Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 3

< January 2	January 4 >

January 3

File:Kamerun.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 ⚡ 03:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyright not held by uploader as claimed Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-- This version should be deleted as it exists on Commons under the same filename. If there's a permission concern this should go to WP:PUF. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:50, 8 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:Corcovado Rack Railcar.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 ⚡ 03:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to locate original source - it was apparently deleted as a duplicate, but I can't find the duplicate anywhere. Kelly ^hi! 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I copied this image from Wikipedia Germany back in 2005. The original photographer had uploaded it there, with what looked (to me) like a perfectly valid release to the public domain. I copied this release across, and it is still there to be seen. As you say, the copy on Wikipedia Germany seems to have been deleted as a duplicate (presumably of this copy), but looking at WP:DEL#REASON that does not seem to be a valid reason for deletion from here. It has a valid license assigned to it, and has all the appearance of having been validly released to the public domain by its originator. There is (as far as I can tell) no suggestion of this being a copyvio. Could you therefore be a bit more explicit about which of the criteria under WP:DEL#REASON you think applies here?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just realised that this image was removed from the article back in 2007, so it is now an orphan. If commons had existed back in 2005, I would obviously have copied the picture there, but the time for that has probably gone. Perhaps tidier to get rid of it. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 20:33, 8 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:NPCflag.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 ⚡ 03:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted non-free logo used only in user space. Kelly ^hi! 02:04, 3 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:ALYONA AZERNAYA 02.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 ⚡ 10:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, and questionable copyright status. Is this painting the uploader's own work, or is this a derivative work of someone else's painting for which we have no evidence of permission? SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:00, 3 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:Depression.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G3 by Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a digitally manipulated version (fake face added) of the original image File:UnemployedMarch.jpg. Image should be deleted ASAP LK (talk) 06:07, 3 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:Zscore.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 ⚡ 10:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replaceable with

$z{=}{{\bar {y}}-\mu {\bar {y}} \over \sigma {\bar {y}}}$ Skier Dude (talk 06:10, 3 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:Titanicbandmembers.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 G3 by Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a digitally manipulated version (fake face added) of the original image File:Titanic orchetra.jpg. Image should be deleted ASAP LK (talk) 06:15, 3 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:Pope Elhanan.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 ⚡ 10:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, inadequate copyright info. Kelly ^hi! 06:20, 3 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:MeanStatistic.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 ⚡ 10:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replaceable with

${\bar {y}}{=}{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}yi \over n}$ Skier Dude (talk 06:21, 3 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:Doctor Who A Christmas Carol.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. Of the two "keep" !votes, neither is able to rectify the image with WP:NFCC#8, which TreasuryTag and Fourthords rightly cite. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easily replaceable by words and inessential to readers' understanding of the topic ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 06:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first that the idea of a flying shark in one's bedroom is far from commonplace to require inclusion for clarity's purpose; there is a piece of information I could add that makes the image even more relevent that I cannot source myself, which is that Moffat included the idea of a shark flying into one's bedroom as part of his childhood nightmares. That comes from the Doctor Who Confidential that aired in the UK after this episode, but not in the US (so I've been told), so I can't tell you the exact wording or video details, and since we're prone to remove unsourced details in these DW articles. Even the pre-airing media suggested the importance of the shark to this episode, so this can be a discussed aspect of the work. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of, "a flying shark in a bedroom," is so ambiguous that it needs illustration? ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 10:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What makes this image offensive, yet an image used in an identical context in The Pandorica Opens seems OK? Or, for that matter any of the other episode images used? Or has Wikipedia image policy changed again and such images are now forbidden? Or is the image of the shark what's causing the trouble, and replacing it with another screen capture showing Abigail might rectify the problem? 68.146.64.9 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:OSE then? ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 10:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing in the article that requires use of this copyrighted image to understand (WP:NFCC#8). The facts of the image are, as nominated, describable with libre prose (WP:NFCC#1). — Fourthords ^{| =/\=} | 04:27, 8 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:Richard jadick newsweek cover.