Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 13

< October 12	October 14 >

October 13

File:WW2 Online He111 bombing mission.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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WW2 Online He111 bombing mission.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flightsoffancy (notify | contribs).

(inserted on 18 October 2009) As of 17 October 2009, the uploader has changed the licensing to a copyrighted file. The file still fails WP:NFCC as stated below (repeated here to establish context): "This image does not fulfill 3b—"minimal extent of use" (high resolution instead of low), 8—"contextual significance" (what significance does it play in the article/to the subject), and 1—"no free equivalent" (it can be easily described in words, e.g. "an overhead view of a flight of 8 German bombers, Heinkel He 111, seen from the bombsight of another He 111"). In short, there is no detriment to the readers if this image is removed from the article." Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Original first post of this request) I initially speedied this screenshot of a copyrighted game with {{db-f9}}, but User:Beeblebrox declined, stating, "the case presented is too complicated for speedy deletion". Obviously, the "What Not to List Here — IV. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}." no longer holds true. Anyway, this is a screenshot of a copyrighted game, and I do not know how much more obvious that is. If anyone wants to use this under fair use, then the onus is on him or her to provide the fair use rationales. For the moment, I do not see anything in the article that warrants the inclusion of this image. Jappalang (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the criticism is that the image, created by me, uploaded by me, is considered copyright infringement becuase it was using game software? That suggests that any image created by software is owned by the software makers, ignoring the efforts of those who put to effort to create something. Or am I mistaken? As to value, it is a good example of MMO teamwork and virtual worlds. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are mistaken. Please read up Derivative works and Screenshots. Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as your remarks about the my declining the speedy deletion, here is the entire text of the original speedy deletion notice:
This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. This file is copied from an unspecified source, which is claimed not to have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and there is no credible assertion that the file is public domain, fair-use, or available under a free license. Please edit this template to include details of where the file has been copied from, using {{db-f9|url=http://somesite.com}}, or include a rationale below this tag if it was copied from a source other than website. The file will not be deleted if no indication is made as to why it is a copyright violation. World War II Online is a game, copyrighted by Cornered Rat Software.. See CSD F9.

If there's an admin that feels that is sufficient to speedy delete, be my guest. I think this is a better forum. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, you have missed out that I have wikilinked World War II Online and Cornered Rat Software in that request, providing enough information to verify the facts that it is a copyrighted game. This is just as obvious as a copyviolation committed by claiming screenshots taken of Star Wars or Shark Attack 3: Megalodon as one's copyrighted work (and releasing it as their own GFDL/CC-BY-SA work). Claiming a screenshot of a copyrighted game as one's copyrighted work is an obvious copyviolation. Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been raised before for other screenshots included on the world war 2 online page. The particular image in question wasn't around at that time. For the other screenshots, we pursued the issue with the marketing director for Cornered Rat Software (Al Corey, aka Rafter) and got permission to use the screenshots on Wikipedia.

Mr. Corey explicitly approved the images at that time. That rationale was included in the text for each of those images.

I guess I agree that this image should go through the same process - some sort of fair use rationale should be provided. I don't think it should be speedy deleted though - give someone a chance to justify it. I'd be very surprised to see the publisher deny Wikipedia's rights to use this image. Warthog32 (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use on Wikipedia is pretty much moot. Those images are still non-free meaning the only real concern is that they satisfy all the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and considering the number of images in use I'd seriously question if they all count as minimal use and significantly increasing the understanding of the topic. A good number of them seem to be almost entirely decorative. --Sherool (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely separate issue, isn't it? Shouldn't that be discussed on the talk page, as opposed to the banning of a particular image? I mean, first the image needs to be have some fair use rationale. The issue of what non-free content should be used on the page without violating the "minimal use" criteria is really a separate debate that should occur on the talk page.

Not that I don't agree, mind you, but it seems off topic.

Warthog32 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the other images, and all of them have a more restrictive copyright and rightly so since they are FROM the company (CRS). I posted something of MY own effort. Just to be sure, I have sent Al Corey a "PM" asking permission, but he will likely permit it (I also personally know him).

