Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 28
[edit]
- 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bassethoundingits.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stepusual (notify | contribs).
- Fails WP:NFCC#8: A non-free image can be used only if it significantly increases readers’ understanding of the article. This image is not necessary for readers’ understanding. Fails also WP:NFCC#1: The use of basset hounds can be described with plain text. —teb728 t c 00:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no need to use an image here. The fact he uses Basset Hounds can be shown using prose. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just fyi, I, the uploader, also agree that it be deleted.--Stepusual (talk) 22:51, 29 May 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.
- 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⚡ 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned. Unencyclopedic. Possibly a Copyright violation. Rettetast (talk) 11:15, 28 May 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.
- 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⚡ 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned. Unencyclopedic. Possibly a Copyright violation. Rettetast (talk) 11:16, 28 May 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.
- 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⚡ 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned. Unencyclopedic. Possibly a Copyright violation. Rettetast (talk) 11:16, 28 May 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.
- 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⚡ 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned. Unencyclopedic. Possibly a Copyright violation. Rettetast (talk) 11:16, 28 May 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.
- 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 Lifebaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mystery Plant 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Colds7ream (notify | contribs).
- An image I used in a request for help to identify this plant at WP:plants. It was identified as a Euphorbia trigona, and, unless anyone has any particular wish to keep it in the database, I suggest the image is now deleted. Colds7ream (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. ZabMilenko 08:37, 2 June 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.
- 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 Lifebaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mystery Plant 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Colds7ream (notify | contribs).
- An image I used in a request for help to identify this plant at WP:plants. It was identified as a Euphorbia trigona, and, unless anyone has any particular wish to keep it in the database, I suggest the image is now deleted. Colds7ream (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We can save the image of the entire plant for a potential article. This was only useful for identification. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 29 May 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.
- 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 SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mystery Plant 3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Colds7ream (notify | contribs).
- An image I used in a request for help to identify this plant at WP:plants. It was identified as a Euphorbia trigona, and, unless anyone has any particular wish to keep it in the database, I suggest the image is now deleted. Colds7ream (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Euphorbia trigona is one of the few species of its kind we don't have an article about. I think it's a better idea to contact the wikiproject plants again and ask them to write it so your image can be put to good use. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I'll move it to Commons and give it a better name. Colds7ream (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to commons - WP:CSD#F8. Colds7ream (talk) 17:51, 2 June 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.
- 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 Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Barnstar-shooting-star.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Colds7ream (notify | contribs).
- Original design for the Space Barnstar, now replaced with a much better image. Colds7ream (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for historical interest (users who have already received it), but deprecate from future use. --GW… 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Of historic interest in the development of the eventual Space Barnstar. If the current barnstar ever gets a redesign editors need to know what was tried and failed. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GW Simulations, no harm. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- move to commons it's PD, someone else might want it. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to commons - WP:CSD#F8. Colds7ream (talk) 17:50, 2 June 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.
- 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⚡ 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:ISSafterSTS119.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Avatarcourt (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned image, one of many that were uploaded during the post-flyaround excitement. Duplicates are available. Colds7ream (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then name some duplicates, because they're not listed on the page in the section where they'd normally show up. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one: File:ISS March 2009.jpg Colds7ream (talk) 10:07, 29 May 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.
- 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 Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Space Barnstar Idea 1.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Colds7ream (notify | contribs).
- Deprecated design for the Space Barnstar. Colds7ream (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or move to Commons). It's not harmful, potentially useful and deleting the image means an archived discussion will lose its meaning. It's still important to the process of how the Space Barnstar eventually developed. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'move to commons, it's PD, someone else might want it. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to Commons - WP:CSD#F8 Colds7ream (talk) 17:50, 2 June 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#F8 - Images available as identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons Mike Peel (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mir Core Module Diagram.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Colds7ream (notify | contribs).
- Duplicate of image on Commons. Colds7ream (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide the link. I checked and couldn't find such an image on Commons. (If it is, I suspect the Commons image is actually a duplicate of this one rather than the other way around) - Mgm|(talk) 09:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's here: File:Mir - core module.png
- 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.