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 way the non-free image is placed on the article, in the top right, strongly suggests that it is currently only being used to show what the still-living subject looks like, which is a no-no per WP:NFCC#1. Whether being on the cover of Newsweek is worth mentioning or not is beyond the scope of this discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copyright-protected magazine cover is being used as an illustration for person depicted on the cover (although the rationale pretends otherwise). The cover image is not helpful to the article nor is the cover story ever mentioned (just external-linked). Damiens.rf 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comment ("the rationale pretends otherwise") to be unnecessarily discourteous. I'm hoping that wasn't your intention. When I uploaded that image, there was a paragraph in the article about the magazine article. The paragraph was subsequently deleted, and I agree that without it, the image has no legitimate purpose. As the creator of that article, however, I think the fact that a subject was hailed as a hero on the cover of a national magazine is worthy of mention. The cover shot and the events the magazine covered are why this guy is worthy of an entry. That's a topic for discussion at the page for that article, but in light if that, I'd request that you undo your request for a speedy delete while we hash that out there. Thank you. Anson2995 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article is to mention the fact that the guy was "hailed as a hero on the cover of a national magazine", why would we need to see the the actual cover image? Can't you convey this information with free text alone? What's so special about the specific photo used by the magazine? --Damiens.rf 16:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no need to see any images with articles, frankly. But that's not the criteria for determining whether an image may be used under wikipedia's fair use policy. The criteria is whether the image is used "in the context of critical commentary of that item." I think the editors of that article need to discuss whether that content should be restored/added to the article. I agree that it's not appropriate to use a magazine cover simply for illustration, or simply because we mention that it exists. Anson2995 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kelly ^hi! 05:27, 6 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:Gallery 03c-JimJerryBrown.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, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary copyright-protected image showing two guys meeting used just to make the point that the two guys once met. All relevant information can be conveyed with text alone. Damiens.rf 14:23, 3 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:Jonestown-Newsweek1978 CutOfDeath 2.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, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted magazine cover being used just to decorate paragraphs mentioning the news coverage itself. The imagery is not necessary for the understanding of the text. Damiens.rf 14:25, 3 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:Time CultOfDeath Cover.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, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted magazine cover being used just to decorate paragraphs mentioning the news coverage itself. The imagery is not necessary for the understanding of the text. Damiens.rf 14:25, 3 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:Adam and eve newsweek cover.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, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copyright-protected magazine cover used solely to decorate one item in a list about "media coverage" about the article's topic. The item can be understood by the reader without the aid of this copyright-protected image. Damiens.rf 14:28, 3 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:JonesMondaleMmoscone.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, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary copyright-protected image showing two guys meeting used just to make the point that the two guys once met. All relevant information can be conveyed with text alone. Damiens.rf 14:28, 3 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:Jonestown.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 January 24.
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: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#2: Copyrighted image copied from Brittanica used "to illustrate the events depicted on the image". Damiens.rf 14:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. I think the limited use is, arguably, within the fair use rationale, and it is a unique image of something quite notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The image could, even by me, be described as distasteful. But, as I think it can somehow describe the events and final results that the article should try to do, I feel that just words can not do justice to such a bizarre act. Therefor I think the picture needs to stay. Lokpest (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not agree that the reader needs a picture of laid down people to help her to achieve a complete understanding of a text about the mass suicide on Jonestown. I, for one, have learned about this story without seeing this specif image, nor any equivalent one. The photo causes some impact, but it is not a necessary imagery. And in any case, I don't think we have built a case for ripping material from Brittanica. --Damiens.rf 13:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I appreciate that balancing fair use against commercial rights is often a gray area, but there is such a thing as fair use, and it appears that I'm not alone in disagreeing with you about the fact that this image uniquely shows something important. The argument that it is possible to learn about a topic from text alone is, to me, an unconvincing one. Carried ad absurdum, one could just as well argue for removing all images from Wikipedia, text only. Here, the image is informative, and not simply a decoration. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 7 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:Gallery 09a-RepeatIt.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 Bkell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#2 Valuable image copied from Bettman/Corbis just because it fits our needs. Damiens.rf 14:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reason as for File:Jonestown.jpg Lokpest (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fair use rationale on this image currently is not up to specifications. The image description page has been tagged to indicate what the problem is with the fair use rationale. If this fair use rationale is not corrected, this file will be deleted regardless of the outcome of the discussion for failing WP:NFCC#10. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I haven't worked with non-free rationales before, I have tried to fix this. My apologizes if I screwed up. Lokpest (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, though your fair use rationale kind of cements the reason we need to delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This image runs afoul of WP:NFCC#8, as we already have another image, albeit a non-free one, showing lots of dead bodies scattered around, and that image was earlier closed as keep at FFD (see above). Additionally, as this is from an agency, it falls afoul of guidelines at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, as the photo itself is from a press agency, and is not itself the subject of sourced commentary. