Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 18

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:West of lincoln.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scjessey (notify | contribs).

• The album cover is used in the band's infobox without critical commentary against Wikipedia:Non-free content, and is being used to illustrate the band and not the album itself against "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question" from the licensing agreement Aspects (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination since there is now critical commentary for the album to be located in the article. Aspects (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the fair use rationale were substantially updated just prior to this nomination. This image is used at Blue-Eyed Son, where the album it depicts is given substantial coverage (it does not have its own article) because it is the artist's only album release. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the updated rationale the album cover is still being used without critical commentary to illustrate the band and not the album itself. The rationale is not the problem, the problem is with the image's use in the article, which has not changed. Aspects (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to include referenced critical commentary of the album. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atomic bomb blast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Proud kraut (notify | contribs).

• No source attributed, not uploader's own work; Possible CV —Brianhe (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar image already seems to be present with appropriate copyright info at File:Op hurricane.jpg. — Brianhe (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Ticket doesn't actually release image in question, therefore deletable fairuse of a living person. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The uploader is not an Admin and does not have OTRS access. He just typed in an false OTRS ticket number. This is a copyright violation and the uploader does not hold the image's rights. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a false OTRS ticket number is strong evidence that this is a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: The result of the discussion was Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miracle at the meadowlands.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zzyzx11 (notify | contribs).

• The article contains no discussion of the image itself, which does not appear to have any significance or notability on its own. And the picture is not illustrative enough to be irreplaceable by text description. Mosmof (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering that the entire article is devoted to discussing what is shown happening in this image, I think it probably does appropriately add to user understanding, so I'd lean to keep. Jheald (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Jheald. While the nom seems to be correct about the image itself lacking significance, I find it satisfied NFCC.8 ÷seresin 00:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BA-Biometricpassport.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nenad80 (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bosnia and Herzegovina passport already shows a number of other images of biometric Bosnian passports. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chile region XI.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).

• OR, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jessica-weber.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gowiki55 (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither orphaned nor unencyclopedic. For the rest, no view. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as having no source; possible copyvio. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kevinrdshepherd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alex jamieson (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Article where this was used deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd. Probably not worth moving to Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not likely to be used for anything. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loyola sign 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tbresch (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oa idea.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paolostar (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Wikimedia Commons. I have expanded the page description. It was used in Overlap-add method but got replaced by its derivative File:Depiction of overlap-add algorithm.png. I found this by following the uploader's contribution history. -84user (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The-daredevil-christopher-wright-live.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Narcolepticpathos (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The-real-jdhs.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lps506 (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thessaloniki Kapani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JFKennedy (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, and possibly move to commons. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Youngblood at Monsters of Rock 2007 in Zaragoza, Spain.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kmiworld (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image quality isn't that bad, the composition is actually pretty good, IMO. It's in the public domain, and I just added it to Monsters of Rock, though it could be added to the Thomas Youngblood article in a gallery section. I don't see why we need to get rid of a decent PD image like this one. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Tbsdy lives. It should be moved to Commons, though. Jafeluv (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tisza 105.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BBS87 (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: The result of the discussion was: Keep for now but Move to Commons. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Triangle-purple.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tv's emory (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Commons. Category:Purple triangles could do with more of these. -84user (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. No objections.