- 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⚡ 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mirdream sts76-cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Colds7ream (notify | contribs).
- Fairly pointless duplicate image. Colds7ream (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a way to check if the image was recently removed from any pages? If it wasn't, it's a blatant orphan. I can see potential use for cropping a landmass of such a picture, but we're not an image storage facility. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 29 May 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.
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:B-1B (RIAT 2006).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Colds7ream (notify | contribs).
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2009+May+28%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- Unused image, not the best quality. Colds7ream (talk) 15:48, 28 May 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.
- 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⚡ 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Chicagoland Area Update.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Wjmummert (notify | contribs).
- This file purports to map Chicago's Suburbs, Chicago Metro Area, and the "Greater Chicagoland Area", using entirely invented ellipses. It is pure original research, and contradicts that only article is was in; Chicago metropolitan area which does not define these regions in those ways. Speciate (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Zero contradiction, and not really original research either. It clearly says in the description and the caption that it is a representation of approximately what is believed to be the Chicagoland area. There are no clear borders, and I think that this illustration represents that well by giving the reader a clear example of three different ideas of what this metro are is. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Believed to be the approximate borders by whom?
- Zero contradiction, and not really original research either. It clearly says in the description and the caption that it is a representation of approximately what is believed to be the Chicagoland area. There are no clear borders, and I think that this illustration represents that well by giving the reader a clear example of three different ideas of what this metro are is. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the uploader can show all this is verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 29 May 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.
- 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another non-free image in an article replete with them. Do we really need a copyrighted image for each and every depiction of a fictional character.....I think not. Image fails to significantly increase reader's understanding, could probably be described adequately with free text and is part of the article's excessive use of non-free content. fails WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#3a and probably WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 20:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The images show the development and changes in the look of the character over the years in different media that no amount of text can accurately describe. NFFC#8 is met because the images show information that can't be prosified, NFFC3a is met because a single image can't convey the same information as a single one. NFFC#1 is met because no free equivalents exist, at least not for the animated version of the character that's up for discussion here. - Mgm|(talk) 08:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a. You don't need multiple images to show what a character looks like. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. This would be a valid use if their were fewer images in the article, but I don't believe this use passes NFCC#3. In effect, the use of images in this article is the same as if the article were List of depictions of Lana Lang, and this would obviously violate our policy if used in that way. – Quadell (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Quadell. — BQZip01 — talk 15:25, 7 June 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.
- 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Simpsons Coyote Roadrunner Homage.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scorpion0422 (notify | contribs).
- Purely decorative non-free image used in a Simpsons Episode article - does not add significantly to reader's understanding. Fails NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, the homage is discussed in the article several times, and some may wonder what exactly the scene looks like, so it does help add to a reader's understanding. -- Scorpion0422 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now expanded the caption so that it does now provide commentary. -- Scorpion0422 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seeing the image is not necessary to understanding either the text or the caption. While readers might be curious, the use will not significantly increase their understanding. —teb728 t c 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The text gives all the explanation that is needed for this one. Even more, since the screenshot can't show the bounce. - Mgm|(talk) 08:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak Delete Man, I am really on the fence on this one, but the image isn't illustrative. A video clip of this scene would be far more illustrative and meet WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — talk 15:28, 7 June 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.
- 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Simpsons James Brown.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scorpion0422 (notify | contribs).
