Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 11

< August 10	August 12 >

August 11

File:Death Lies Beneath.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Death Lies Beneath.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Raymond11H (notify | contribs).

orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic use Skier Dude (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:25, 17 August 2009 (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:ELFarson.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ELFarson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ThompsonFest (notify | contribs).

Seems to be used primarily for illustration of a timeline; no specific need for this image when several free ones are used to show the same idea. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (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:ELFarson2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ELFarson2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ThompsonFest (notify | contribs).

As above, non-free image used absent specific critical commentary, in an article with many free images already illustrating the group. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (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:Matt Clark.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matt Clark.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Abani79 (notify | contribs).

Replaceable non-free image of living person. Ejfetters (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#F9. Copyright Violation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:27, 17 August 2009 (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:Aurora.adams.piazza..JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:File name.ext (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aurora.a (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic 59.154.2.58 (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong forum - this image is on Commons, not here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:33, 11 August 2009 (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.

Finnad images by Vogonvor

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 --B (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All uploaded by Vogonvor (talk · contribs)

A series of images that appear to be related to a fictional state called "Finnad" in the Nation States game (presumably created by the user). High marks for emersive role playing, but not suitable for ensyclopedic purposes. The user appear to be using Wikipedia only as a file storage host for his nations entry on the NSwiki (see here). None of the images are used on Wikipedia itself. --Sherool (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The use of Wikipedia as an external webhost should be instantly blockable. It's pretty clear on face that we aren't a webhosting service. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant delete --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:28, 17 August 2009 (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:20th feb 028.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20th feb 028.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Theealex (notify | contribs).

Not used, appears to have been left over from this deleted article. Sherool (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:28, 17 August 2009 (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:20914144a4436549148b259140057l.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20914144a4436549148b259140057l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deano_el_pino (notify | contribs).

Unused personal photo. Absent (indef blocked) uploader with no constructive contributions. Sherool (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (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:61UNc.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:61UNc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JKing1 (notify | contribs).

Unused image, leftover from deleted article (AfD here). Sherool (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated, possibly unfree? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (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:61UNb.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:61UNb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JKing1 (notify | contribs).

Unused image, leftover from deleted article (AfD here). Sherool (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (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:320502904.img.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:320502904.img.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JKing1 (notify | contribs).

Unused image, as far as I can determine it was never used anywhere. Very low resolution and no information or context. Sherool (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (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:30th street security.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:30th street security.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by M4dr0b (notify | contribs).

Very poorly lit photo of a sleeping security guard, it was removed from the article minutes after being added and have not been used since. I don't think it's particularly encyclopedic even if you don't agree that it's disparaging to the subject since the security (or perceived lack thereof) at the station is not a subject of the article. Sherool (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:30, 17 August 2009 (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:Leadsclearance.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leadsclearance.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pamexz (notify | contribs).

Not used, looks like some kind of advertising material. Sherool (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated, possibly spam/advertising. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:30, 17 August 2009 (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:2insure4less.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2insure4less.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pamexz (notify | contribs).

Not used, looks like some kind of advertising material. Sherool (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated, possibly spam/advertising. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:31, 17 August 2009 (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:3525224.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:3525224.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamtone (notify | contribs).

Unused low resolution group photo of Dreamtone & Iris Mavraki's Neverland. The article already have a much better image with a OTRS confirmed license. Sherool (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2009 (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:Pokerstars 20051215 Check.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 Killiondude (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and oversighted by Keegan for privacy reasons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reuploaded by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) on 02:49, 28 August 2009

File:Pokerstars 20051215 Check.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).

