Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

January 21

File:Zimmerman.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 ⚡ 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a libre-licensed image, a screenshot from the TV series Heroes. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as license appears to be invalid. Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2010 (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:Woodward pic biloxi oyster warf.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 - no clear consensus that this should be deleted. I'm happy to talk to any of the parties in this debate if they want to clarify things or have a compelling reason to reverse this decision. But I have to say that this is one of the most confusing deletion debates I've seen so far. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously false date and false authorship claim; highly dubious claim that uploader is the copyright holder. Same situation for File:Woodward pic ursuline convent.jpg and File:Woodward biloxi lighthouse.jpg. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Jheald noted elsewhere, these images are {{PD-art-life-70}} as the artist died in the USA in 1939. They should not be deleted. Source (i.e. where the paintings are held) would be good, as would "publication" date, but these are PD for our purposes and those of Wikimedia Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK, the 70-year-after-death rule doesn't usually apply to US works. In the present case, we are left with the confusing set of rules in [1], which requires us to find out if and when and where the work was first "published", which in the case of paintings can be a thorny issue. As far as I can see, it is quite possible that the present physical owner of the painting may also still own the economic rights to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absent evidence of publication, it's the best we can do. Evidently mileage will vary as to what constitutes proof in such cases, but one cannot prove a negative. If one adopts an extremely skeptical position, any search which did take place was clearly not properly conducted, and so on. The LoC lists only one of Woodward's paintings which we have here - file:Woodward pic biloxi oyster warf.jpg - and they evidently have no more idea as to a publication date than we do.

Unpublished is just as free as first published before 1923, or first published after 2002, or first published at any time without a copyright notice except between 1 March 1989 through 2002, or first published between 1923 and 1963 without a renewal. If someone can say "this painting was published in 1954" with some degree of certainty, then it'll be up to the uploader, or someone, to show whether it was, or, as we'd prefer, wasn't copyrighted and renewed as required. A certain degree of skepticism is warranted in these cases, but paranoia is not. NOMA and Historic New Orleans know where to find Mike Godwin if they think we're fucking around with their rights. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. According to [2] it was painted in 1925. The LoC page [3] gives a date of "created/published" of 1934, which in this case can only mean a publication date. In any case, according to the same page, it was mentioned among "prints in the LoC" in a published catalog in 1970, so it was certainly technically published by that time. This leaves us with the issue of copyright renewal. If it was renewed, we'd be at 95 years after first publication; if not, it would be PD. Are we obliged to search for that info ourselves, or is it up to any claimant to prove? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By weird coincidence, 95 years PP from 1934 is 1 January 2010, the same place that 70 years PMA gets us to. But since there seemed to be no sign of "Oyster wharf" in the copyright catalog among the "Woodward, William" things, it's likely that it never was copyrighted, let alone renewed.

There is no way to be certain about these things. We can determine what was copyrighted with reasonable certainty between the LoC copyright search engine, the Google search of the copyright catalog and the Gutenberg versions of the catalog, but only for the period when explicit registration or renewal was necessary. The only works relating to Woodward which appear to have been copyrighted, in the period when explicit claim or registration were necessary, are the books French quarter etchings of old New Orleans (1938 and renewed) and Early views of the Vieux Carre (1965). If any of these works may have first appeared in those books, then they should be deleted, but I haven't seen the books so I have no idea as to which of these, if any, do appear there.

How much further should we go? I think we should, and not merely as a courtesy, name the current owner of these works since there is always the possibility that the current owner is the copyright holder. I think we should always do this so that these is nothing special here. I really don't see any necessity to go further. If we are wrong as to the copyright status, then we are wrong, just as we are wrong about lots of things. If someone comes along next month or next year to tell us that these works are copyrighted, and here's why, then we can delete them. Until then, we can only do our best, although our best is not terribly good. If someone wanted to contact NOMA or Historical New Orleans or whoever, to get their views, that would be fine, but it would be naive to assume that they would know much that we don't. Museums are notorious fibbers when it comes to claiming copyright over things which they merely happen to own. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. 1934 + 95 = 2010? Or 1925 + 95 = 2010? I'm not sure, I can't do maths. But okay, I can live with the rest of your argument. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I'll take my shoes off, then maybe I'll manage a better guess at the right answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:02, 24 January 2010 (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:View from Robert College Istanbul.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image is irrelevant and "UE". It is not a view from Robert College but rather appears to be taken from Bogazici University between Bebek and Rumeli Hisari

