Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 23

< January 22	January 24 >

January 23

File:OKC.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PSE02 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this may qualify deletion per the uploaders request. The uploader has changed their username some time back, and this file has links/history to the old name; probably a privacy-related deletion request here. Reh man 00:56, 29 January 2011 (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:CharlieMorgan.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 00:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 00:57, 29 January 2011 (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:Mysidface2.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 ›mysid (☎∆✎) 09:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 00:35, 23 January 2011 (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:Pathoschild.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: Deleted. —Pathoschild 05:04:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned user image. Kelly ^hi! 00:43, 23 January 2011 (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:Pathoschild.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: Deleted. —Pathoschild 05:06:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned user file. Kelly ^hi! 00:43, 23 January 2011 (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:Photome022006.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 00:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 00:57, 29 January 2011 (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:Shanel.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: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user file. Kelly ^hi! 00:46, 23 January 2011 (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:Braille C3.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by vector version Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating for the same reason: File:Braille Bracket.png, File:Braille C3.png, File:Braille CapitalSign.png, File:Braille Comma.png, File:Braille D4.png, File:Braille E5.png, File:Braille ExclamationPoint.png, File:Braille F6.png, File:Braille G7.png, File:Braille H8.png, File:Braille Hyphen.png, File:Braille J0.png, File:Braille K.png, File:Braille L.png, File:Braille M.png, File:Braille N.png, File:Braille O.png, File:Braille P.png, File:Braille Period.png, File:Braille Q.png, File:Braille QuestionMark.png, File:Braille QuoteClose.png, File:Braille QuoteOpen.png, File:Braille R.png, File:Braille S.png, File:Braille Semicolon.png, File:Braille T.png, File:Braille U.png, File:Braille V.png, File:Braille W.png, File:Braille Y.png, File:Braille Z.png. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2011 (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:Chalking 001.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2011 (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:Chalking 002.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2011 (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:Chalking 003.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2011 (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:Chalking 004.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2011 (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:Chalking 005.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2011 (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:Chalking 006.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2011 (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:Chalking 007.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2011 (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:Brampton, Carlisle - Cumbria dot.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by standard locator map Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2011 (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:Rrz.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2011 (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:Biglotsstore.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, too small. Article has two better photos of store already, a third is superfluous. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:28, 23 January 2011 (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:Theseal.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, looks to be a sea lion in any event Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2011 (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:Ssnrg.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, photo of copyrighted packaging Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2011 (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:Morepaella.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low encyclopedic value (location unidentified, etc) Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2011 (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:Brasov12.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, dubious own work (border) Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2011 (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:Brasov13.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, dubious own work (border) Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2011 (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:Brauhn.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2011 (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:Brasov11.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, user's other images of this city seem to be copyvios. this one looks like it could be self-taken, but has no metadata. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2011 (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:BreakfastforTwo.JPG.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2011 (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:Breaking Goo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2011 (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:Breaking bread.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2011 (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:BreakingCamera.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2011 (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:Brent007.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2011 (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:BrentRemix.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2011 (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:Brentsbills.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2011 (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:Brett McKean.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2011 (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:Bri.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2011 (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:Brian2.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2011 (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:BrianAsh.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, i'm guessing this is not the Brian Ash we have an article on Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2011 (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:Brianlacey1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2011 (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:BribieIslandPaulMoss.