Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 16

< August 15	August 17 >

August 16

KATU old logos

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 --B (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katu logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by GETONERD84 (notify | contribs). (Actually this user uploaded a gif version; the png version was uploaded by a bot.)

File:Katulogo1996.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by Chris-Gonzales (notify | contribs).

The KATU article is identified by the current station logo, File:KATU 2news defaultimage.jpg. The article also contains these two former logos. They are not needed for identification of the article (failing WP:NFCC#3a), and they do not significantly increase reader's understanding of the article (failing WP:NFCC#8). —teb728 t c 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, there are pleanty of articles that show old logos for produts and TV stations ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris-Gonzales (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The logos clearly doesn't fail 3A as there are only 3 non-free images on that page. Three is minimal usage. Doesn't fail 8 either as these logos do increase the readers understand because they show how the stations evolved over the years. єmarsee • Speak up! 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no minimum or maximum number of images, so the above argument is ridiculous. The presentation is already demonstrated by the current logo- if these ones were genuinely important, there would be sourced discussion of them. Also, the fact that other pages abuse NFC does not mean this one should- we're talking about these images, not any others. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current station logo is adequate to visually identify the station. The older logos are not notable, do not act to identify the brand, and not needed to illustrate any portion of the text nor the station itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:19, 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:Matthew Applewhite.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 ⚡ 15:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matthew Applewhite.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Renaboss (notify | contribs).

Non-free use image of living person. Ejfetters (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The former use of this image was in Mehcad Brooks as shown here. —teb728 t c 02:33, 16 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:Walmarteditioncd.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 ⚡ 20:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walmarteditioncd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wcwnwo20 (notify | contribs).

This file is just a cropped version of File:Obsessed reduced.jpeg. Clear overuse; fails WP:NFCC#3a. — Σxplicit 04:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This file is actually the only album cover in the United States. It is the cover to the CD single released in the country and has been shrunk down in size. It is important to the article to show the variation of covers and add to the overall richness of the article. It was not cropped by the author. It is the same cover published on Carey's official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.7.108 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although technically the file is not a cropped version of other file, the artwork use to make this cover is a cropped version of the artwork used to make the other. This file is not needed to identify the article; the other file does that. And it is not needed by any stretch of the imagination to show the variation of covers, for since one cover is cropped from the other, the difference could be described easily in words. —teb728 t c 23:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had bad wording; I'm well aware it's not cropped from the original file. — Σxplicit 06:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save. This image is not simply an officially cropped version of the artwork, but the entire text within the image has been completely overhalled and re-positioned. Additionally, the alternative cover to this article enriches it as a whole and brings extra attention to the fact that the song was released as a CD single (as this is its American cover), which had been cited as "dead" and not sellable for the past decade. —User:wcwnwo20
Strong Delete this like other users have pointed out, is a copied image of the main single's cover art all that has changed is that the image was zoomed in and cropped. It should be deleted because this could be sufficiantly explained in words. e.g. "the walmart-exclusive CD release has its own cover art which consits of the same image as the download cover art but is zoomed into to show Mariah's facial expression - none of the body is visible." In such circumstances deleting this image is the correct action. This does not add sufficiantly to the users understanding and fails to illustrate anything further than original cover. Furthermore the majority of this single's sales are from digital download so the relevance of the CD release is limited. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Save. As previously mentioned, this is to bring special attention to the CD single. One by this artist hasn't been released in over 7 years and this particular single sold quite well. It has been number 1 for two weeks now on the Single Sales chart. This could be the start of a new movement of bringing back the CD single if they continue to sell at the rate at which Obsessed did. This is more than just a "the image was cropped" issue. It draws propper attnetion to a wider issue at hand. Additionally, where in the article would it be approprite to go on for three lines about how the image differs from the original. One of you would be the first to go in the article and reverse that editing, surely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.227.124 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Save. I don't understand why this is against any Wiki policies. I don't care if its similar to the other cover... that's why this one is called alternative, because it's different. You can argue back and fourth all you want, but when push comes to shove, having a little extra imagry here helps enrich the article as a whole. You can't waist 3 lines in an already busy article explaining the cover of the album, as a previous poster suggested. How ridiculous! Additionally, this is the official US cover and technically supercedes the other one here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.156.104 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a very strict non-free content criteria policy. This file is no where near significantly different from the original and does not add to the readers' understanding. I'd also like to point out that vote stacking won't save the file; consensus is reached by the strength of the arguments, not the number of keeps and deletes. — Σxplicit 06:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it is against Wikipedia policies is that Wikipedia has a goal of creating reusable content, but non-free images potentially restrict reusability. So Wikipedia has a policy of using as little non-free content as possible. The policy is at WP:NFCC; editors who want to keep this cover need to understand that policy and argue convincingly that:

Text could not be created (like that proposed by Lil-unique1) “that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” It is not enough to say that the non-free image is “better” than the text: Wikipedia prefers free content to “better” content. AND
The original cover combined with a textual description of differences cannot “convey equivalent significant information.” AND
Use of the alternate cover “would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” It’s not enough that it would be nice to have it, or that readers would be interested, or that it would increase reader understanding a little. By consensus the image at the top of the article is accepted for “identification,” which may seem like a weak rationale. In practice any additional non-free image requires a strong rationale.

