Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 7

< January 6	January 8 >

January 7

File:Solaceitunes.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 ⚡ 14:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much duplicate of File:SolaceAD.jpg, per WP:NFCC we only need one CTJF83 chat 06:11, 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:Levi.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 ⚡ 02:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, redundant to File:22 Levi Morton 3x4.jpg Kelly ^hi! 06:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is it redundant of the one mentioned above there is also a file on Commons called File:Levi Morton photo portrait seated.jpg. --Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 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:John-Frémont.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 ⚡ 14:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, redundant to File:John C. Frémont - Brady-Handy.jpg Kelly ^hi! 07:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Image is unlinked. -Wikid77 11:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree its redundant and not as good of a picture quality wise. --

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Geo Bancroft, Sec of Navy.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 ⚡ 14:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, redundant ot File:George Bancroft United States Secretary of Navy c. 1860.jpg Kelly ^hi! 08:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree its redundant and not as good of a picture quality wise. --Kumioko (talk) 14:53, 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:IC map.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 per author request. Jafeluv (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Iceland CIA map trim.gif. Both files uploaded by same user. Reh man 08:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (by author). It is not needed, because the other image is clearer, and reduced 14% (45 pixels) to appear larger. File has been unlinked from other images. -Wikid77 11:14, 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:Iceland municipalities terrain 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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Iceland municipalities terrain map.gif. Both files uploaded by same user. Reh man 08:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (by author). It is not needed, because the other image is clearer, with same content. File has been unlinked from other images. -Wikid77 11:14, 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:Central Sri Lanka districts.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 ⚡ 14:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Replacements exist at Commons:Category:Maps of provinces of Sri Lanka. Reh man 10:36, 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:Piccy's poo 052.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project. Neurosys (talk) 14:55, 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:JTyler-sketch.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 ⚡ 14:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, Library of Congress has no author or date information. Kelly ^hi! 15:35, 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:L&Bbarnstaple.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free postcard of a rail station being used to illustrate the rail station itself. Also, there are free images of this rail station. Also, a free drawing could be made if needed (the postcard itself is not notable). Damiens.rf 16:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1 Section 12 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 [1] states that:

(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works

(2) Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows.

(3) If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires -

(a) at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or

(b) if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,

This image of a Lynton & Barnstaple railway station was first published in England as part of a series in 1903/04 and the author (or authors) of this hand-coloured monochrome photograph is unknown.

On this basis, I believe this work is free of copyright restriction, and therefore can be used on Wikipedia. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have helped if the source and publisher were on the image page and if it was published in 1903/1904 then it should be changed to PD-UK. Although it needs more information on the source and date first. MilborneOne (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The postcard was published by the Pictorial Stationary Company, London, as part of their "Peacock" series, in 1904/5 (not 1903/4 as I indicated earlier) the image was scanned from an original in my possesion at the time. As I loaded them - is it okay for me to update the copyright status at this stage, or should I leave that to another editor? Lynbarn (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the licence on this image - and others from the same series - to PD-UK and added the publication info. I hope that is now sufficient to remove the RFD. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's really PD it's ok. --Damiens.rf 15:33, 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:L&Bblackmoor.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free postcard of a rail station being used to illustrate the rail station itself.Also, a free drawing could be made if needed (the postcard itself is not notable). Damiens.rf 16:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1 Section 12 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 [2] states that:

(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works

(2) Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows.

(3) If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires -

(a) at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or

(b) if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,

This image of a Lynton & Barnstaple railway station was first published in England as part of a series in 1903/04 and the author (or authors) of this hand-coloured monochrome photograph is unknown.