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2011 (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:Bride for web.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2011 (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:Bridgefire.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2011 (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:Gageoctane.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2011 (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:TSAggressor.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2011 (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:MrDestiny.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2011 (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:Brina.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2011 (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:Brita filter.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be a photo of copyrighted packaging Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2011 (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:Flag of the United Esperanza.svg

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fictional flag. Kelly ^hi! 01:50, 23 January 2011 (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:Britt Daniel.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality (we have other photos - see Britt Daniel) Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2011 (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:Broken nitro tc3.triddle.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2011 (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:Broken sunset.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2011 (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:Bronzehorseman.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, we have other better-quality images[1] Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2011 (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:Bromocriptine.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Bromocriptine.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2011 (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:Brother.jpeg

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2011 (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:Brotton - Redcar and Cleveland dot.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by standard locator map Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2011 (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:Brownbetty.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2011 (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:Bruce the lemur.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2011 (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:BruceWhitaker.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, target article Bruce Whitaker deleted Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2011 (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:WBruceWhitaker.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, target article Bruce Whitaker deleted Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2011 (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:Brucine.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Brucine.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2011 (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:Bruno.sakura.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, target article Bruno Breathnach deleted Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2011 (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:Brunokito.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned self-photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2011 (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:Brush on Base.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no verification of permissino Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2011 (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:Bryan1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned self-photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2011 (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:Bryn6.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2011 (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:Bsct.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2011 (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:Bsd06.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2011 (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:Bsyd d car +.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2011 (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:Bub.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2011 (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:Bszizzle.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, possible copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2011 (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:Bubblegum Shitface.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2011 (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:Bubbling Fluidised Bed.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2011 (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:BudCramerPC.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unsourced in terms of accuracy, also no source for base image Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2011 (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:Jordan Williams.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No use on Wikipedia, no potential use CutOffTies (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2011 (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:96th Avenue.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, poor quality map that is hard to even make out. Appears it was meant for use on the article for 96th Avenue, I presume from British Columbia based on the user's other contributions. Admrboltz (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Image is too poor quality to even tell its a map. Heck, it looks like some random piece of art. Dough 48 72 06:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like and abstract painting instead of a map. Imzadi 1979 → 06:01, 23 January 2011 (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:Vancouver downtown map 1860s.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality map that is hard to even tell what is being depicted. It appears to be a locator map for the town of Granville, British Columbia, but there is no context in the map. A new map could be requested from the graphics lab. Admrboltz (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quality is way too bad. Dough 48 72 06:03, 23 January 2011 (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:With refbegin and refend.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned screenshot. Kelly ^hi! 03:53, 23 January 2011 (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:Without refbegin and refend.