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:34, 12 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:HDI & Electricity per capita.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned graph. Kelly ^hi! 17:02, 3 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:Phong-components.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 17:08, 3 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:Himmler to Mufti telegram 1943.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image, replaceable by text. Kelly ^hi! 17:18, 3 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:Heptazine correct.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned low quality image, replaced by File:Heptazine correct.svg. Leyo 17:23, 3 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:Knot-graphic-stub.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OB, OR. Not used/needed. Admrboltz (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. --Kumioko (talk) 18:01, 3 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:PCP.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 Leyo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, redundant to File:Phencyclidine.svg Kelly ^hi! 17:57, 3 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:PCP.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, redundant to File:Phencyclidine.svg Kelly ^hi! 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SVG bug, alternatives in Commons:Category:Phencyclidine. --Leyo 23:30, 3 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:Flavin.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, redundant to File:Flavin mononucleotide.png Kelly ^hi! 18:07, 3 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:Nicotine.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, redundant to File:Nicotine.svg Kelly ^hi! 18:14, 3 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:Confocalprinciple.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, redundant to File:Confocalprinciple in English.svg Kelly ^hi! 18:20, 3 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:Hseries.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, apparently obsoleted. Kelly ^hi! 18:38, 3 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:Ripple tank.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, replaced by File:Simple ripple tank.svg Kelly ^hi! 18:41, 3 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:Expo Zaragoza Qatar stamp.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-free postage stamp image being used in non-stamp article fails WP:NFC#Images. It is being used without any critical commentary about the stamp itself and the current prose well describes the issuance of the stamp so omitting the non-free image does not detract from the reader's understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep a good article about the history of the stamp and how it was chosen could be written. Then the file would be useful. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: with about 10,000 stamps issued annually I can't see anything notable about this one that would warrant an individual article nor can I see one being written by any of the wiki philatelists. Around 50 such articles currently exist and are listed here so you see that very few stamps are notable enough to get their own article especially if there are no reliable sources to support it. I can only get exactly one Google hit for this one and that is for this image. Right now there is no such article for this stamp unless you can write it. ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kelly ^hi! 05:29, 6 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:Secretariat Stamp.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all post-1978 US stamps are copyright and must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria and this 1999 non-free postage stamp image is being used in a non-stamp article so fails WP:NFC#Images. It is being used without any critical commentary about the stamp itself and the current prose well describes the issuance of the stamp so omitting the non-free image does not detract from the reader's understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 18:58, 3 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:Children-Ltrs-to-Santa-2010-Australia.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete: Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria and this 2010 non-free postage stamp image is being used in a non-stamp article so firstly fails WP:NFC#Images. It is being used without any critical commentary about the stamp itself and prose can well described the production and issuance of the stamp so omitting the non-free image does not detract from the reader's understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 19:09, 3 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:Ideogram ji.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified subject, used only an old achived talk page for absent user. Kelly ^hi! 19:13, 3 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:Salamstamp.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete: this 1998 Pakistan postage stamps is copyright for 50 years after the death of the author per commons:COM:L#Pakistan and this non-free postage stamp image being used in a non-stamp article so fails WP:NFC#Images. It is being used without any critical commentary about the stamp itself and the current prose well describes the issuance of the stamp so omitting the non-free image does not detract from the reader's understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC#8. Also we have no information about the status of the photo used on the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 19:20, 3 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:Dopamine.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Commons image with same name. Kelly ^hi! 19:22, 3 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:Khauxanas stamps.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-free postage stamp image being used in a non-stamp article fails WP:NFC#Images. It is being used without any critical commentary about the stamp itself and the current prose well describes the issuance of the stamp so omitting the non-free image does not detract from the reader's understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC#8. A freely licenced image of the subject already exists in the article. ww2censor (talk) 19:25, 3 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:Stamputtamkumar.