File:Tropical depression gustav, tropical storms hanna, ike and and on the far right the edge of josephine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joecoolyo (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: The result of the discussion was: Keep for now but Move to Commons. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:TwoOrganisms2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sergkorn (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Commons, categorise under commons:Category:Multi-robot systems. They look a lot like Jasmine microrobots from the Swarmrobot project. -84user (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: local copy deleted. Now on Commons at File:CBA Building, University of South Florida.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:USF CBA Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Graciepie01 (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Undulo-entropic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Latiosoital (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:VJM01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pitmonster (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Uploader states author is "anon". Can probably add CV to the alphabet soup. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's 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 G5 by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vishveshvara shiva linga.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PadmaDharma101 (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viva York Region route map.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Enzo Aquarius (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Superseded by an SVG version on Commons. I'm not sure whether we need to keep this for GFDL purposes, but I'm guessing not. On the other hand, Fastily, it's really not helpful to tag everything UE and LQ, when as in this case those tags are plainly wrong. (Similarly for many many more on this page) It just gives you a reputation as a completely unreliable tagger. (Closing admins will I hope take note, and look for themselves very carefully at each and every one of your assertions). Jheald (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As the one who modified the original image to make this product, and that a better version was created, delete. - Enzo Aquarius - Walkie Talkie! 03:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The embedded logo is used at http://www.northwestchoirs.org/ - very likely file from there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: local copy deleted. On Commons at file:World Trade Center under construction in 1970 view from USS Compass Island.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:WTC CI.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ffnbbs (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willow Court.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Campbellm31 (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• According to some quick googling, the building is part of the Royal Derwent Hospital, picture added there so no longer orphaned. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• OR, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, what in the world would we do with it? Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• OR, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, would be good on Commons if we only knew what it was, but we don't. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What it is is "Ysbyty Gwynedd" (Gwynedd Hospital I guess) in Bangor. Added to the Bangor article. Not orphaned, not unencyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is indeed a picture of Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor. Unless there's a copy-vio problem, which doesn't seem to be the case, I see no reason for deleting this. Might I suggest renaming it to 'Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor' (the only official name is the Welsh one, although it does indeed mean 'Gwynedd Hospital') and transferring it to Commons? We'd be happy to use it on cy @Ysbyty Gwynedd. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Uploaded to commons as File:Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 but Move to Commons. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:YossiStern ElyadaMerioz.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Merioz (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, why not move to Commons? It could potentially illustrate Elyada Merioz. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zwitteron diagram with explanation.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Minestrone Soup (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• See Zwitterion. The image isn't beautiful, and it isn't used; but it's sheer laziness to call it "unencyclopedic". Jheald (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:C.ronaldo for armani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mikysilva94 (notify | contribs).

• Image is not necessary to explain Ronaldo's modeling work for Armani. Fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8. Mosmof (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the image may not be necessary either are many of the other's on the article about Cristiano Ronaldo, but they are still up. I believe that the image helps to show the reader the kind of modeling Ronaldo does. It's an important part of his life outside of soccer, so in my opinion it is important to showcase it. Please reconsider deletion of this image. Mikysilva94 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're up because they are free licensed images taken either by Wikipedia editors or licensed for free use by their photographers. I believe the text does a pretty good job of telling readers the kind of modeling Ronaldo does (i.e., underwear). --Mosmof (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the text says what type of modeling he does, but don't you agree that if you were a reader that had no clue as to what Armani was or the type of photos taken for Armani underwear, you would appreciate a visual representation of his work? I beg to differ on your views of this image. I also believe that the image grabs that attention of the reader to the section of the article. Mikysilva94 (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If anybody else has their opinion on this matter please say so. It would really help. Thank you. --Mikysilva94 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article is not about Armani's advertisement style, so it can go without visual explanation for what isn't discussed. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiens.rf (talk • contribs)
          • I am also considering using this image possibly on the Armani article. Don't you think that it would be suitable there? --Mikysilva94 (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Based on current text, not. And considering the Armani's history and reputation, we should be careful not to be recentist and give to much weight to this Ronaldo's episode. --Damiens.rf 19:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This image is not necessary in the Cristiano Ronaldo article. We do not need graphic evidence that he has modelled for Armani, nor do we need examples of photoshoots he has done for them. The text does enough as it is. – PeeJay 19:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by Armani's history and reputation???? And why are you guys being so hard over a picture? It complements the article nicely. --Mikysilva94 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's non-free, and Wikipedia only uses non-free content as a last resort.--Damiens.rf 00:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2009 Sports Illustrated Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).

• Image is not subject of critical commentary in either article the NFC rationales are written for. The article text does an adequate job of explaining the photographer's work. Mosmof (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was a problem with the source links that has been resolved. In terms of stylistic commentary, that is not the point of notability. It is not style that makes him notable. The notabiility is having had five consecutive Swimsuit Issue covers. In all cases where I have created articles for artists on wikipedia, a handful of fair use images of their most notable published work have been allowed. These are they. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It fails at least NFCC.8, as a copyrighted work is not necessary to understand the subject (the photographer). ÷seresin 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swimsuit08.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).