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned screenshot. Kelly ^hi! 03:54, 23 January 2011 (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:Barotrauma siptom.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unclear source. Kelly ^hi! 05:07, 23 January 2011 (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:1930s montage.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned montage, not eligible for move to Commons. Kelly ^hi! 05:32, 23 January 2011 (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:Simple cycle graph.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, obsoleted by File:Simple cycle graph.svg. Kelly ^hi! 05:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete The SVG version is not visually identically but they are functionally identical as graphs with the same labels in the same order. Dcoetzee 07:52, 23 January 2011 (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:AalterLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned map. Kelly ^hi! 06:20, 23 January 2011 (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:AssenedeLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 06:25, 23 January 2011 (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:BerlareLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Commons map with same name. Kelly ^hi! 06:28, 23 January 2011 (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:BeverenLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:02, 23 January 2011 (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:BrakelLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:04, 23 January 2011 (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:DeinzeLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 07:05, 23 January 2011 (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:DenderleeuwLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 07:06, 23 January 2011 (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:DendermondeLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:08, 23 January 2011 (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:DestelbergenLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 07:08, 23 January 2011 (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:GentLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 07:09, 23 January 2011 (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:GeraardsbergenLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 07:10, 23 January 2011 (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:HammeLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:11, 23 January 2011 (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:KaprijkeLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 07:12, 23 January 2011 (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:KluisbergenLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:14, 23 January 2011 (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:LaarneLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:16, 23 January 2011 (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:LokerenLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:17, 23 January 2011 (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:OudenaardeLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:19, 23 January 2011 (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:RonseLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:20, 23 January 2011 (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:Sint-LaureinsLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 07:21, 23 January 2011 (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:Sint-Gillis-WaasLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:22, 23 January 2011 (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:Sint-Lievens-HoutemLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 07:23, 23 January 2011 (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:Sint-Martens-LatemLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 07:24, 23 January 2011 (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:Sint-NiklaasLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:25, 23 January 2011 (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:StekeneLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:27, 23 January 2011 (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:TemseLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:28, 23 January 2011 (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:WaasmunsterLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:29, 23 January 2011 (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:WetterenLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:30, 23 January 2011 (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:WichelenLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:32, 23 January 2011 (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:Wortegem-PetegemLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:33, 23 January 2011 (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:ZeleLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:35, 23 January 2011 (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:ZingemLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:36, 23 January 2011 (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:ZwalmLocatie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons file with same name. Kelly ^hi! 07:37, 23 January 2011 (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:Lee in the pub.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 07:39, 23 January 2011 (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:Westont.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, obsoleted by File:Map of Ontario SOUTHWESTERN.svg Kelly ^hi! 08:14, 23 January 2011 (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:User photo Benlisquare.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Commons file with same name. Previous versions in history are unencyclopedic and unlikely to be used anywhere. Kelly ^hi! 10:12, 23 January 2011 (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:Neural Network.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, obsoleted by File:Artificial neural network.svg Kelly ^hi! 10:37, 23 January 2011 (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:Ben Roberts-Smith VC 19-01-2011 fair use claimed.