Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 9

< February 8	February 10 >

February 9

File:Nasrani Evolution.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 ⚡ 16:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very biased image. It inaccurately portrays the Syro-Malabar Catholics as the only direct and linear descendant of Nasrani Christians. It shows all other churches as "offshoots" via color and branching. Catholicism is a European import to Indian Christianity; part of the one unified Indian church (Nasranis) joined with the Catholics to create the Syro-Malabar Catholics, the other part refused Catholic domination-- so these two branches at the very least should both branch off the main Nasrani line equally, and not as the picture shows where only the non-Catholic side branches off. Also the main Nasrani branch is red, and in the picture the Syro Malabar branch is also red. The linearity and same color scheme of the Syro-Malabar Catholics with the main Nasrani line clearly and falsely gives the reader the impression that Syro-Malabar Catholics are the only true and most direct descendant of the ancient unified Nsarani church. Also, this image has been improperly plastered in many articles that are at best only loosely concerned with this topic. Please remove immediately. --Joehoya3 ^(talk) 11:00, 9 February 2010

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

File:Twilight Saga Collection.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious violation of WP:NFCC#1. Although the book covers themselves are held under copyright and can be used under fair use, this particular image, with the actual books and the book box laid out the way it is, can be replaceable by anyone who has the books and a camera. We don't need to be infringing on Barnes & Nobels' intellectual rights because we want a pretty picture. Other major faults with this upload include it being in the exact same resolution as the original, and that while stated otherwise, the copyright does not belong to Stephenie Meyer. Sorafune +1 01:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Purely decorative images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But keep in mind, consensus were reached in November that an image of the Twilight books be deleted because the author of the image claimed it to be their image. "Taking a picture of a book on a table does not then transfer the copyright of the cover art to the photographer" ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 20:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chepauk.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 a blatant copyright violation. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The webpage from where the picture is aquired claims that all the content is copyright protected. Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 06:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canonde138mmMle1929.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is claimed to be non-repeatable and thus irreplaceable as understood by WP:NFCC#1. This claim is dubious: commons:File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg shows almost exactly ("[the Modèle 1929] weighed 4,275 kilograms (9,420 lb), but the later Modèle 1934 weighed 4,275 kilograms (9,420 lb) for some reason, but appears to have been otherwise identical.") the same guns in an equally uninformative manner. In reality, only a line drawing could actually show how these guns differed from any other, very similar guns. Self-evidently replaceable, and now orphaned, although that may not remain the case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they aren't almost exactly the same because of the mountings; the 1929 were single while the 1934s were dual. Could a free photo of one of the Fantastque ships be found that can show the single-mounted guns somewhat well? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on Commons, not right now. But I do think this is a case where a diagram is what's needed. If I could do one, I would, but I can't. There was someone with the talent who generously volunteered to try and help with diagrams, so when I get my copy of Campbell's Naval Weapons dug out from store, I will see if I can get enough information for him to create something. If a photograph is needed, the most likely source of a quality picture would be a USN shot of a French contre-torpilleur taken in a US Navy Yard during WWII. Albatros was badly damaged during Operation Torch and repaired, so she is one candidate if the work was done in the US, while Le Triomphant and Le Fantasque were certainly refitted in the US and Le Malin probably was. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If such an image was available then by all means let's use it, but I'm tired of preemptive deletion just because something could, in the indefinite future, be done. As is there's no other image that provides us with the same level of detail. Not that this seems to matter one whit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peterowansugarhill.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a living person and probably replaceable, if File:PeterRowanTonyRice.jpg wasn't a one-in-a-million stroke of good luck, and if WP:NFC#UULP hasn't been rewritten since I last checked. May not meet WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something - this picture isn't being used to illustrate Pete Rowan - there's a free picture of him on the article about him. This picture is being used to illustrate the album that it's the cover of. I'm sure that there's an argument to be made against that, as well, but the above isn't an accurate description of how this picture is being used. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case this is purely decorative use. We could better decorate this discography article with a picture of him. --Damiens.rf 20:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or better yet, just replace the image on the discography with the main article's image so the non-free image becomes orphaned and gets deleted anyway. Maybe I'll do that now. Sorafune +1 01:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BanburyStationfrombridge.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the owner, this image is free to reuse, but it isn't free enough. The CC license appears to be incorrect, if I'm reading the copyright statement correctly. Not free (enough) and replaceable, so cannot meet WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The copyright statement clearly restricts to non-commercial use only (and also, oddly, requires retroactive payment if profits are made from usage) and restricts any usage at all by publicly-quoted companies or their subsidiaries. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The license terms quite clearly preclude such free use as Wikipedia makes. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poliocathedral.