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:Sarathkumar.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 ⚡ 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No source specifiedVssun (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a likely copyright infringement of this page. WP:CSD#F9 should cover these cases (although that's ambiguous). --Mkativerata (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2010 (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:WakelandHS.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 ⚡ 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free aerial photograph of a school building. Could be replaced by a user-created chart together with free user-created photographs from the ground. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, besides what you suggest, it could be replaced by a user with access to a small aircraft. I've taken several aerial pictures of schools; it's definitely not hard to do. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Replaceable does not mean easy to replace; it means more like reasonably possible to replace. Rent a helicopter. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2010 (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:Wetherby aerial photograph1.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 ⚡ 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free aerial photograph of a town a few decades ago, claimed to be irreplaceable because the town has changed in the meantime. However, it could be replaced by a user-created historical map, which could adequately convey the same amount of information about the changes in question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would beg to differ. Such a map would not give an impression to how the town looked, only what has changed. This would then require many further fair use images to illustrate all of the buildings and such in conjunction with the user-created map. This would not be as informative and would require much more fair use work. Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Improved rationale, Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the photograph doesn't actually give an "impression to how the town looked". The details on the ground are so small that they convey next to no useful information about them. The caption says it shows "the former bus station, gas works and the Teasdale and Metcalf Factory": so what? As an outsider, I cannot even guess which structures in the photograph are meant by that, let alone gain any further understanding about them. And even if I could, what is so interesting about the "former bus station" that you'd need an image about it? (Wikipedia is WP:NOT about "indiscriminate information", after all.) Anyway, if you want me to understand where that bus station was, a user-created map would in fact be a lot more informative, not less. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 24 January 2010 (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:KolkataKnightRiders.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 ⚡ 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A trademark/copyrighted logo of an IPL team. Invalid license given, no fairuse rationale & no source Vssun (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2010 (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:Proscenium Theatre 10.2008.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 ⚡ 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used to illustrate the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts article. Not clear to me that this adds much to the reader's understanding so that this image may not meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:07, 21 January 2010 (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:ModernWarfarePrestige Banner.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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 to illustrate the content of one particular edition of the game. May be a usual image for advertising the product, but doesn't necessarily meet WP:NFCC#8 in this context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:09, 21 January 2010 (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:Modul University 2008.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 ⚡ 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Austria has extensive freedom of panorama provisions, to the extent that photographs "need not have been taken from a public place". While an extensive rationale is offered for the use of this non-free image, it is not clear that it is well-founded in Austrian law or Wikipedia policy. Apparently replaceable on the face of it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; quality of location (as appears to be the reasoning behind the rationale) isn't a sufficient reason to claim irreplaceability. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2010 (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:Mount Prometheus Concept Art.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 ⚡ 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tokyo DisneySea article suggests no obvious reason why this non-free image would not be replaceable. No specific rationale here to say why either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:02, 21 January 2010 (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:MugsCorrsPepsi.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 ⚡ 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear that this image meets WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:13, 21 January 2010 (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:CorrsLiftingMe.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 ⚡ 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used without comment or commentary. Not clear that this meets WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 21 January 2010 (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:Randall Amster 2009.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: OTRS received and kept - Peripitus (Talk) 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No source or release information given. The image appears to be identical to one used on huffingtonpost.com —Ash (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is copyrighted by Randall Amster. It is used as a standard photo of him for professional purposes and is not owned by any other entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceaz (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 January 2010 (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:Museumgreenart.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 ⚡ 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear that this image meets WP:NFCC#8 in the context of an article on a museum which was once housed there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:25, 21 January 2010 (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:NOF 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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of a box. Not evident, to me anyway, that this image meets WP:NFCC#8-. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Has been discussed before. Is fair use, can't be replaced. Is historical photo of the first version, and one of the first webdesign tools at all. A chapter of the article covers the launch of exactly this version: I have received personal allowance by copyright ownwer: Clement Mok, mails from 2006/8/31, 2006/9/5, 2006/9/6.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - how the product was sold to the clients is not discussed in the article (and it could arguably be discussed without the necessary aid of a picture of a box). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiens.rf (talk • contribs)
delete – design of the package isn't significant for the understanding of the software. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Please note that the picture is now also used in NetObjects, where the rollout of the product is also described. I do think that a picture of the retail box ist important. That was the way the first release of the product looked like for the customers who bought it.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (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:NTS New trolley.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 as G7 by Philosopher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

San_Diego_Trolley#Avanto_S70_Modernization does a more than passable job of explaining the differences between the soon-to-be-delivered trolley car in this non-free picture and existing models. Not clear that this meets WP:NFCC#1 as the description should suffice until the cars are in service and a free image can be created. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 21 January 2010 (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:SOD-1987-Loprieno-Evans-DePaiva.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 ⚡ 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-notable non-dicussed non-free magazine cover used as a decoration. Damiens.rf 20:08, 21 January 2010 (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:Chloesevignyboysdontcry.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 ⚡ 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairuse overuse, image of a living person when we already have a free image. Scene depicted is not discussed in either article and therefore violates WP:NFCC. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 21 January 2010 (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:Wing 0005th Bomb (B-36 Era).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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to commons Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2010 (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:]]

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: Erroneous Nomination. No image name is specified. Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[:File:{{ucfirst:}}]] ([{{fullurl:File:|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:[[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 21#File:]]}}}} delete] | [[File talk:{{ucfirst:}}|talk]] | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:}}}}}} logs])</span> - uploaded by [[User talk:#File: listed for deletion|]] (<span class="plainlinks">[ notify]</span> | [[Special:Contributions/|contribs]] | [[Special:Log/upload/|uploads]]).

Moved to commons Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (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:Wing 0007th Bomb.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to commons Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2010 (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:Bomb 0007th Wing B-36 Era.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to commons Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2010 (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:Wing 0019th Bomb.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to commons Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2010 (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:Wing 0019th Air Refueling.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to commons Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absentee uploader. Now replaced by commons image.

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.