- Decorative non-free image that does not add significantly to reader's understanding, it just shows something that is already stated in the text. Even the rationale states "Could be replaced by alternate screenshot from same episode" which means even the uploader thinks it is not important that the article have this image....just an image....and there is already one in the lead. as there is already a non-free image in the lead...this one fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "which means even the uploader thinks it is not important that the article have this image" Er, no that's not what I meant at all. What I meant was that there was an alternate scene featuring Brown which could have been used. It adds to the understanding because Brown is discussed at length in the text, and a user may wonder what he was designed to look like (since he played himself). -- Scorpion0422 21:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As with the image above, while readers might be curious, the use will not significantly increase their understanding. —teb728 t c 21:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As the uploader said, this image shows what Brown's character was designed to look like which is impossible to describe in prose. The lead image shows another key character in the episode and unless we can find an image in which both feature, we need two separate images to illustrate these points. - Mgm|(talk) 08:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like a caricature of James Brown; the article would be perfectly understandable without it. By your argument we would need to add images to show how Lisa and Crusty appear in the episode. —teb728 t c 09:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are three non-free images in this article; two fail WP:NFCC#3a. Delete any two of the three. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- per Stifle. — BQZip01 — talk 15:30, 7 June 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.
- 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: - All deleted - obvious copyright violations...no need to wait for a week - Peripitus (Talk) 22:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple uploads of Chinese military subjects all the work of the uploader and released into the public domain. Images of Chinese Army, Navy and Air Force subject shows wide ranging access to chinese military but no sign of Chinese military releasing said images. Also a batch of images of Mumbai and Shangai with differing meta deta nominated under WP:DUCK Also consider the following 100+ images: MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Type95-assault-rifle-stack.jpg
- File:PLA-Honor-Guards-type07.jpg
- File:PAP-type07-service.jpg
- File:PLAAF-type07-ceremonial.jpg
- File:PLA-Navy-Honor-Guard.jpg
- File:PLA-type07-honor-guards2.jpg
- File:PLA-Army-type07-ceremonial.jpg
- File:PAP-type07-Ceremonial.jpg
- File:PLA-type07-honor-guards.jpg
- File:PLA-Type07-Camo.jpg
- File:PLA-type07-naval-ceremonial.jpg
- File:PAP-Type07-Camo.jpg
- File:PLAAF-Type-07-uniform.jpg
- File:PLA-Type07-camo2.jpg
- File:PLA-Type07-camo.jpg
- File:PLAN-Shang-class.jpeg
- File:PLAN-054A-greenwater.jpg
- File:PLAAF-L15-flight.jpg
- File:PLAN-kj2000-inflight.jpeg
- File:PLAN-054-Dockside.jpg
- File:PLA-Gen-Xu-Caihou.jpg
- File:PLAN-052C-aft-hanger.jpg
- File:DDG-170 VLS Gun.jpg
- File:PLAN-052C-RADAR.jpeg
- File:PLA-Gen-ChangWangquan.jpg
- File:PLAAF-Lt-Ma-xiaotian.jpeg
- File:PLAAF-Gen-Ma.jpg
- File:PLA-Gen-CaoGangchuan.jpg
- File:Cao-meets-Gates.jpg
- File:PLA-Gen-Guo.jpg
- File:Wu-shengli-roughhead.jpg
- File:Gen-Liang-1.jpeg
- File:PLAAF-jh7-parked.jpg
- File:PLAAF-Jf17-frontal.jpg
- File:PLAAF-J10-best.jpg
- File:PLAAF-J10-takeoff.jpg
- File:PLAN-054II-Dockside.jpg
- File:PLAN-Type071-Dock-Back.jpg
- File:Chengdu-J10-refuel-probe.jpg
- File:Chengdu-J10-02large.jpg
- File:Chengdu-J10B.jpg
- File:Chengdu-J10-takeoff.jpg
- File:J-10A taxiway.jpg
- File:Plaa-kj2000-1.jpg
- File:PLA 99mbt2 01.jpg
- File:PLAN Type054jiangkai 01large.jpg
- File:PLAN-054-FFG-1.jpg
- File:PLA-Type 96G MBT.jpg
- File:PLAN-DDG-052B-3.jpeg
- File:PLAN-Type730-1.jpg
- File:PLAN-Type022-3.jpg
- File:PLAN-Type022-2.jpg
- File:PLAN-Type022 01.jpg
- File:PLAN-Yuan-1.jpg
- File:PLA-PLZ05-1.jpg
- File:Type-071-1.jpg