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 February 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. The bottom line is, this is a biography of a living person that we are dealing with, and Future Perfect at Sunrise has, at every turn, explained via Wikipedia policy why a non-free photo of a living person is not a viable solution. In discussions about non-free content, it's not just whether or not this is a pretty picture, but it must meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria in order to stay around. This is very much the case where, despite many !votes of "keep" in this discussion, to close this discussion as such would go against policy, and I refuse to close against policy and my own better judgement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free portrait of a living person. Subject is a soldier who was recently decorated and has been a member of a special unit, whose members are normally granted anonymity and "protected identity" status. Uploader argues that because of this status, getting a free image of him now would be not only impossible but illegal. However, it makes no sense to assume his protected id status is still in force, when he and the military itself have most definitely blown his cover. A comparison with a similar case is instructive: in 2009, another member of the same unit was decorated. According to [2], the MoD went to great lengths to conceal his identity: media were asked to not name him, no photographs were published, he was not allowed to give interviews, because apparently he "wished to return to active service". In the present case, photographs were published, interviews were given, and names were revealed. Either this person in fact doesn't plan to continue serving in the special unit, or they have waived his protected status for some other reason; in any case, it makes no sense to assume continued secrecy when his name and pictures are in fact already all over the place. If it was illegal to show him, we wouldn't even have an article, would we? We are thus back at our standard rule that non-free pictures of living persons are deemed replaceable as a matter of routine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the photo is still a member of the SASR: [3] As such, it's very unlikely that he'll be appearing in public forums where its possible to photograph him anytime soon (if ever) so there will be no free/PD photo available for use. The photo is also important to the article as it depicts Roberts-Smith wearing his VC, which is the sole reason for his notability per WP:BIO. Given that it's not possible to replace the photo with a free alternative due to the subject's occupation and is being used appropriately, I really don't see which of the non-free content criteria is being violated. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that he's wearing the medal is of no importance. He presumably looks the same with the medal and without. The fact that he got it is not in need of illustration, as it can easily be conveyed through text. A photograph in, for instance, civilian clothes would be an entirely valid replacement. And I cannot infer from the article you cite that he will still be working under the same "protected identity" regime. As I said, claiming such a regime for him now would be obviously self-defeating and nonsensical. We cannot at the same time be publishing a Wikipedia article complete with his name and photograph, which will make him visible all over the net, and claiming we are concerned about protecting his identity. BTW, his father happens to be a public figure, whose mail address can probably be found. Has anybody tried writing to him to ask him if he has a nice picture of his son that he could release? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my understanding is that the Department of Defence is controlling the release of this information, thus they are allowing media organisations to use Commonwealth copyrighted images in limited circumstances, as per the copyright disclaimer that has been placed on the image. Any images that are available will be those that are ultimately sourced back to Defence as the copyright holder, and thus no "free" images will be available to replace this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a currently serving member of the SASR the soldier's identity is still protected by the law as I asserted when I contested the speedy deletion nomination (regardlessof the images being released). As such it is not possible for us to obtain a suitable photograph OTHER THAN those released to the media by the Australian Department of Defence or those taken by accredited media at special publicity events so authorised by the DoD (such as the ceremony today where he recieved the award - however these would also not be free images). The nominator claims "this makes no sense" because the DoD "has blown his cover" but ultimately THAT IS the policy the Australian govenment has chosen to adopt in the exceptional circumstances of the Victoria Cross being awarded to a member of the SASR. As such there is no replacement available for this image. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you written to the MoD and asked them? Please do. Have you written to his father and brother, if they would be willing and entitled to release a private photograph? Please do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Department of Defence will not release information other than under "Crown Copyright". As for contacting his family, that would be harrassment as far as I'm concerned. I certainly wouldn't respond if someone asked me for a photo of my brother (who is still serving), nor would my parents furnish photographs upon request. Even if I thought they would respond, I wouldn't do it. What right do we have to contact them? None. Families of service personnel have enough to put up with without having strangers writing to them for information. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't mean to write to the MoD to ask for a photo, but to write and ask if they still consider his identity secret. As for the family – well, yes, perhaps. But such are our standards of what we must be prepared to do in order to get a free license. We demand the same for actors, sports people, retired professors, criminals, crime victims, everyone. If we don't want to do that, the right thing to do is simply not to have a picture, and wait until somebody volunteers one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The issue is not whether his identity is secret or not. The issue is that it is illegal to take photographs of SAS members without DoD authority. (Note: DoD, not MoD). As all but one person above has said repeatedly, it is not possible to legally obtain a free-use public domain photograph. It is for this sort of situation that policies for "fair-use" of non-free images exist; I disgree with your conclusion: If we don't want to do that, the right thing to do is simply not to have a picture. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: there's something interesting about the previous comparable case. Last time a special forces member got a VC, after they apparently first tried to keep his identity secret, they later decided that he could continue in the SAS even with his "cover blown" [4]. They even sent him on a "promotional tour" before sending him back to the front. And this meant his normal "protected identity" status, and hence, the prohibition of photographs, was explicitly waived ("it was necessary to discontinue Trooper Donaldson's protected identity status"). Indeed, the web is now awash with photographs like this and this. It seems reasonable to assume that the same waiver has been effected in the present case: the prohibition of photographs and the prohibition of naming him evidently go together. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those images are governed by copyright, and none of them could be used to demonstrate the historical event of the award. Additionally, they would have been vetted by the Department of Defence before being approved for publication by individual media outlets. These are "controlled" information releases. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Original rationale statement is fine and replicates that for an equivalent image previously allowed. Use of the UK example is irrelevant. Better precedence is the other recipient of the VC for Australia, Mark Donaldson. Protected status for Donaldson and Roberts-Smith is more complicated than in the case of other members of the Australian special forces community and could better be characterised as 'controlled identity' (for want of a better or different official description). Yes his identity has been released, but there are still a bunch of tight controls that exist - most of which are not readily known to the wider public. Unthinking interpretations of WP:NFCC - 1 No Free Equivalent should be avoided. PD equivalents are currently unavailable. Whilst it is theoretically possible that a PD equivalent could be created (this is definitionally true for anything/anyone that is contemporary) that is not the intent of the policy. The policy is intended to serve two purposes to avoid copyright infringement and, where feasible, to provide content that is freely redistributable and there are different standards applied to these two aspects. Rightly we require a rigourous justification for usage if the copyright conditions do not cover usage on Wikipedia. In this instance, there is no problem as the copyright provisions of the Australian Defence Force allow for use in the context of Wikipedia and the caveats of these provisions have been complied with. Thus there is no need for further onerous justification to protect Wikipedia from claims of copyright infringement. In relation to the second purpose, to provide freely redistributable content, if there is an appropriate PD image available then it should be used in preference to a non-PD image, however to best provide for Wikipedia's encylopaedic role, we should not be deleting a suitable non-PD image on the off-chance that a PD image might turn up at some time in the future. We should be using the non-PD image (where its use can be justified with respect to copyright) and then if and when a PD photo becomes available then the image may be replaced. In the case at hand, a PD image is unlikely to become available in the short to medium term. It is unclear whether Corporal Roberts-Smith intends to participate in public events in the way that Corporal Donaldson, VC has, notwithstanding, even if he does, his presence at the events is highly unlikely to be announced publically in advance (one of the measures I alluded to earlier). Consequently, there is little prospect of a Wikipedian deliberately attending an event to obtain a photograph - any PD photos that may become available will be 'Photos of opportunity' and there is no certainty as to how long it may be before such a photo becomes available. In the meantime, the current photo value adds to the article and is legally usable by Wikipedia. AusTerrapin (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the person who removed the speedy deletion tag, not because I was convinced that the file and rationale for use was satisfactory, but because I thought it case for it was solid enough for it to have a fair hearing. This allowed AusTerrapin to make a very persuasive argument that use of this image is within the bounds set by WP:NFCC and I support his argument. I would add to the discussion the very real controversy over unauthorised photography of Willie Apiata (who I note has a freely licenced image) that can be found here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Roberts-Smith VC - arbitrary h5 for editing convenience

Further update: it has now been confirmed that R.-S. will be sent on a tour of several months of public appearances "in public spotlight" [5]. If those are going to be anything like those M. Donaldson did, taking photographs of him will be most definitely possible. (For instance, there are multiple images on the web where Donaldson is marching at the head of a public parade, along a street lined by thousands of people, any of whom obviously could have held a camera the moment he walked past. The myth that such photographs would be "illegal" is fast falling apart.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the news article provided by Matinbgn about the controversy surrounding the photographing of Willie Apiata and the restricitions in place in both NZ and Australia about photographing members of the special forces (here)? Are you going to discuss the specific points raised above about the claim of fair use or just continue to insist on the same point that this image is somehow replacable with a PD version? As AusTerrapin has written a good summary of this claim I would be interested in your response to it. Specifically it seems clear that there is no question of copyright infringement given that the image was released to the media by the Australian Department of Defence for use in reporting the event (without any further permission required) and given that there is currently no PD version available claims that this breeches WP:NFCC - 1 No Free Equivalent seem equally incorrect IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Willie Apiata case, problems were raised because they had pictured him while in action. Nobody has suggested you should go follow R.-S. into Afghanistan and photograph him there, so please don't argue strawmen here. But you have avoided my point: if some bystander had taken a snapshot of Donaldson from the pavement during that public parade and put it on Flickr, or if one of the kids who were present at this scene had brought their own camera along, are you seriously claiming they'd get in trouble with the law? For showing the same scene that professional journalists were also showing anyway? That is so absurd it's really not worth discussing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Furure Perfect. At the risk of sounding like a cracked record:

Did you read the news article provided by Matinbgn?
Are you going to discuss the specific points raised above?

Awaiting your relevant response. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read it, and I just answered about the point. (You do sound like a cracked record.) What was being objected to was the fact that they showed him while fighting, not the fact that they showed him as such, as he was shown while "paraded in front of the public". The only other "specific point" I think I haven't responded to is the argument that the present picture would be valid fair use. Yes, of course. I never questioned that. But Wikipedia's NFC rules are more stringent than US fair use law. It has to be legal fair use and irreplaceable. Now, are you going to answer my question? Have you written to the D.o.D. and asked them if the kids here would have gone to jail if they had taken a pic of themselves with Donaldson and put it on Facebook? I'm not going to accept your word for it, please ask and report what the D.o.D. says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, I did read it" - good.

"(You do sound like a cracked record.)" - Well, if it gets you back on topic, I can live with that.