• Fails NFCC#1, #8, as image itself is not subject of critical commentary. The text adequately explains the photographer's role. Mosmof (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although the article could discuss the photographer's style as applied to this work, it doesn't, rendering this image decorative. --Damiens.rf 13:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was a problem with the source links that has been resolved. In terms of stylistic commentary, that is not the point of notability. It is not style that makes him notable. The notabiility is having had five consecutive Swimsuit Issue covers. In all cases where I have created articles for artists on wikipedia, a handful of fair use images of their most notable published work have been allowed. These are they.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can understand, notability has not been contested. I believe the point is that we don't need to see the 5 five consecutive covers to understand that the artist's work made 5 consecutive covers. --Damiens.rf 17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Theoretically, you could say that about most fair use art. You don't need to see specific artworks to understand many concepts that are discussed, but it helps the reader get an idea of what the artist does. Some of his work should remain in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some (many) articles really discuss the artist's style, and in the case of visual arts, such discussions are better understood with visual examples of the work (or aural examples, in the case of musicians). This is not the case of this article. --Damiens.rf 12:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I imagine there is some stylistic/artistic excellence that distinguishes his photos, but I am unable to finded sourced content to that effect. Visually, I think keeping the three swimsuit covers and deleting the other two might be a suitable compromise until someone who knows the subject better can elaborate on it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • In this scenario you ask us to imagine, his distinguishable stylistic/artistic excellence is probably just a fruit of your original research. --Damiens.rf 13:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • It would be WP:OR if in his article I said "He is stylistically unique . . ." without a reference. Instead, I say he is notable for having had consecutive works featured on the Swimsuit Issue cover with easily WP:V WP:RSs. I don't know photography, but I imagine that they do not flip a coin or draw straws to pick the swimsuit issue cover. There is likely some stylistic excellence. When an athlete breaks a record we say he is notable for having broken a record, we do not need to describe his unique skills. When a scientist makes a new discovery we say he made a discovery sometimes without describing why his unique backtground made it possible. In this case, we have a photographer who has achieved a unique feat. He is notable for that reason. Visual artists are generally allowed about three fair use images if the images are mentioned in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Isn't the uniqueness of his feat described in text? And his feat has nothing to do with the images themselves, but rather the context of the images. Think of it this way: what is the reader supposed to see in the covers that we wouldn't understand from text? We get that he shot pictures for SI swimsuit issues. We know the covers show hot bikini'd models. And it's not like paintings where there are great disparities in how things look. --Mosmof (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • And still, why we would need to see the 3 covers to grasp his style? --Damiens.rf 23:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • 3 is just a fairly standard cutoff for fair use images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Really? Never heard of it. Where it comes from? --Damiens.rf 13:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It is a number I have encountered on some modern visual art at WP:FAC. I don't know where it comes in terms of actual policy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. If not deleted, the closer needs to remove it from User:Horkana/Marisa Miller (there are also other FU images there that must be removed). ÷seresin 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Second Decade of Guess Images- 1991-2001.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).

• Cover image itself is not in discussion or subject of commentary/controversy, fails NFCC#1, #8 Mosmof (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although the article could discuss the photographer's style as applied to this work, it doesn't, rendering this image decorative. --Damiens.rf 13:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. ÷seresin 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swimsuit06.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).

• Image is not subject of critical commentary. Image is not required to show photographer was responsible for the cover. NFCC#1 and #8. Mosmof (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the article could discuss the photographer's style as applied to this work, it doesn't, rendering this image decorative. --Damiens.rf 13:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep There was a problem with the source links that has been resolved. In terms of stylistic commentary, that is not the point of notability. It is not style that makes him notable. The notabiility is having had five consecutive Swimsuit Issue covers. In all cases where I have created articles for artists on wikipedia, a handful of fair use images of their most notable published work have been allowed. These are they.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. ÷seresin 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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⚡ 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• UE file uploaded for speedied vanity autobio/hoax/whatever --Rrburke^ekrubrR 15:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macquarie Park Station Proposed.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Breno (notify | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. All arguments at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 17#File:Macquarie University Station Platform Proposed.jpg apply here too (except that this isn't a particularly high-resolution image). —Bkell (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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