging the need to see a picture to understand the fact that they were together. People are able to imagine what officers chatting look like; an image is not needed to show that. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Unconvincing to you??? Are you serious?! Removal of this iconic image is absolutely unacceptable.--Jacurek (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
          • As for the need, as I explained in the earlier discussion, many Americans (and this is English language WP) are completely unaware of the degree of Nazi-Soviet cooperation. This is a different image of cooperation from pictures of diplomats, etc. chatting together. This is the only image on WP I have seen of this level of cooperation, troops on the ground (and, as I said, at the first milestone of WWII proper, the destruction of Poland). So, no, the average reader is incapable of "imagining" Nazi and Soviet troops chatting together. J Milburn, I'd like to understand how you determined the prior PD argument was insufficient. "Seems" is a rather ambiguous term if you're nominating a uniquely iconic image for deletion. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  16:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
            • The fact that the image is unusual does not mean we're able to use it- it has to add to the article in a considerable way. People do not need to see a picture to know that the Nazis and Soviets collaborated (and your dubious claim that not many people realise they did is frankly unimportant). And yes Jacurek, I'm completely serious- you seem to have completely missed the point here. Vecrumba: if you're convinced this is PD, could you please explain why? Could you perhaps add the correct PD copyright tag to the image? J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Historical or iconic image is not a reason to keep in a deletion discussion regarding fair use of a copyrighted image. NFCC#8 is pretty clearly failed here, in my opinion. There is nothing being illustrated here that the text doesn't already convey. As noted by the nom, it's some guys standing around a piece of paper. We don't need to use a copyrighted image to tell readers that Soviet and Nazi troops spoke face-to-face. Just tell them. They are readers, after all. They'll get it. لennavecia 16:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

[edit] July 12

[edit] File:Sabrina Morris.jpg

File:Sabrina Morris.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stoletheshow (notify | contribs).
  • Delete: Orphaned image associated with the article Sabrina Morris that was deleted 5 times between December 26, 2006 and June 11, 2009. See uploader's talk page. ww2censor (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Salman awdah.jpg

File:Salman awdah.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kamtanoli375 (notify | contribs).
  • Delete: Uploader is most likely not the copyright holder of this image which can be found on several websites with tineye posted there long before the upload to this wiki. ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mdkkkkk.jpg

File:Mdkkkkk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Michelle32 (notify | contribs).
  • A seemingly good way to circumvent your article regarding some non-notable entity (most likely you) being deleted, create an image of the content of the article and use that instead. Personally, I'd hold this to the same conditions I would hold to an article given it is an article as is the summary for the file but it is just an image and even a PD one shouldn't stick around if in some way it is a doing a sly endrun around notability policies. treelo radda 13:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sutcliffe and Kirchherr.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Sutcliffe and Kirchherr.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andreasegde (notify | contribs).
  • What these two looked like together is not important. There are already images of each of them in their respective articles, this one is not required. Note that I am not saying that the relationship should not be covered, I'm saying I'm not seeing any justification for using this image. J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

[edit] File:Sora logo.png

File:Sora logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Haha169 (notify | contribs).
  • Obsolete and Low quality; replaced by Image:Sora_logo.svg. Note that uploader seems to be busy and may not be able to check notices. Kakurady (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh shoot. I just got back today - thanks for reminding me to remove the travel notice. As for the image, just stick a {{superceded}} template on it instead of deletion to archive it. Never mind, delete. I forgot the logo was non-free. --haha169 (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lullabybystarsailor.jpg

File:Lullabybystarsailor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alvaro3043 (notify | contribs).
  • Image is just decorative, there is no critical commentary. Polly (Parrot) 20:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Image fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Σxplicit 19:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 13

[edit] File:Catgif1.gif

File:Catgif1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DJ WikiBob (notify | contribs).
  • Likely a copyvio, listed source also leaves something to be desired. ÷seresin 05:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Obatma.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Obatma.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scarce (notify | contribs).
  • Batboy's relationship with Obama is discussed incredibly briefly, and the "half brother" is not mentioned at all. This image is not needed, and does not improve the article in any meaningful way. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