And now we get to the point that everyone's been making, and you appear to have been avoiding:

"the argument that the present picture would be valid fair use. Yes, of course. I never questioned that." - True. But you never answered it or addressed it, either. Thank you for the clarification! Perhaps we can now move ahead? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It has to be legal fair use and irreplaceable." - Hmmm. Sounding like a cracked record again. It is. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Have you written to the D.o.D. and asked them ... " - Of course I haven't. That would be a completely pointless exercise. In case you hadn't noticed, they are a government department. There is NO way that any government department in ANY country is going to make an official statement that "it is OK to break the law".

Get real. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am disputing that any law would be broken. If a professional photographer (for Getty images) can produce such images, what law would be broken if a private citizen did the same? You haven't actually cited any law. Cite it. So far we have heard only that the military follows a policy of withholding some information, but nothing about an actual law that would restrict private citizens from transmitting such information once for whatever reason it has been released. Not even in the article about the Apiata case was there any hint that the journalists in question did anything illegal. So, prove that there is a law, and prove that it would cover the case of a soldier whose protected identity status has explicitly been waived by the government. Also, prove that the images we see on the web (not those released by the military, but those created and released by third parties) could be published only because the military specifically "vetted" them, as somebody further up claimed. This is all entirely unsubstantiated, and I'm not buying any of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just in case you didn't notice, for Willie Apiata (the guy that article was about), we actually do have a free photograph (File:Bill Apiata.jpg). Taken during a visit to a school, i.e. exactly the kind of publicity appearances that Donaldson also did, and that we can now safely expect from R.-S. too. Prima facie evidence that such images are both practically possible and legal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without more information (that I don't currently have), I can't make a useful comment. Yet. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2011 (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:ChevolutionPoster.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. The usage in Che Guevara in popular culture was completely disregarded, because no fair use rationale was provided for that usage. For the use in Guerrillero Heroico, it is very difficult to justify a non-free image against WP:NFCC#8 when it is placed in the "further reading" section of an article, where the only mention of it is one line in the further reading section. Future Perfect at Sunrise and J Milburn have adequately made their case as to why this image does not qualify. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film is mentioned, but that is not a reason to use the poster. Further, the image is currently being used merely to decorate a list of films/books. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all images in a way are "decoration" - however this poster accompanies a list of films on the image and is the definitive one on the subject. For anyone interested in learning more about the article topic after reading the article - this film would be a logical next step. Nothing is gained with its removal; however some degree of additional visual understanding is potentially lost. Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Guerrillero Heroico is a rare example of an article on a truly "iconic" historic image that can validly support not just one but quite a number non-free items (the original and its various notable derivatives). But this one is not really one that's needed, in addition to the many that are already there, given that little or no actual commentary about this particular adaptation is offered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have included the poster at Che Guevara in popular culture where the film is mentioned and relevant as well. Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film is "mentioned and relevant", the poster is not. Adding non-free images to more articles is not a good way to convince people that they are needed... J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And noting "this image is used as well on the Che Guevara in popular culture article under the same rationale" and blaming templates does not serve as a rationale. I think you need to refamiliarise yourself with our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, I removed the "template" because the 7 days to reach consensus for deletion had expired (it seems you are now relisting it again). As for the image, I have never heard of a single incident in the entire history of Wikipedia where a film company voiced concern that their promotional poster was utilized in an article where their movie was mentioned. If anything the companies who produce films want their promotional movie poster to be disseminated as widely as possible (and if anything are more likely to insert it themselves). To assert that using such posters would be problematic from a copyright front is absurd and disingenuous. Using such images do not subtract from an article’s quality, nor place Wikipedia out of copyright compliance. Their inclusion also does not violate WP:NFCC which I am sufficiently "familiar" with. Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those do exist, just ask anyone who works with the OTRS system. This violates several non-free content policies specifically #8. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ΔT, if so I'd love to see an example. As for #8 - that is your opinion (which you are entitled to), but not a fact. The film depicted in the poster is about the image and its effect on Che in popular culture. The documentary is highly relevant to both articles, and would be the first source I would recommend to any reader who had further interest in either topic. It assists in furthering an understanding of the article topics. Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then answer me one simple question, why are the two pages required to have this image? and why can the reader not understand the topic of the articles without it? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ΔT, no image is "required" to be included on any article - however, certain images can improve the quality of an article. Our objective here is to further the understanding of article topics. By including the image to this documentary (which is centered around the topic of both articles) it increases the likelihood that a user who is browsing the article (rather than reading word for word) will visually be intrigued and possibly seek out the film to learn more. If they are reading an article on the Che photo or his presence in popular culture, then one can fairly assume that they have at least a nominal interest in the topic (and perhaps a sincere and genuine interest to look into the topic further). I’ve never understood the degree of copyright paranoia that exists by some users on this site (constantly seeking to remove images that if anything do their creator a favor by promoting their product). I would bet that if a representative of the film saw this image in the article they would be pleased, and not object. If you are actually arguing that they would be offended or want its removal, then you clearly don’t understand why a promotional poster such as this is created in the first place. Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) Redthoreau, the argument that copyright holders WANT us to use their content is empty. It has no bearing at all on whether to keep or remove this image. None. The only one raising copyright issues here is you. WP:NFCC policy is deliberately and considerably more restrictive than Fair Use law. Just because we can use non-free media doesn't mean we should. We are developing a free content resource here, free as in libre, as as in free to use. See Gratis versus Libre. Also see m:Mission. Whether or not a copyright holder wants us to use their work or not does not change WP:NFCC policy. Some organizations try to get us to stop using their emblems. Even the FBI tried to get us to STOP using their seal. They failed. On the opposite site, some organizations try to get us to use their material by permission here. That's a criteria for speedy deletion. See WP:CSD#F3. If we use media under our terms of WP:NFCC, what an outside organization wants to have happen with that emblem us completely irrelevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant delete The image is being used decoratively. The documentary Chevolution is mentioned in the two articles where it it used, but the film's poster is not discussed in any way at all. I.e., there's no connection between the text and the significance of the poster. Any reader of either article is not going to be at a loss to understand either article without the film's poster. Blatant fail of WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, ah yes, the wonderfully vague catch-all WP:NFCC #8, a favorite of all those who suffer from fair use image paranoia on Wikipedia. It states:
8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
Notice how use of the words "significantly" and "detrimental" are matters of opinion (not indisputable fact), that are more likely to be in the proverbial "eye of the beholder" (or perhaps more accurately, "eye of the person who actually understands the topic and has actually seen the documentary in question, and thus is in a better position than others who randomly opine - to gauge the accuracy of its presumed significance") ... But I digress, it is obvious from your user page that you believe Wikipedia suffers from a scourge of "375,000" images that need deletion (most probably based on that handy & ambiguous WFCC #8) so I'm not really sure there is any argument I could make here that would convince you. But luckily, it appears that since the Wiki "Files for deletion" page, is more likely to be frequented by those users who like to universally vote for deletion, this will end up being a snowball result. Ah well, I guess it is all part of the harmonious diametrical balance where some users build the encyclopedia through their contributions, and others guard it from perceived/imaginary NFCC infringement by eradicating images from articles. Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't change the fact that the poster isn't discussed in the articles using secondary source citation to support such discussion. Without it, the poster is merely decoration. That is a routine and obvious failure of WP:NFCC #8. This very same issue is why we don't permit album covers in discographies, book covers in bibliographies, etc. Would it be useful to permit them? Sure. But, we don't. The simple mention of a movie is not sufficient reason to include a non-free image. That in your opinion the article requires the image after seeing the documentary and thus we need to have the image would count as original research, which is against policy here as well. Attacking my position to delete this image based on my userpage is beyond the pale. I urge you to reconsider doing so, and also read and understand that you should comment on content, not the author. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, of course the "poster itself" isn't likely to be mentioned, but the documentary that the poster is advertising is. Even an article on a movie itself won't likely have a mention of the promotional poster that is included in the infobox. It is also ridiculous to call it "decoration", I'm not placing random flower pictures throughout an article. As for WP:NPA, if you don't want users to question your objectivity on image deletion discussions then it might be best not to have the first thing they see when they click on your name be the statement: "With roughly 375,000 copyrighted images, Wikipedia is the world's largest repository of copyrighted images. Whoever thinks we've managed to stay focused on our m:mission, please contact me. I'd like to buy some of what you're smoking." ---> There is a difference between assuming it's raining in WP:good faith, and having you announce beforehand that you intend to piss on my leg. Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was an article about the documentary (one that can be sustained with secondary sources), then it would be appropriate for the image to be included on that article. Using the image outside of its article requires a significantly stronger rationale. That is why you rarely see album covers outside of the article about that album, for example. As for your continuing attack upon me based upon my userpage, I'm sorry you think I'm pissing on your leg. Regardless, I could just as well tear you apart for your userpage. Your opinion of me and my userpage has no bearing on this discussion. I strongly suggest you read WP:NPA, specifically where it states "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." If you don't like my userpage, then don't read it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2011 (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:Dixiao.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file. Was used in Di xiao before it was deleted. MGA73 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2011 (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:Njtp.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 – Danger (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted New Jersey Turnpike toll ticket. Additionally, if listed as non-free, also fails WP:NFCC#8, as it lacks contextual significance in both places where it is used, as a picture of the turnpike ticket is not necessary to understand the concept. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me this looks just like simple text. I see no creative work there so I don't think this is eligible for copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's likely more than just simple text - enough to meet a threshold of originality to be copyrightable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with MGA73 here, this doesn't appear like copyrightable work. It's a list a of entries, numbers and a basic table. It doesn't seem to meet the threshold of originality to me. If these were full on sentences, then that text could probably be copyrighted, but it isn't the case here. — ξ ^xplicit 00:34, 31 January 2011 (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:EdmarBDaSilva.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 17:41, 23 January 2011 (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:Croat haplogroups.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and lack of description makes it hard to use it. MGA73 (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2011 (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:Dan-o.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File is unused and I doubt it can be used. It was used in these edits [6] but as you can see it did not stay long before it was reverted. The file is also a derivative work. Other unused files like this:
File:Dan-O phbooth.JPG
File:A Big One.JPG

So I suggest we delete all three files. MGA73 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (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:ISMDDepartmentOfMathematics.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and low res. MGA73 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2011 (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:ITALOGO.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Low res. Not sure what it is the logo for. MGA73 (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2011 (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:NewmanSocMT03.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File is unused. No forseen usage. MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2011 (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:MobileAgentch4-Activities.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and it could also be copyrighted. MGA73 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2011 (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:MobileAgentch4-Activities.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and it could also be copyrighted. MGA73 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2011 (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:Wolfgang Staehle's Flight 11.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this image slightly distasteful, since it resembles more of an advertisement with the GIF animation. I think the article would be better without it, and the use of still images should suffice. Hugahoody (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i'd say delete too, not because of distastefulness, but because the still images are much better and enhance the reader's understanding much more than the GIF does. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very low quality, no rationale for use, mentioned in the article but tangential. No real use. If we're going to venture into non-free media to depict the plane hitting, we have a lot better video from street level available out there. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2011 (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:Screamer teddy bear.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image does not, in my opinion, significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Whereas an image such as File:Screamer.jpg depicts something which which is unique to the film, the "teddy bear screamer" is indistinguishable from a regular teddy bear. The portions of the relevant text—"he plays with the teddy bear that was carried by the first 'type 3' he encountered, before tossing it up onto the control console" and "the teddy bear begins to slowly move on its own"—are clear enough without this image of the teddy. As there is no detailed critical commentary of this particular shot (the closing shot), the image does not meet the non-free content criteria. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholly unnecessary to the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2011 (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.