On this basis, I believe this work is free of copyright restriction, and therefore can be used on Wikipedia. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have helped if the source and publisher were on the image page and if it was published in 1903/1904 then it should be changed to PD-UK. Although it needs more information on the source and date first. MilborneOne (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The postcard was published by the Pictorial Stationary Company, London, as part of their "Peacock" series, in 1904/5 (not 1903/4 as I indicated earlier) the image was scanned from an original in my possesion at the time. As I loaded them - is it okay for me to update the copyright status at this stage, or should I leave thatto another editor? Lynbarn (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the licence on this image - and others from the same series - to PD-UK and added the publication info. I hope that is now sufficient to remove the RFD. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:39, 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:L&Bbratton.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free postcard of a rail station being used to illustrate the rail station itself. Also, a free drawing could be made if needed (the postcard itself is not notable). Damiens.rf 16:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question We permit non-free images of public living people in certain cases to illustrate how they were at certain times; for example, I remember seeing one image being kept that depicted a famous skier at the height of his sport several decades ago. How is this different? If we base a drawing just on this image, it's going to be a derivative work. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1 Section 12 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 [3] states that:

(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works

(2) Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows.

(3) If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires -

(a) at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or

(b) if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,

This image of a Lynton & Barnstaple railway station was first published in England as part of a series in 1903/04 and the author (or authors) of this hand-coloured monochrome photograph is unknown.