If the question is value, it clearly illustrates several players in a larger group on a mission, giving a more personal and action feeling for this game, and is the mainly an air combat scene.

Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct, two of the other images that he approved were player screenshots (the one with the damaged tank and the one with a view from a tank overlooking a bridge). There were more at the time, but have since been removed in the editing process. Warthog32 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flightsoffancy, please read up Derivative works and Screenshots. What you have shown here is a lack of knowledge on copyrights. You do not possess a copyright for taking screenshots of copyrighted games. The elements (art) of the games are copyrighted to their company. Warthog32, Sherool is correct; the fair use of copyrighted images have to comply with all ten criteria of WP:NFCC. Obtaining the permission of the copyright holder could fulfill one criterion, but there are nine others the use of the image has to fulfill. This image does not fulfill 3b—"minimal extent of use" (high resolution instead of low), 8—"contextual significance" (what significance does it play in the article/to the subject), and 1—"no free equivalent" (it can be easily described in words, e.g. "an overhead view of a flight of 8 German bombers, Heinkel He 111, seen from the bombsight of another He 111"). In short, there is no detriment to the readers if this image is removed from the article. Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC) (Fixed Screenshots link.) Jappalang (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. It must qualify for those criteria. However those criteria weren't raised as issues for speedy deletion. The copyright issue was. Do you have a specific issue you are concerned of, or are you just trying to get rid of all the images with whatever rules you can find to justify it? The scope of this debate seems to be widening. I do however disagree on whether it meets the other criteria - I do believe it does, and will leave Flightsofffancy to defend his own work and do the wikilawyering :) Warthog32 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user claims a copyrighted image as his own; is that not a copyright violation? The premise of the deletion was that. An admin declined, claiming it was "too complicated", so it was brought here. Jappalang (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I educated myself on the nuances of copyright (and found the correct location to Commons:Screenshots, Commons tagging different??) and reading on Wikipedia:NFCC. The copyright permission is being resolved (Edit: IS resolved, received email on permission to post).

Jappalang, why did you target this for Speedy Deletion without first asking me to have the copyrights issue resolved and the merit discussed (note: Warthog32 posted just before I uploaded)? This is not the first image I posted that needed fixing to Wiki standards. Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not resolved. The image is still claimed by you as its copyright owner, and as said, having the permission to post it on Wikipedia is almost useless (having permission from the copyright owner to release it as public domain or CC-licensed is another matter). To use a copyrighted image, it has to fulfill WP:NFCC. Furthermore, I have informed you per the procedure listed at Template:Db-f9; if you wanted to stop the speedy, you could use {{hangon}} as explained by the template. Jappalang (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the copyright to what I assume is appropriate, added the hang-on tag. Is some other copyright issue remain to be resolved? Discussing the value of the image seems to be appropriate for the subject discussion page, yes? (darn it, did not see was not logged in0 Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flightsoffancy, I think you are mistaken again. The speedy was declined and converted to a FFD. The decision whether to delete this file is here. As stated, I believe this file is not compliant with fair use for the reasons stated above. The required fair use rationale should explicitly state how such an image complies with all ten criteria of WP:NFCC). "To demonstrate what the game looks like when flying certain bomber aircraft" is not a significant portion of the subject (the aircraft is certainly not flown in this view for the significant portion of the game nor is this view one that cannot be visualised in text or significant) or text. Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 18 October 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:101 0082.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:101 0082.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Samloveridge (notify | contribs).

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 04:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Good catch. _Nezzadar_☎_ 17:05, 15 October 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:102 0993.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:102 0993.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rawalakot1 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 04:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Good catch. _Nezzadar_☎_ 17:05, 15 October 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:157053703 df47de4501.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:157053703 df47de4501.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Theow593 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 04:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Good catch. _Nezzadar_☎_ 17:05, 15 October 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:18767336.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:18767336.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Veyro (notify | contribs).