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free picture. We don't need to see people lining up for vaccinations to understand the text about such event. Also, the source information is too vague ("University of Pittsburgh archives"). Damiens.rf 14:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete free image replacement exists. However, it once again should be noted that this editor has not adequately read the previous exiting fair justification (since removed by myself after the free replacement was made available) which already contained a direct link to the image source, not that such a direct image link is a requirement for an image source. The justification is one thing, but in the rush to nominate files for deletion, the editor appears to be missing things. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charles ConnickSmithsonian.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: No Consensus, leaning Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free image. Any image of this painter taken and published before his 48th birthday will be PD-Old. Damiens.rf 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably not PD-old. But PD-US would likely apply if it was first published in the United States. —Bkell (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was what I meant. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 16:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the requirement that it must have been "published" with a copyright claim, and the claim renewed, I'm not sure why we we're supposed to believe that this image isn't free. In its own way, the idea that this is not free is just as incredible as many of the "I own this" claims which are speedily deleted under CSD F9 every week. I'm not sure why we keep deleting things which are, so far as we can reasonably determine, in the public domain. That's just dim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't usually assume images to be free unless otherwise proven. We usually on the safer side and require evidence of PD status. --Damiens.rf 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed we do, but why should we? Shouldn't we be as robust in our defence of the public domain as we are of other's rights? There needs to be at least a vaguely plausible claim that the work in question is still protected by copyright. Frankly, I don't see any basis for such a claim here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is wholly inappropriate to delete a fair-use image whose claim is not in dispute on the basis that some hypothetical photo may exist. Using this rationale, you would have to delete all fair-use claims of deceased individuals. Also it is important to emphasize that such a photo would not just have been taken, but also published prior to 1924. Further, WP:AGF is being ignored by assuming an extensive search for such a photo has not been performed. Finally, no appropriate notification of the deletion nomination was placed on the photo or article where it is in use. As the original uploader, I was also not notified, but found this listing by chance. As this is not the first questionable deletion rationale for this editor, I strongly advise him to slow down and review Wikipedia:FFD. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find some of the remarks in the above post somewhat odd. Firstly, "assuming an extensive search for such a photo has not been performed" does not constitute a failure to assume good faith: many editors acting in good faith fail to make extensive searches for one reason or another (such as that they don't realise the need to). Secondly, I don't see any such assumption that an extensive search has not been made. Thirdly, has such a search been made? As far as I'm aware nobody has said so, and the onus is on anyone wishing to keep material to indicate justification for doing so. Fourthly, "a fair-use image whose claim is not in dispute" puzzles me. Reading the above discussion I see a dispute as to the copyright status of this image. Going back to earlier posts above, in answer to "We usually on the safer side and require evidence of PD status" Angusmclellan says "Indeed we do, but why should we?" Well, presumably the reason that if we don't then we might be breaking the law through negligence is so obvious that I am inclined to assume that Angusmclellan has thought of it and rejected it, though I cannot be sure. I suggest, therefore, considering the following question. Suppose sometime in the future you find that something you own has been used by someone else without your permission, in a way that you would not have allowed had you been asked. If the person who used it says "Well, I had no idea whether it was anyone else's property, so I just assumed it wasn't", then how will you feel? We have both a legal and (in my opinion at least) a moral duty not to presume material is not under copyright without any evidence. Anyway, even whether we as individuals agree or disagree with that view, the line "if in doubt don't assume we have a right to use" is followed by Wikipedia, and unless and until policy is changed that is the line we have to take when considering files for possible deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) An extensive search for a free image has been performed by myself who also created and authored much of the article on Charles Connick. I have been unable to find any image of Charles Connick published before 1924, or that otherwise clearly falls into the public domain by renewal failure. If one is found, that would be great, but at the time of original photo upload, if such a photo exists, is most likely buried in a hypothetical off-line archive somewhere or someone's personal photo collection. 2) Again, the rationale of the hypothetical existence of a free image as a criteria for deletion is not one that has ever previously been used to warrant the removal of an image of a deceased individual. The only possible way one could conceivably use this rationale to nfd an image, whose fair-use claim is not otherwise in dispute, is for the nominator to assume that a suitable free-image replacement is easily obtained and thus a search for such an image has not been performed. In my mind, this violates WP:AGF. That, and the fact that this editor has not performed what I would consider due diligence, or even followed all of the required steps, in nominating this and other files for deletion, further influences my opinion that it is either violating AGF, or the editor does not have a firm handle on image deletion criteria and rationale. Perhaps it doesn't mean that AGF was violated, but that is the origin of my thoughts for making that statement. 3) The fair-use claim for this image, other than hypothetical replaceability, is not in dispute. The image is under claim of copyright by the Smithsonian Institute (see notice and policy). What has been disputed is an off-topic discussion about whether this image may fall into the public domain despite the Smithsonian's copyright claim. That is irrelevant to the discussion of this deletion nomination. This is not a copyright tag replacement discussion which would not otherwise affect the existence of the file, but rather a discussion about whether this image of a deceased individual should be deleted because it is "replaceable" as nominated by an editor who has neither found a replacement image nor apparently attempted to search for one on his or her own. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nvc prelem bldg.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low resolution; no context provided for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused and pointless