On this basis, I believe this work is free of copyright restriction, and therefore can be used on Wikipedia. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have helped if the source and publisher were on the image page and if it was published in 1903/1904 then it should be changed to PD-UK. Although it needs more information on the source and date first.MilborneOne (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The postcard was published by the Pictorial Stationary Company, London, as part of their "Peacock" series, in 1904/5 (not 1903/4 as I indicated earlier) the image was scanned from an original in my possesion at the time. As I loaded them - is it okay for me to update the copyright status at this stage, or should I leave that to another editor? Lynbarn (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the licence on this image - and others from the same series - to PD-UK and added the publication info. I hope that is now sufficient to remove the RFD. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:40, 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:L'Oréal HQ.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable overused non-free image of building. Damiens.rf 16:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, under US law there's no copyright (except the photographer's copyright) in images of buildings, so this should be tagged as {{Do not move to Commons}} and have its CC-by tag restored. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I created the image. This image is not replaceable, because there is no-FOP in France, and there is not another picture on wikipedia english. The image has all the non free fair use templates needed (as far as I know) --Tangopaso (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated above, this is a non replaceable nonfree image. In France the person holding the copyright is the architect, not the photographer. It is not possible to take a free photo of this building. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep but only for the L'Oréal article, where the building is being discussed as a work of architecture, not for the town article where there is merely a brief mentioning that the company is located there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 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:LA Coliseum baseball.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free postcard of a stadium being used to illustrate the stadium itself. Also, there are free images of this stadium. Damiens.rf 16:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in the baseball alignment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 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:LA Dodger 1965 or earlier.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free postcard of a stadium being used to illustrate the stadium itself. Also, there are free images of this stadium (the minor changes it suffered through the years need not an image to be understood). Damiens.rf 16:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of that image is to illustrate the original outfield dimensions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please explain without your usual tentative sarcasm why would we need to illustrate such a thing like "dimensions". --Damiens.rf 18:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think at the time I uploaded it there was some debate or discussion about what the original dimensions were. That photo provided corroborating evidence. Whether it's still needed for such, I couldn't say, it's been a long time. (What does "tentative" sarcasm mean?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 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:L40-Movement.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many non-free images of the same rocket. Also, probably replaceable. Damiens.rf 16:09, 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:GSLV-D3.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many non-free images of the same rocket. Also, probably replaceable. Damiens.rf 16:10, 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:GSLV-FO4-LIFTOFF.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many non-free images of the same rocket. Also, probably replaceable. Damiens.rf 16:10, 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:Layanam softcore.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random decorative film screenshot not necessary for the article about the movie. Damiens.rf 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the increased resistance against non-free media, this can go. But, I really don't think a hallmark image from the film that features two people who committed suicide later really counts as "random decorative screenshot". Besides, putting it this way, no image is too necessary to portray anything, apart from scientific descriptions. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:40, 11 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:ClaptonD&D.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have free pictures of Eric Clapton. Damiens.rf 16:16, 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:Largo, Florida Map Mar 6,1925.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary decorative replaceable non-free map. Damiens.rf 16:18, 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:Larry-ross.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced non-free image of a living guy. Damiens.rf 16:20, 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:Ledderose.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a living guy, downloaded from google images. Damiens.rf 16:22, 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:Laura Black.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photo of a living woman downloaded from a random website that no longer works. Copyright holder unknown. Also, Wikipedia does not needs an image of this woman. She is mentioned in one article, but she is not notable itself. Damiens.rf 16:25, 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:LWynn.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a living public person. Damiens.rf 16:27, 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:LWVegas.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No source. Damiens.rf 16:28, 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:Uli (design).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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free image. Damiens.rf 16:32, 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:UCC-duke.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image. We don't need to see a picture of the Prince visiting the campus to understand the he did it. Damiens.rf 16:34, 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:UCC-funds.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely decorative and unnecessary non-free image. Damiens.rf 16:35, 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:UCLMainCampusMap.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a simple representation of facts — although it's not simple enough for PD-ineligible, it's simple enough that it could be used as the source for a new, free map that anyone could create. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 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:UCRaerial 050b.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image. We don't need an aerial view of the campus. Free ground images are o.k.. Damiens.rf 16:37, 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:UBPhillips.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was 45 years old in 1923. There must be some PD-Old images of him floating around. Damiens.rf 16:38, 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:UK Basketball Practice Facility.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable unnecessary drawing. Damiens.rf 16:39, 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:UncleMoo.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced non-free picture of a living guy. Damiens.rf 16:40, 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:UK Law Building Rendering.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. With regards to the comment on non-replaceability, I investigated this claim, and while the building is unbuilt and the rendering is therefore non-replaceable, the article also didn't discuss the rendering or any details that would require non-free visual aids. Therefore despite a "keep" !vote, I must still delete it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary replaceable non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 16:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The building has not been constructed, so it is not a replaceable image. The proposed structure, depicted as a rendering, is the only such proof of concept. seicer | talk | contribs 07:33, 9 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:UK Gill Institute.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary replaceable non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 16:44, 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:Un-eyadema-togo.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image of a notable man in a important moment of his like. But the image not necessary for the understanding of the situation. Damiens.rf 16:45, 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:UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People 2004 meeting.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image shows people meeting in an important historic event. But the image is not necessary for understanding the article about this event. Damiens.rf 16:47, 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:United Nations Charter with the Egyptian delegation at the signing ceremony in San Francisco.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This beautiful photo showing people at the United Nations is not necessary for the understanding of any of the articles it's currently being used in. It just sits as a nice decoration. Damiens.rf 16:49, 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:Vale (minelayer).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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free drawing. Damiens.rf 16:53, 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:Utica crib.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image of an existing object. Damiens.rf 16:55, 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:IAF Mysteres.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to see a non-free picture of plane flying to understand a text about war. Damiens.rf 16:56, 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:Basic smothered mate - original.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned low quality chess diagram. Kelly ^hi! 17:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: OB: File:Basic smothered mate.png. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:09, 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:David Cicilline.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, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image has been used at least since February 2010 so it's not a federal government work, and the uploader claim is false that images on federal goverment websites are automatically released into the public domain. Hekerui (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely a copyvio. I declined Hekerui's request to speedy this as a copyvio because it's not unambiguous — unattributed images on US federal government webpages are almost always PD-USGov, so a good argument would need to be made to establish that is was otherwise, and when we need a good argument, we mustn't speedy. However, please note that it's not taken from the source linked as "February 2010" — that version is smaller and of lower resolution. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's smaller but shows more of the body - I linked it to show that both are derivatives of a studio photo from at least early 2010. Hekerui (talk) 23:56, 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:Metoclopramide.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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, obsoleted by File:Metoclopramide.svg Kelly ^hi! 20:15, 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.