Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 1

< June 30	July 2 >

July 1

File:Summerslam (2009) Poster.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Summerslam (2009) Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bballlova99 (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic. The image is not real, it's a fake poster made by someone at DeviantArt. This means it will never be used in article here (the SummerSlam 2009 article will use the real poster from WWE. TJ Spyke 16:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poster is a fake, won't be used in any article here. Bmg916^Speak 13:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NOM. (but it's a shame we have to delete such a great picture)KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 20:10, 7 July 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:Oaitse Oteng Thatayaone.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oaitse Oteng Thatayaone.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thatayaone (notify | contribs).

Orphaned and unencyclopaedic image (initially the file had the text of a non-notable biography, now removed); Wikipedia is not a free web-host for images. Bencherlite ^Talk 02:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTLINK. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 09:27, 1 July 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:Paul Homes.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Homes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Patchy1 (notify | contribs).

sp mistake in title Patchy1Talk To Me! 05:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A needless image. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 09:28, 1 July 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:Miller (MG2).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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miller (MG2).gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kadajvince (notify | contribs).

non-free image used in a decorative way in a "list-of" article. does not significantly add to reader's understanding and so fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 10:51, 1 July 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:926596 20080411 screen007.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:926596 20080411 screen007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gouryella (notify | contribs).

non-free image used in a decorative way in a "list-of" article. does not significantly add to reader's understanding and so fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 10:52, 1 July 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:JohnnyMGS4.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JohnnyMGS4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kadajvince (notify | contribs).

non-free image used in a decorative way in a "list-of" article. does not significantly add to reader's understanding and so fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 10:53, 1 July 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:MGS VR Mei Ling.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MGS VR Mei Ling.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonny2x4 (notify | contribs).

non-free image used in a decorative way in a "list-of" article. does not significantly add to reader's understanding and so fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 10:54, 1 July 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:926596 20080521 screen017.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:926596 20080521 screen017.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gouryella (notify | contribs).

non-free image used in a decorative way in a "list-of" article. does not significantly add to reader's understanding and so fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 10:55, 1 July 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:Meryl Silverburgh.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meryl Silverburgh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonny2x4 (notify | contribs).

non-free image used in a decorative way in a "list-of" article. does not significantly add to reader's understanding and so fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 10:55, 1 July 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:Otacon Concept.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Otacon Concept.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TalonTheater (notify | contribs).

non-free image used in a decorative way in a "list-of" article. does not significantly add to reader's understanding and so fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 10:55, 1 July 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:Campbellcol.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

non-free image used in a decorative way in a "list-of" article. does not significantly add to reader's understanding and so fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 10:55, 1 July 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:LadyGagaPaparazzi.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LadyGagaPaparazzi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jayy008 (notify | contribs).

Non-free images that fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 grossly. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The video was made like a movie, and it also has about 8 minutes. The four screenshots are used in one image, so that keeps it to minimal use. Also, your image (proposed for deletion lower) is included in that four screenshot image, so, if the other image fails, it means your image fails as well. Two of the screenshots show that the video was made like a movie, while the others show Gaga in cructhes and a image of her in the prison. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every other image in this composite screenshot fails WP:NFCC#8, except for the crutches scene. Nominating the other one for deletion is simply trying to replace the other image by this one, which is not acceptable. Please go through WP:NFCC to learn why an image is nominated and when. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why did you deem it inappropriate? I uploaded it to you show was made like a movie so you can see the opening sequence and the closing sequence. They are EXTREMELY low resolution compared to the HQ single image. Jayy008 (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you out of your mind to say that its in low resolution? Its 5 times the permissible limit! Please go through WP:NFCC carefully. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I ment was even though it's large, who cares? It's extremely LOW quality compared to the other image which does not add significantly to the readers' understanding. You only care because the other one is your image. Jayy008 (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read no personal attacks. Comment on the content. The other file is not uploaded by me but by a different user. I only comment because I fear your ignorance of WP:NFCC. I point out to your statements like What I ment was even though it's large, who cares? Absolutely unacceptable when the image grossly fails WP:NFCC#8 except for the crutches scene. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. I would note that Legolas2186 is generally supportive of non-free images, so when even he suggests deletion of such an image, it is highly unlikely to be worth keeping. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't supportive only because the other one is his image - although uploaded by someone else, you can see he's part of the picture's "past". Alecsdaniel (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NFCC#3 and #8. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the obvious failure to WP:NFCC#8. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to go with delete, mostly because of NFCC#3 (both parts, the image represents multiple screenshots for part a and is a very large image for part b, even considering that it's four composited images). RabidDeity (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Three quaters of the image fail WP:NFCC#8. The part that does not fail WP:NFCC#8 is already in use as a single image in the article. Therefore being, this image shall be deleted as not at all necessary. • вяαdcяo chat 06:22, 2 July 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:Paul scally.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul scally.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pezkingrich (notify | contribs).