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete: all Indian stamps are copyright for 50 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria and this 2009 non-free postage stamp image is being used in a non-stamp article so fails WP:NFC#Images. It is being used without any critical commentary about the stamp itself and the current prose well describes the issuance of the stamp honouring the subject so omitting the non-free image does not detract from the reader's understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 19:30, 3 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:Stamp Morocco SBC.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Morocco stamps are copyright for 50 years per commons:COM:L#Morocco and must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria and this 1994 non-free postage stamp image is being used in a non-stamp article so fails WP:NFC#Images. It is being used without any critical commentary about the stamp itself but the current prose describes the issuance of the stamp well so omitting the non-free image does not detract from the reader's understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 19:44, 3 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:Thales-theorem.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, obsoleted by File:Thales' Theorem Simple.svg Kelly ^hi! 19:59, 3 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:E-tripartite-pact.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: no consensus. The discussion seems to hinge on whether or not the image is free or not. There seems to be no consensus here to do anything, but I do find the uncertain legal status of the image to be troubling. I encourage users to research the exact status of this image, and then possibly revisit this matter in the future once we determine exactly what the license status of the image is. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary copyrighted photograph of an historic day, used to decorate an article about this historic day, although the article can be completely understood without the aid of this illustration. Damiens.rf 20:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed. We do not need to a see a picture of a group of men at a table to understand this article. J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-you deletionists just don't get that an image is part of the story-this is a historic event, just reading text doesn't do it justice.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image illustrates the event's intended branding message in a way that words alone cannot convey. --Tenmei (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is a historic event, but not an historic image. --Damiens.rf 16:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is the only known photo of this historic event (as the license tag on the image states). This image is not replaceable, and removing the image would be to the detriment of the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's replaceable by free text. --Damiens.rf 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it is relevant here, but... no, it's not "the only known photo of this historic event", unless by "known" you mean "known by me". --Damiens.rf 17:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In any case, what is not clear is precisely what this image is adding to the article. You assert that "removing the image would be to the detriment of the article", but our question should not be "can we get away with keeping it?" it should be "could the article manage without it?" J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain. Further research reveals that this photo is confiscated Nazi property; and this image is considered in the public domain in the US and UK according to a note at Commons: Category:Heinrich Hoffmann. Heinrich Hoffman was Adolph Hitler's personal photographer, and the captured archive of his official photos have been released. --Tenmei (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's really public domain (I can't judge by myself), it should be tagged as such and be kept and used wherever it fits our needs. Also, remove the "fair use rationale". --Damiens.rf 16:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not PD I haven't looked into the PD claims, but this photo is not adding significantly to readers' understanding. It's just a bunch of men sitting there. I can understand the pact without seeing an image of men sitting. Fails WP:NFCC8. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The saying "A picture is worth a thousand words" comes to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.150.90 (talk • contribs)

Now that this has been shown to be public domain, and several prominent editors have made the case for PD, can we close this?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several prominent editors? --Damiens.rf 15:31, 10 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:Slansky at trial.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted photograph of a man at his trial, used just to decorate the article about his trial. The article does not need this illustration. Damiens.rf 20:15, 3 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:Building-apartment.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable. These buildings, or others of this kinds, still exists. Damiens.rf 20:16, 3 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:01-jones-jim.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a free picture of Jim Jones. Damiens.rf 20:17, 3 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:SlaskyAtTrial proces3.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted photograph of a man at his trial, used just to decorate the article about his trial. The article does not need this illustration. Damiens.rf 20:17, 3 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:Line-for-luxuries.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can understand the idea of "oscow workers lining up outside a store to buy high quality shoes in the former Soviet Union" without the aid of copyrighted work. Damiens.rf 20:19, 3 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:Gallic acid.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, obsoleted by File:Gallic acid.svg Kelly ^hi! 20:20, 3 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:Silk-spinner.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free decorative cruft. There's nothing special about silk spinning machines operation in the former Soviet Union to the point that we would need to use non-free images to talk about them ("in former Soviet Union, silk machines spin you^{[citation needed]}") Damiens.rf 20:22, 3 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:Assembling-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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free decorative cruft. Damiens.rf 20:23, 3 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:Germans and Soviets demarcation BT.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 ⚡ 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free photograph showing soldiers at a tank doing something very important and notable, although seeing this image is not necessary at all for understanding what they were all up to. Damiens.rf 20:27, 3 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:Iec nor.