It is not enough to parrot the “magic words” that I have given you: you have to argue convincingly. —teb728 t c 09:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a by a country mile. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.

“that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” It is not enough to say that the non-free image is “better” than the text: Wikipedia prefers free content to “better” content. AND The original cover combined with a textual description of differences cannot “convey equivalent significant information.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.34.42.235 (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you all say. These images all get deleted anyway, I'm starting to notice despite how many people say "keep". Jayy008 (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. If 1 big wig from Wiki targets an image, it's just a matter of time, regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.227.124 (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that's not true. The image experts who argue for deletion here sometimes lose FFD debates. But in order for that to happen the editors who want to keep the images have argue convincingly, and the images have to be closer to being acceptable than this one. —teb728 t c 08:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well maybe I just haven't seen one, the last 25 atleast have been deleted even if everyone except the person who nominated it have said keep. But this one "in all fairness" IS a crop. So it has no reason to be there, just say in the article it was released as a CD using the Digital image but it cropped to just use her face OR if people are that worried use the CD single instead as it's more important. Keep this and delete the other. Jayy008 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per Lil-unique1 - non-notable alternative cover that can be explained using words alone. The image is a cropped/zoomed image of the original. This does not differ enough to make it notable from the original cover already in the infobox. Also see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY for issues with "voting". Ejfetters (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this is a CD-single cover from a Wal-Mart exclusive edition. An exclusive alternate release to a single store is hardly notable, this is not widely released everywhere. Ejfetters (talk) 07:51, 22 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:Indianapolis montage.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 ⚡ 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indianapolis montage.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sedna10387 (notify | contribs).

This image is intended to be a montage showing scenes from a city. Such a montage could easily be constructed of freely-licensed images, and therefore it doesn't satisfy non-free content criterion number 1. Dcoetzee 05:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Collage of non-free use images that can be replaced by free use ones. Ejfetters (talk) 07:54, 22 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:Pittsboro map.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: keep --B (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pittsboro map.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sedna10387 (notify | contribs).

Non-free historic image - undated so can't tell if it's public domain, not used in any article, and too high-resolution. Dcoetzee 05:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's old. Real old. Check the names in the businesses against records. If it wasn't made before 1923, it was doing a pretty good job of recapturing the particulars of the town prior to the turn of the century. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, without more information, we have no way of knowing whether it is a photocopy of an authentic map from that time or contemporary map that someone drew, for example for a history book, to show where buildings were located at the time. --B (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's from 1904. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually it's from 1865. —teb728 t c 20:26, 23 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:PeaboBryson.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 ⚡ 20:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very likely a derived work from a non-free source. See this discussion at the Village Pump about the image. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 16 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:Clinic Pitts.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 ⚡ 20:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clinic Pitts.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sedna10387 (notify | contribs).

Derivative work on a non-free sign, not used in any articles. Dcoetzee 06:38, 16 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:Morphy-brunswick-isouard-chess.pgn

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. This could have been speedied per F10. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morphy-brunswick-isouard-chess.pgn (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Camembert (notify | contribs).

Unsupported file type. All information is contained in Opera game already. Papa November (talk) 09:09, 16 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:Select April1993.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. How this adds significantly to the reader's understanding has not been established. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Select April1993.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Prylon (notify | contribs).

I fail to see why this magazine cover is required. The image seems primarily decorative, and it is not clear how it "significantly increases reader understanding of the topic". J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as a compromise, it might be more suited the Britpop article. Either way it is a significant image that is referenced in sources - e.g. Britpop!: Cool Britannia and the Spectacular Demise of English Rock by John Harris (critic). Therefore, I suggest we get delete it from the Suede article but keep it for use in Britpop as it serves as an interesting starting point for the history of that movement.Prylon (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8 in both uses. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even for the Britpop one? The cover is even mentioned in the article and including it would improve the understanding of the topic.Prylon (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, in my opinion. If kept, then it should definitely be removed from Suede (band). Note that the image now also fails WP:NFCC#10b. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 20 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:2001child2.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2001child2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jason Palpatine (notify | contribs).