Scally is not dead or a recluse, he can often be seen at Gillingham matches. A free image could be obtained without too much difficulty -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If one could be found, I'd say delete for sure, but I'd be hesitant to say delete until that easy to find free image is confirmed. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's several images of him on Flickr, I'm already in contact with the creator of one of them about changing the licensing to one which would allow its use on WP -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A free image can be found of anyone if you try hard enough. Whether that means taking it yourself or just scouring Flickr for hours is irrelevant. This image would not pass Fair Use criteria. – Pee Jay 20:18, 1 July 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:Hauptmann grain comparison.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 ⚡ 06:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hauptmann grain comparison.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Butseriouslyfolks (notify | contribs).

Copyrighted trial evidence photo comparing wood grains. I don't believe this passes NFCC#8, since the article can be fully understood without reproducing this image. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ha, listing images here used to be my job! ;-) As of today, NFCC#8 reads: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." My thinking when I uploaded this image was that since Hauptmann's conviction and the evidence underpinning it has been a subject of great controversy for about 75 years now, the only way to truly understand the article and the controversy is to let the reader see the evidence for him/herself. Unless a writer can thoroughly describe the quality of the evidence, the reader will not understand whether it was sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, the image increases the reader's understanding tremendously, and its absence would leave the reader at the mercy of those who prefer to ignore the evidence in order to fabricate conspiracy theories to sell more books. -- But|seriously|folks 13:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We usually frown on using non-free images for the purposes of providing evidence in an article. Seeing the difference in the wood grains may be more convincing than reading "After being examined by an expert it was determined to be an exact match to the wood used in the construction of the ladder found at the scene of the crime", but is it needed to understand the sentence? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment -- based on the current language of NFCC#8, the standard appears to be "significantly increases readers' understanding", not the more stringent "necessary for readers' understanding". Although I do recall the "necessary" language from when I was active here. -- But|seriously|folks 01:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bsf's argument is, sadly, a case of original research. Stifle (talk) 20:29, 1 July 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:Hauptmann handwriting comparison.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 ⚡ 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hauptmann handwriting comparison.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Butseriouslyfolks (notify | contribs).

Copyrighted trial photo, fails WP:NFCC#8 as above – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As of today, NFCC#8 reads: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." My thinking when I uploaded this image was that since Hauptmann's conviction and the evidence underpinning it has been a subject of great controversy for about 75 years now, the only way to truly understand the article and the controversy is to let the reader see the evidence for him/herself. Unless a writer can thoroughly describe the quality of the evidence, the reader will not understand whether it was sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, the image increases the reader's understanding tremendously, and its absence would leave the reader at the mercy of those who prefer to ignore the evidence in order to fabricate conspiracy theories to sell more books. -- But|seriously|folks 13:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in thumbnail size the image conveys no information at all and so in the article it is largely useless in helping understanding of the topic. Ok so the handwriting looks similar in the full image view but this is something I already knew from the text. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:01, 3 July 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:SLCSP001 24.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 ⚡ 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SLCSP001 24.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Butseriouslyfolks (notify | contribs).

Trial photo, fails NFCC#8 as above – Quadell ^(talk) 12:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As of today, NFCC#8 reads: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." My thinking when I uploaded this image was that since Hauptmann's conviction and the evidence underpinning it has been a subject of great controversy for about 75 years now, the only way to truly understand the article and the controversy is to let the reader see the evidence for him/herself. Unless a writer can thoroughly describe the quality of the evidence, the reader will not understand whether it was sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, the image increases the reader's understanding tremendously, and its absence would leave the reader at the mercy of those who prefer to ignore the evidence in order to fabricate conspiracy theories to sell more books. -- But|seriously|folks 13:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this image shows me John Condon's address and telephone number written in Hauptmann's house, something that the text already tells me. Those who seek the conspiracy path are not convinced by moon rocks, and will not be convinced by a small image in the article. Does not significantly increase reader's understanding and fails NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 07:58, 3 July 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:Paparazzi - Music video - Crutches scene.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) 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paparazzi - Music video - Crutches scene.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).

The image fails WP:NFCC#8. The crutches scene isn't one of the important ones in the music video, and it doesn't really have anything that special, all alone. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As stated above, only instance found where the language couldnot convey the image properly the cyborg clothing or the imagery. The nominator is trying to add the fancrufty image nominated above, to the article continuously. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend towards keeping; this appears to be a retaliatory listing against #File:LadyGagaPaparazzi.jpg. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: As the image I uploaded fails some policy or whatever, so this one should be kept. This was obviously only nominated by the other user so the other one could stay. Jayy008 (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's used to identify a key scene in the video, so it should fall under fair use... but if the image can be replaced with a textual description then the image would add nothing. RabidDeity (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This image complys with WP:NFCC#8 and is relevant in terms of visual imagery. The only reason the nominator wishes for this image to be deleted is so that he or she can replace it with their own failing WP:NFCC#8 which is also up for deletion anyway. • вяαdcяo chat 06:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image should be deleted. Screenshots of music videos are almost never justified; there must be something incredibly significant about the image to have one. There is no such significance here; the image is not necessary to understand the subject. ÷seresin 04:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate, the significance of the image is explained. This is not added to decorate Wikipedia. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but use lower resolution I think this image should be kept, but a lower quality/resolution should be used to avoid copying. Keithf2008 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 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:47792a9f646a1.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:47792a9f646a1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tonytyrone (notify | contribs).