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 ⚡ 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, obsoleted by File:NOR IEC.svg Kelly ^hi! 21:16, 3 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:Iec or.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 ⚡ 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, obsoleted by File:IEC OR.svg Kelly ^hi! 21:17, 3 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:Kit1.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 ⚡ 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality. Kelly ^hi! 21:18, 3 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:Electronic Amplifier Push-pull.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 ⚡ 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, obsoleted by File:Electronic Amplifier Push-pull.svg Kelly ^hi! 21:21, 3 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:BPL-Main.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 ⚡ 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. Kelly ^hi! 21:22, 3 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:Mask.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 ⚡ 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current version probably non-free, none of the versions in history worth saving. Kelly ^hi! 21:32, 3 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:Nl-map.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 ⚡ 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned map. Kelly ^hi! 22:25, 3 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:Champagne-marmite.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 ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images of Marmite jars. Usage in the Marmite article fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, and WP:NFCC#8—we don't need to use non-free images to show all of the limited-edition Marmite jars when we have plenty of free images in the article already (File:Marmite.jpg, File:Marmite Jars.jpg, File:Our Mate jar of UK Made Marmite Spread branded for sale in Australia.JPG, and anything in the Marmite category at the Commons). —Bkell (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we have free images of the Guinness Marmite jar: File:Marmite-Guinness edition.JPG and File:Marmite-Two editions.JPG. —Bkell (talk) 23:16, 3 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:SOEgeorgestarr.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 3 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:NZ Marmite Vegemite.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image has confused licensing information. It lists [1] as a source, which no longer exists, and claims "fair use", but is tagged with {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. I don't know if anyone can clear up the copyright status of this image, but if not it appears we have no evidence that this has been released by the copyright holder under the claimed Creative Commons license. —Bkell (talk) 23:24, 3 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:Beerchan.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:39, 3 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:Before midnight by amazingPhotoboy.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:41, 3 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:Where was I at 3 33a m by amazingPhotoboy.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:43, 3 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:Img269 copy.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:43, 3 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:Before morning arag.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:43, 3 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:Beius Loc.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by standard locator map Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 3 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:Bella 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:52, 3 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:Bellamb.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:52, 3 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:BelloBandera.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Banderabello.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:53, 3 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:Belthangady map.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, likely copyright violation (photo of map of undetermined origin) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:55, 3 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 Bowles.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:55, 3 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:Benbear.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, could raise WP:BLP issues Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:56, 3 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:Bentinck.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:BLP Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:56, 3 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:Benzilic acid.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 ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:BenzilicAcid.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:57, 3 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:Berdichevsky-R.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, a 1938 russian work (so still in copyright unless someone can track down author's death date) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:58, 3 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:Betans Asia Pacific with PBEFI Logo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, probably nonfree considering logo Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:58, 3 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:Betheldrive.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:59, 3 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:Betheldrive2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:59, 3 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:Bg admiral.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, encyclopedic value unclear, I'm kind of skeptical that the uploader actually created these graphics, and these insignia are probably creative enough to be copyrighted by the show's producers Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:01, 4 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:Bg captain.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, encyclopedic value unclear, I'm kind of skeptical that the uploader actually created these graphics, and these insignia are probably creative enough to be copyrighted by the show's producers Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:01, 4 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.