Movie screenshot use to decorate articles about the movie. Damiens.rf 16:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, the image is not a mere decoration for the article, it is key to understanding the textual reference in the article and its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic; its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The image is directly referred to in the text of the article: "The final shot shows the “Star-Child” floating in space next to the Earth." and "The director of the film, Stanley Kubrick, wanted to leave the film open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation, purposely presenting the final sequences of the film without the underlying thread being apparent.". This key and well publicized image is very important to the articles it's in. The image meets all requirements of WP:NFCC. Dreadstar ☥ 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't even mention the image or, at least, if it does it doesn't do it anywhere near the image. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) at least mentions it, but there's nothing there that can't simply be described in text. The two sentences about it adequately describe what is in the picture and you don't need the picture to understand it. --B (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede section of the Interpretations article mentions it as being the "final sequences of the film without the underlying thread apparent"; the fetus in space looking at the Earth is the most notable image Kubrick put in the film for interpetation - it is the very final shot of the film. Perhaps more text could be added that directly refers to that image, but it is the most singularly representative image of the nature of Kubrick's presentation that the film be "...open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation, purposely presenting the final sequences of the film without the underlying thread being apparent". And I just can't agree that mere text that attempts to describe a fetus in space looking the Earth, or "star-child", is sufficient to really understanding what the image presents. It just isn't. Dreadstar ☥ 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more text and references to the lead of Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Dreadstar ☥ 18:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need an image just because we mentioned the scene. Reading the article is not supposed to work as a substitute for actually seeing the movie. --Damiens.rf 11:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Relevant to the article. How many sentences does an image need in order to justify its inclusion in the article? More than one? — Loadmaster (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about numbers, sir. --Damiens.rf 11:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MoraSique (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for helping our democracy. --Damiens.rf 11:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Free health care and copyrighted images for all Wikipedians! --B (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it necessary to mock all the votes that disagree? I suppose I should add that I agree for the reasons Dreadstar stated; the image is specifically referenced in the article. MoraSique (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the articles and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Also fails WP:NFCC#10c for having the worst rationale I've ever seen. If kept, definite remove from Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was considering closing this as delete based on Stifle's comment above, especially the FUR part. But instead I've asked the Strong keep vote if they'd be willing to fix the fair use rationale. Users apparently are willing to try to bring this image in line with policy. Let's give it some time and see. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is an "iconic" image for the film, and is mentioned in both articles; however, the FuR does need to be updated to reflect the use in them. Skier Dude (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is laughable. Delete as no rationale. Rettetast (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the rationale, as indicated above. Dreadstar ☥ 16:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the image was moved to the more appropriate section of one article & the FuR has been updagted to match the use in both articles. Skier Dude (talk) 05:17, 27 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:3208-8-MG.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 ⚡ 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:3208-8-MG.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mayitoh (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, identical to File:US Navy report of the attack on U-176.JPG except that this version contains a watermark. B (talk) 16:21, 16 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:UNF under construction 1972.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 ⚡ 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:UNF under construction 1972.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The222 (notify | contribs).

Purely decorative photo of the University of North Florida under construction. The photo is not referenced in the text nor is the reader's understanding impaired by not seeing it. (Really, the photo is horrible because it's such a wide angle you can't see what is going on.) B (talk) 16:25, 16 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:TSSign.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TSSign.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thomassampson (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic unless this user is someone famous B (talk) 16:30, 16 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:ThomasSampson.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 ⚡ 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned, unenecyclopedic B (talk) 16:31, 16 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:TS09Logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TS09Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thomassampson (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 16:31, 16 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:USFire2.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 ⚡ 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:USFire2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thomassampson (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, insufficient context to tell what this is supposed to be (what studio?) and based on the user's uploads, I highly doubt this is a user-authored image B (talk) 16:35, 16 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:KnicksNuggetsBrawl121706.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 ⚡ 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KnicksNuggetsBrawl121706.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hello32020 (notify | contribs).

Collection of non-free screenshots being used to decorate a time-line of events (a fight in a basketball match) that can be fairly understood without the aid of images. Damiens.rf 17:04, 16 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:Dailynews isiahthomas.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dailynews isiahthomas.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JAF1970 (notify | contribs).

Newspaper cover being used just to make the point that the event in question was covered by the press. Neither the story not the cover image are being used for helping in the understanding of the article. Damiens.rf 17:05, 16 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:Sporephases.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 ⚡ 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sporephases.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JAF1970 (notify | contribs).

Completely decorative non-free image, used to "show the conference, as well as the eight phases of Spore", something that could be done without non-free material. Damiens.rf 17:18, 16 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:Cellular wright spore.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 ⚡ 20:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cellular wright spore.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JAF1970 (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free image copyed from a news-source used to decorate an infobox. I'm not really sure what it shows. Damiens.rf 17:19, 16 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:Haroldjberman1.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 ⚡ 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haroldjberman1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Majordomo41 (notify | contribs).

I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder of this image. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT delete: This image was taken in fair use from an obituary brochure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majordomo41 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majordomo41 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it needs to be tagged with a proper source, and a fair use rationale needs to be added. Delete unless this is done. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 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:Haroldjberman2.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 ⚡ 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haroldjberman2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Majordomo41 (notify | contribs).

I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder of this image. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, the image is from widely disseminated obituary materials. It is an important fair use photo of one of the top international law scholars and top Russian law experts of the 20th century. This image meets all requirements of WP:NFCC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majordomo41 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this image and the previous one are being used under fair use, they fail at least some of the requirements of NFCC, specifically 3a, 10a, 10b, and 10c. —teb728 t c 18:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper sourcing and fair use details are ascertained. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if proper tags and rationales are provided for this image and the previous one, one of them should be deleted. No more than one image is needed to show what he looked like. —teb728 t c 18:19, 19 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:Flo-ridawangotango.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flo-ridawangotango.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rihanna Knowles (notify | contribs).

Getty does not release its content into the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as blatant copyvio. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 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.