No description, no author, only used in deleted page – Quadell ^(talk) 14:56, 1 July 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:DJ BLING 2006.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DJ BLING 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blinghedidit (notify | contribs).

Orphan, no description, unencyclopedic – Quadell ^(talk) 14:58, 1 July 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:Daddy Young wiki.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daddy Young wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quixane (notify | contribs).

Orphan, no source, no description, no telling who this is – Quadell ^(talk) 15:01, 1 July 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:Star Wars Galaxies Six Years.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Star Wars Galaxies Six Years.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Victory93 (notify | contribs).

Image is of a logo commemorating a game's anniversary. However, article includes no commentary on the logo's design, development etc.; image clearly fails to meet WP:NFCC #8 (significanlty aid in understanding; omission detrimental to understanding). --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being deleted? This logo shows an event if the game to which this logo represents it. It meets Wikipedia guidelines and that this is all of a biased view of one EEMIV. --Victory93 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, decorative fair use. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't contribute anything to the article. Powers ^T 13:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's an official logo comemerating the 6th anniversary of the game. --Victory93 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that shows that it passes WP:NFCC how, exactly? Stifle (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, exactly, this logo is comemerating the games anniversary so it should be here to show. I'm sure if the description or explanation for this image wrong then shouldn't be too much to fix. --Trioculus1 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC) — Trioculus1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The problem is not the description or explanation, it's that the image fails WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 5 July 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:Star Wars Galaxies Five Years.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Star Wars Galaxies Five Years.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Victory93 (notify | contribs).

Image is of a logo commemorating a game's anniversary. However, article includes no commentary on the logo's design, development etc.; image clearly fails to meet WP:NFCC #8 (significanlty aid in understanding; omission detrimental to understanding). --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Why is this being deleted? This logo shows an event if the game to which this logo represents it. Plus this logo has been up for so long because it meets Wikipedia guidelines and that this is all of a biased view of one EEMIV. --Victory93 (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, decorative fair use. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, historical logo that isn't discussed in the text. Powers ^T 13:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's an official logo comemerating the 5th anniversary of the game. --Victory93 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an accurate description, but not really a reason to keep it. The non-free content criteria don't say anything about anniversary logos. Powers ^T 13:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, exactly, this logo is comemerating the games anniversary so it should be here to show. I'm sure if the description or explanation for this image wrong then shouldn't be too much to fix. --Trioculus1 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)— Trioculus1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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:Siamang compared to bigfoot.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siamang compared to bigfoot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ChubsterII (notify | contribs).

Image is either original research, or it comes from some uncredited third-party source. In either case, it should be deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESkog Fully agree, remove image.--ChubsterII (talk) 19:32, 1 July 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 Kelcey.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The relevant article (Mike Kelcey) ~~is being~~ has been speedied for non-notability, and this picture can serve no other purpose w/o the article. Unencyclopedic. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:41, 1 July 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:Jani2garyweasercrp.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jani2garyweasercrp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Teatreez (notify | contribs).

What she looked like when "arriving at the Strand" is not of any importance to the article, nor is the image itself famous or discussed. Use of a non-free image is not justified. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 1 July 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:Hadraawi.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks posed, even professional. Possibly a publicity shot from somewhere? No sourcing information/context provided, I doubt the uploaders own the rights to this image. The fact there are two uploaders is also odd. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are not two uploaders of the image. One person originally uploaded it two years ago, indicated then that it was his/her own work, and offered it to the public for subsequent use. The image is also not professional and actually was quite low res until I personally touched it up earlier today (that's what I meant by "updating"). Middayexpress (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of images on wikipedia looking 'professional' but are works of amateurs, however as Middayexpress noted the untouched image looks alot less professional. Hadrawi reguraly attends Somali festivals, it's not uncommon for him to pose for his admirers.--Scoobycentric (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a posed studio shot, would need an affirmative declaration that this is uploader's own work. Uploader has previously uploaded other copyvio formal portraits, e.g. File:Faisal Ali.jpg. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 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:Ireland island flag2.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ireland island flag2.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Markreidyhp (notify | contribs).

Delete unnecessary duplicate of commons image commons:File:Ireland island flag.png. ww2censor (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This one seems to have some slightly complicated issues involved... namely, the uploader of both images was the same, but they use very different licenses. Which licenses should be used? Whichever image is kept needs to be updated. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: both images are orphans and the uploader is a sockpuppet. Image is highly POV which is why it is not being used. ww2censor (talk) 03:22, 10 July 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.