User claiming to release the rights is not the real copyright holder of this cashout check. Damiens.rf 21:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand why there are copyright concerns with my check. What policy am I violating.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You own the check, not its copyrights. Just like if you own a Menudo CD, it doesn't follow that you own their song's copyrights. --Damiens.rf 16:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are checks copyrighted artwork?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Everything is, including your question. --Damiens.rf 18:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems that you jest, but I am serious. What governs appropriate subjects for photography. You do not seem willing to state any policy violation. You just want to wipe out the photo, but have not provided grounds upon which copyrights are being infringed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you think I'm not serious? The check has a design (just like a dollar bill has) and that is copyrighted at the moment of creation. --Damiens.rf 13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, I ask for a policy-based reason to delete. Houses have blueprint drawings, but just because they are designed does not mean we can not take pictures of them for wikipedia. Please cite policy for me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:NFCC#7 - You can't have a non-free image to decorate your user page. --Damiens.rf 15:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know we aren't FFD here, but I'd be concerned as well about the privacy implications of all those banking numbers and the personal info of the check's addressee. Delete in either case. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it just a matter of the routing numbers and such those can be blacked out. Please cite a policy so that I can have a cogent discourse.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a valid reason to delete. The copyright claim is just shy of laughable, and the privacy issues seem unimportant when the person in question is the person who posted it here. I don't see any encyclopedic need for this, but I also don't see why we should delete. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the check design is obviously copyrighted. Some free advice to the uploader here - putting too much information about yourself on Wikipedia is only something that can come back and bite you later. --B (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about, every check is designed the same way. I could show the same design on the last five checks I have taken to the bank. They don't own any copyright on check design.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's creativity involved in the choice of fonts, in the use of the watermark, in how they choose to display their url beneath their name on the top left... your personal inability to tell one check from the other doesn't entitles you to ignore their copyrights. --Damiens.rf 19:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - For starters, font selection can't be copyrighted. Next, this has significantly less originality than say a star trek uniform. Are you arguing that copyright would prevent one from posting an image of a check that say "bob" wrote to me because the bank holds a copyright over the check itself? Do you think that when a bank scans a check that isn't theirs, there is a copyright violation? Really? Hobit (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Scanning a copyrighted image is not a violation per se, you should know. --Damiens.rf 01:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep I'm not seeing much creativity here, and so I doubt that it would rise to the level of a copyright claim, especially because the placement of the content on the check is fixed by convention. However, I would ask that the current image be deleted, and a new one uploaded with the bank account information at the bottom scrambled, to prevent (corporate) identity theft. — PyTom (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my checks are less creative than this one (just straight diagonal lines) and they all have copyright notices on them. (I realize that just because someone slaps a © on something doesn't mean it will stand up in court.) If we were talking about just the elements of the check with no background, ok, fine, that's not copyrightable, but with the logos in the background, I think this qualifies as copyrightable. --B (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about if the background was removed? I did this at [1], and also cut out the account information that was a little disturbing. What's left is pretty much entirely functional, and so I don't think that there would be any copyright violation anymore. Tony, would you be okay with putting this version on your page? — PyTom (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great Work!!! I am fine with that modified image. I am not sure what the complainants here think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think this does (just) scrape over the threshold of originality and is copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Feist v. Rural Telephone Service sets a very low bar for creativity. The textual contents of this check can't be copyrighted (and could be transcribed or recreated and posted safely), but the layout and design probably has some minimal level of copyright protection, at least in the USA. Gigs (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I am understanding you correctly you are claiming that the watermark logo is "expressive content". I guess that is possible. I don't know. I think that means that all red carpet photos with those logos in the background are copyrighted by the companies that have the logos. Is that correct? For example, does American Airlines own the copyright to this photo. Who owns the copyright to this one?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is not about photographs of trademarks, photographs that include trademarks are generally not infringing for that reason alone. Also, a copyrighted work which is incidentally in the background of an image is treated differently as well. A scan or photograph such as this one can be simply treated as if it actually were the work depicted. The work itself includes some very minimal level of design creativity in the placement of the text and logos, that's all that is required. Gigs (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not believe that anything about the check goes beyond basic functionality of a check, and so it is not copyrightable. Not everything is artwork. Definately not the layout/design. The watermark is trivial, but if it were judged to be artwork, then it can be removed by washing out the image and re-loading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to be artwork to be copyrighted. Your post, for example, is not artwork, but it is protected by copyright. Nobody questions that individual constituent elements of that check are not protected by copyright, but when you take all of those individual elements and arrange them together, that's a creative work. It may not be art, but it's copyrighted. --B (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I considered my use of "art" to be synonymous with "creative work", and distinct from "merely functional". From my attempts to understand when an object is copyrightable, I have come to understand that the dividing line is where "merely functional" becomes "art", and I see the check as merely functional. If you could point me to further reading, I would appreciate it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's an essay on copyright of "useful articles". [2] As with most copyright law, there's no clear cut line. This essay also neglects to study cases such as Apple_Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft_Corporation, instead focusing on physical items, which is probably more relevant here. Gigs (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - 8 thousand words and still not definitive. Thank you, I'll keep reading...
    - I have altered the image to remove the watermark. All that's left is the bare minimum of a check. Without the (trivially) artistic watermark, I cannot believe that it would be copyrightable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can we go with my version instead, or something like it? I don't like leaving the bank account exposed like that. — PyTom (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I might be swayed to weak keep of a modified version that was simplified to only the textual information. Gigs (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2009 (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:362009118 9a5a6e44f7.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:362009118 9a5a6e44f7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kmcg07 (notify | contribs).

Unused photo of some unremarkable council estate blocks in Coolock who's article was deleted years ago. Sherool (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:32, 17 August 2009 (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:425X550.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 G11 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:425X550.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thevilicusgroup (notify | contribs).

Unused advertisement for the uploaders company by the looks of it. Absent uploader, he have made no edits before or since. Sherool (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2009 (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:450px-HighDefShare 20080107.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:450px-HighDefShare 20080107.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bopter (notify | contribs).

Unused pie chard about blu-ray/Hd DVD shares, doesn't cite any sources for the underlying data. Sherool (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:33, 17 August 2009 (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:Mike j.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mike j.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thubbert (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, uploaded only for speedied nonsense page B (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Hobit (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:33, 17 August 2009 (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:Cold sores.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cold sores.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JayKay098 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, too low quality to be of use B (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:33, 17 August 2009 (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.