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 05:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Good catch. _Nezzadar_☎_ 17:05, 15 October 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:18767339.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:18767339.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Veyro (notify | contribs).

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 05:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Good catch. _Nezzadar_☎_ 17:05, 15 October 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:200.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:200.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Leechlan (notify | contribs).

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Good catch. _Nezzadar_☎_ 17:05, 15 October 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:2007-10-29-2119-52.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2007-10-29-2119-52.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K.i.n.z.a.m.u.g.h.a.l (notify | contribs).

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 06:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Good catch. _Nezzadar_☎_ 17:05, 15 October 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:2007-1-.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2007-1-.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dylan wyn (notify | contribs).

Orphaned file, no target article. — ξ ^xplicit 06:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Good catch. _Nezzadar_☎_ 17:05, 15 October 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:2007012711-15-23gregcoleridge.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2007012711-15-23gregcoleridge.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rrenner (notify | contribs).

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 06:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Good catch. _Nezzadar_☎_ 17:05, 15 October 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:MyFamilyopeningtitles2007.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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MyFamilyopeningtitles2007.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NeuRobot (notify | contribs).

Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 14:24, 13 October 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:Goebbels.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The file is not longer used and replaced by a lot of images in commons:Category:Joseph Goebbels. Besides changing the copyright template to Anonymous-EU is not ok, that license template requires some research on who the author was. In fact no research was done, even it would be very easy to research at a german archive or ask a librarian to find out the author. Stored here under a wrong license the image is orphaned non-free content. --Martin H. (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The PD explanation is insufficient, and there's no need for this image. Will Beback talk 21:35, 13 October 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:Pink floyd saucerful of secrets interstellar overdrive.ogg

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

The result of the discussion was: speedily delete by Fastily (talk · contribs) at author's request (non-admin closure). — ξ ^xplicit 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pink floyd saucerful of secrets interstellar overdrive.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Parrot of Doom (notify | contribs).

Incorrect file name, reuploading with another name so delete this Parrot of Doom 21:47, 13 October 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:Spacecraft bus.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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spacecraft bus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gekritzl (notify | contribs).

This was nominated for csd as copyright infringement of [1]. While this is undeniably the same image, this is apparently a joint NASA/ESA project. ESA copyrights their material, NASA can't because they are part of the U.S. Federal Government. Wikipedia's servers are in Florida and subject to U.S. copyright law. So, how do we untangle this? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a suitable non-free use can be found, it's current use illustrating a generic satellite part is replaceable by similar NASA images or a generic user created drawing. INTEGRAL is primarily an ESA mission, with cooperation from both NASA and the Russian space agency yes, but the image taken from the ESA website, so unless anyone can prove that this particular image was actualy created entirely by NASA alone we must assume the normal ESA conditions apply (meaning it's non-free). --Sherool (talk) 10:50, 14 October 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:Chester zoo train.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chester zoo train.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sladen (notify | contribs).

IP's rationale: This request for deletion is based on the fact that one of the people in the monorail is giving the Hitler-salute; this is a major issue in European countries and is against the law to display such gestures publicly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.218.137 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am helping the IP, this is not my XfD. tedder (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC) tedder (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep He could just as easily be waving at the camera, not a valid reason to delete anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + use common sense(!). If one of the passengers' arms was indeed extended straight then it would be outside of the monorail carriage. However, since there's a sheet of glass and the passenger is adjacent to the glass such an action is clearly anatomically impossible—as clearly evidenced by the passenger's bent elbow and separated fingers. I believe such a gesture is commonly referred to as "waving" —Sladen (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC) It's a theme park attraction, at a premium zoo, it's really not that surprising. ...The linked article even demonstrates "waving" using a similar illustration of a passenger on a railed transport vehicle looking gleefully towards a watching camera.[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:Boletaria.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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boletaria.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sami.mannila (notify | contribs).

Not an image of gameplay, therefore unnecessary under fair use guidelines. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:57, 13 October 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.