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

File:Melody maker-cover-april-8th-1995.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 February 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover. The magazine issue is not mentioned outside the image's caption, and the cover image is not necessary for understanding the (trivial, tangential) information passed in the caption. Damiens.rf 16:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not unnecessary and illustrates the point that Edwards disappearance was a major event and had major repercussions. This is an historically important image and is placed within context in the article. Hiding T 16:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image is a cover of a magazine. The article is not about the magazine, but about an incident which is mentioned on that cover. It is difficult to see how this is covered by fair use. Even though the incident itself is certainly notable, the fact that this magazine mentions it is not, and is of only tangential relevance to the content of the article. I don't see why the magazine cover is a "historically important image", but even if it somehow is, it is difficult to see that the historical importance of that magazine cover justifies including the image in an article which does not refer to the magazine or its cover. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have addressed this through secondary sourcing which notes why the magazine debate and the cover itself were of high relevance to Edwards and his disappearance. The article does now refer to the edition of the magazine, which did indeed cause a media stir at the time of publication. The image of the cover allows the reader to understand the controversy. Hiding T 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alan-hargrave.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. RabidDeity (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ryan heppe2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ryan teddy.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cheryl Cole - Sep 09.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a derivative work of the big screen used at the Wembley gig. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nanocnse.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Summary is "Vreda; owned and copyright by UAlbany Division of Media & Marketing," which casts doubt on whether it has been freely licensed. This image was mentioned previously at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 7#Nano.jpg; there a URL (http://imagesnytechvalley.com/index.php/site/articles/technology/nanotecch_sector_is_breeding_ground, blacklisted) is given (though this image doesn't seem to appear there any more). It was also claimed that this image was a duplicate of File:Nano.jpg, which is hosted at the Commons and is definitely not a duplicate of this image now, so apparently the Commons image was deleted. —Bkell (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the uploader, Vreda, claims on his talk page to work for the University of Albany in the Communications and Marketing office, so it is not out of the question that the University of Albany would agree to release this under a free license and submit an OTRS claim or something. —Bkell (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UAlbany Nano.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of the previous image; not speedied because the summary is different: "University at Albany College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering." If one of these images is kept, the summaries should probably be merged. —Bkell (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Demonic scratches.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free media use rationale is not compelling enough to avoid copyright issues. This particular image has no recognition outside of the context of the show, and, as it refers to a particular show, is not wholly representative of the subject of the article. If third-party sources begin to discuss this incident as being significant, then the non-free rationale would be appropriate, but as it is, we should stick to free or properly licensed images for obscure happenstances. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arif solak Acigol2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, obsolete - replaced by same image minus the border at Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lysergic Acid Methyl Ester.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality and replaced by Commons file in Lysergic acid methyl ester. --Leyo 21:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TOWN HALL VIEW FROM RIDGE.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the apparent age of the photo, the claim of it being the uploader's own work is not credible when combined with the images appearance here Whpq (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyright violation of http://hpshimla.nic.in/her_th_9.htm. See also [1]. The leftorium 21:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:York station zero post.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: closed as this can only end in tears before bedtime. Can I recommend Irpen's {{KeepLocal}} template? Just the thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per CSD I8: Images available as identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons. Already deleted once per CSD I8 but restored by the uploader as apparently the deletion was "out of process". Adambro (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More harassment from Adambro, who just won't drop the stick <sigh>. To repeat what he's already been told several times and won't accept:

The image is tagged {{nocommons}} and it is common courtesy, accepted by everyone else, that we don't delete {{nocommons}}-tagged files (that's the bit he didn't mention when it came to his out of process deletion and his refusal to undelete the image).
The file was transferred to Commons in a pointed move when I complained about Commons moves being made in the way they are made. Not a good argument to keep, but worth noting as to how Commons is imposing its standards on Wikipedia.
The file on Commons is not correctly attributed and is in breach of the Creative Commons licence; and despite me saying so several times, the argument is repeatedly made that I don't have a say in how attribution is made by Commons (it's my image, so I think I do).
Because the file is in breach of the Creative Commons licence on Commons, Wikipedia is protected from this breach by hosting a local copy.
I fail to understand why Commons editors seek to bully Wikipedia editors by using random deletes, erroneous bot-runs and IfD against someone because he feels that Commons editors are bullies. It's curiously circular. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 21:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers, please don't interpret any attempt to deal with your images as an attack as you seem to be doing. You seem to have found yourself in a vicious circle. Something annoyed you about Commons and you expressed your dislike of the project. Now whenever anyone raises anything related to Commons, you feel your being singled out and attacked and so feel more dislike for Commons. Well, I'm sorry that you dislike Commons and that you have, rightly or wrongly, felt that you've been attacked because of your views but my motivation is to simply try to improve to Wikipedia/Commons. In my view, your insistence to keep these images on Wikipedia despite being on Commons violates the principle of WP:POINT. It isn't a constructive approach. If you have concerns about Commons then I'd suggest you in the first instance raise them on the project.

The other issue is the way you are credited on Commons. I would strongly dismiss the suggestion that you can both change the way you want to be attributed long after the images were upload and both rely on a statement on your Flickr profile page to do so. This is why I consider the versions on Commons to be legitimate.

There is an opportunity here for you to take a more constructive approach; if you have concerns about Commons then please go ahead and raise them there, and discontinue this apparent protest in which you're making things needlessly awkward. Adambro (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Foot-ball Club Barcelona 1910.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: Speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G7 Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan; my fault, already uploaded to catalan wiki Arinsau (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zeldawandofgamelon1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, watermarked, CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series has plenty of images. — Bility (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VulvaDiagram-800.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, watermarked, Vulva has plenty of images. — Bility (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:THE CHAPEL AT ALTO VISTA.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, image has been split up into individual images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) which have replaced this one on the Alto Vista Chapel page. — Bility (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Strand4.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, has been marked as redundant since January 13, 2010. — Bility (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Strand2.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, has been marked as redundant since January 13, 2010. — Bility (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Strand1.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, has been marked as redundant since January 13, 2010. — Bility (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Slanttopdeskside20050409.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, has been marked as redundant since January 6, 2010. — Bility (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Slanttopdeskfront20050409.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, has been marked as redundant since January 6, 2010. — Bility (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Skink on my hand.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, possible hoax image, plenty of images on Skink. — Bility (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SealCollage-1000.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unencyclopedic (looks like an advertisement). — Bility (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see where we'd use this. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schiffsmuehle wrack.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, don't know where it goes (description isn't in English). — Bility (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but move to commons. It is a wrecked mill in Lendava, Slovakia. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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