- File:PLAN-052C-1.jpg
- File:File-Type-054A-2.jpg
- File:Type-054A-1.jpg
- File:Type-054a.jpg
- File:054aaug15du0.jpg
- File:Type052c luyang2 03large.jpg
- File:Mumbai24.jpg
- File:Mumbai23.jpg
- File:Mumbai22.jpg
- File:Mumbai21.jpg
- File:Mumbai20.jpg
- File:Mumbai19.jpg
- File:Mumbai18.jpg
- File:Mumbai17.jpg
- File:Mumbai16.jpg
- File:Mumbai15.jpg
- File:Mumbai14.jpg
- File:Mumbai13.jpg
- File:Mumbai12.jpg
- File:Mumbai11.jpg
- File:Mumbai10.jpg
- File:Mumbai9.jpg
- File:Mumbai8.jpg
- File:Mumbai7.jpg
- File:Mumbai6.jpg
- File:Mumbai5.jpg
- File:Mumbai4.jpg
- File:Mumbai3.jpg
- File:Mumbai2.jpg
- File:Mumbai1.jpg
- File:Shanghai-Puxi-2.jpg
- File:Shanghai-puxi-day-1.jpg
- File:Shanghai-puxi-4.jpg
- File:Shanghai-puxi-3.jpg
- File:Shanghai-puxi-2.jpg
- File:Pudong-Puxi.jpg
- File:Pudong-night.jpg
- File:Shanghai-puxi-blue.jpg
- File:Shanghai-puxi-bw.jpg
- File:Shanghai-puxi-pudong.jpg
- File:Shanghai-skyline-night.jpg
- File:Shanghai-pudong-day.jpg
- File:Shanghai-pudong-night.jpg
- File:Shanghai-puxi.jpg
- File:Puxi sunset.jpg
- File:Go Board Partial.JPG
- File:My Go Equipment 3.JPG
- File:Floor Goban 1.JPG
- File:Shell Stones Utility Grade.JPG
- File:Shell and Slate 1.JPG
- File:Taser1.jpg
- Deleting the lot - I've done the courtesy of finding a few sources and deleting the related copyvio images. Images are taken from news sites, magazine scans, chinese govt sites. They are taken with an unlikely variety of cameras and edited with an unlikely variety of software....just another set of webscraped images - Peripitus (Talk) 21:40, 28 May 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.
- 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⚡ 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TBDT VideoScreenShoot.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Krot8 (notify | contribs).
- Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding — Σxplicit 21:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No encyclopedic value, regardless of any copyright issues. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, merely a non-free image of the artist. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 4 June 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.
- 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 failing NFCC#8 and NFC#Images - Peripitus (Talk) 04:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:USPS Stamp-USAFADS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tbirdpa (notify | contribs).
- This is a stamp, a copyrighted image despite having been produced by the U.S. Government. As such the image needs to go. It is decorative in nature and is completely replaceable as a non-free image. It is inappropriately labeled (note the (c) notice in the lower left-hand corner). — BQZip01 — talk 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you illustrate the fact they appeared on a US Stamp with a free image? I don't think it's possible to find a free alternative that shows the same thing as this image. Clearly the USPS is not a US Federal Government agency, but the license tag can be fixed through editing. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but tag as fair use and reduce in size. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, NFCC#8. This article isn't about the stamp, it's about the Air Demonstration Squadron itself. I can fully understand the article without seeing the stamp. Once I read the sentence "The United States Postal Service honored the Air Force's 50th anniversary as a seperate branch of the military in 1997 with a limited edition stamp featuring the Thunderbirds", there's no further important encyclopedic information presented by showing the stamp. – Quadell (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Besides this stamp being improperly licenced (but I have fixed it), all post-1978 US stamps are copyright and the prose mention that a stamp was issued is enough. The stamp is just being used for decoration, there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself and it fails both WP:NFC#Images because it is being used to show the subject of the stamp, and WP:NFCC#8 because the readers' understanding of the article will not be reduced if this image is omitted. ww2censor (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]