[edit] File:UK First leaflet.JPG

File:UK First leaflet.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AndrewRT (notify | contribs).
  • "The purpose of the leaflet in United Kingdom First Party is to illustrate the party's policies, and candidates as presented by them." The policies are already shown in the prose of the article, and images of candidates could easily be replaced with free media. This image is not required, as per non-free content criteria #1 and #8. J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose I am the uploader of the picture. I appreciate that copyright law is complex, I am no expert and I may be unaware of the exact nuances. However, I have had a read through the policy and still think this complies with Wikipedia:Non-free content. Addressing the points raised by the nominator: This image is a copy of a promotional leaflet which includes photos of candidates, policies and other election information. Fair Use criterion #1 states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available". There is no free equivalent that includes everything that this includes. The fact that a small portion may theoretically be free-available elsewhere is not the same. As to #8 - significance - this is a small political party whose main activity so far has been the one election they stood in. Having the leaflet they sent out to roughly 2m households in a great addition to understanding the nature of the party - their professionalism, their image, their priorities etc. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • You've misunderstood both points. Firstly, the image consists of a list of policies (clearly replaceable with text- we currently have a list of policies in the article) and images of candidates- all living people, all of them replaceable with free images. As such, there's not really anything irreplaceable unless you are illustrating the leaflet itself, for the sake of it being the leaflet that was circulated. This brings me to my next point- yes, I have little doubt that their participation in the election and their leafletting is important, and that it should be discussed in the article. However, what the leaflet looked like really is not important. If we're showing an image, it must be for the sake of the image itself. If the image itself does not add greatly to the article, then it should not be used. J Milburn (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Giuliani debate.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Giuliani debate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by William S. Saturn (notify | contribs).
  • non-free image used to "show his reaction"....something I simply cannot see in the image. Does not significantly add to reader's understanding and so fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 22:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I simply disagree. I was also going to upload an image of Paul to place in the article directly above the image to show the readers the emotion of the two during the exchange. It shows how intense the debate was, and it's best to show that with images. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't really see how it shows that. In any case, if the reaction is so important, why is it not discussed? Currently, we have a transcript along with an explanation of related events. Interesting reading, but I don't think "hmm, I wonder how Giuliani looked while that was said"? J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    Because I just started working on the article's rewrite, but I probably won't do any more with it because editors are causing too many problems for me, so it's just become a waste of time. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

[edit] File:Apocalypse1.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Apocalypse1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Drnhawkins (notify | contribs).
  • Image constitutes original research, as it is taking an existing text, in this case the Book of Revelation, and drawing conclusions based on it. Proposed for deletion after discussion here. Creator of the file is being notified of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

[edit] File:Map of Indian Thrusts.jpg

File:Map of Indian Thrusts.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Noorkhanuk85 (notify | contribs).
  • Unused- the majority of the user's other images have been nominated for deletion/deleted as copyvios/improperly licensed. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Iraqi soldiers cross No Mans Land during war.jpg

File:Iraqi soldiers cross No Mans Land during war.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Noorkhanuk85 (notify | contribs).
  • Unused- the majority of the user's other images have been nominated for deletion/deleted as copyvios/improperly licensed. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rudy giuliani larry 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 as G7 by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Rudy giuliani larry king.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by William S. Saturn (notify | contribs).
  • What he looked like the moment he announced his candidacy is not important. Yes, the announcement is- for all means, discuss it in the article. However, this image is adding nothing. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep This is getting ridiculous. The announcement is very important. And a photo of that moment is important as well. Different candidates announce differently, and this adds significantly to the reader's understanding. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You'll note I actually expected you to say that. I know that the announcement is important, I realise his method of announcement is important- discuss it, by all means. However, there is no reason that a picture is needed to show what it looked like. Please review our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't care anymore. Delete them both, I'm not working on that article anymore. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

[edit] July 14

[edit] File:Mohammad salim khan with Farhana.jpg

File:Mohammad salim khan with Farhana.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dheraikhan (notify | contribs).
  • Image being used to evade article notability requirements. MBisanz talk 02:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Emma Wascher Sara Baldocchi.jpg

File:Emma Wascher Sara Baldocchi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ewascher (notify | contribs).
  • Vanity image, subjects unknown. MBisanz talk 02:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary

  • AB or AU (absentee uploader) - The uploader has not contributed to Wikipedia in a long time, and is probably unavailable to answer questions.
  • CV (copyright violation) - The image might be used in violation of copyright.
  • LQ (low quality) - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • OB (obsolete) - The image has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new image name.
  • OR (orphan) - The image is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. Please note: in this context, OR does not refer to original research
  • UE (unencyclopedic) - The image doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia.

[edit] Footer

Today is July 14, 2009. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 14 -- (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:ifd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===July 14===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for deletion page (the one you're on now) work.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion"
Personal tools