Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs).

• Image not necessary to understand article, and no sources indicate the significance of the image itself. ÷seresin 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but needs commentary in the article, otherwise it shows a starkly different appearance from other photos of Morrison. A photo of him in the first place is not necessary to understand the article. What it does do is provide a visual accompaniment to a textual description. That visual accompaniment is necessary in order to show the contrast in appearance from File:Jim_Morrisonsinging.jpg. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as uploader. I will make the necessary adjustments, and as Floydian correctly assumed in good faith (thank you), I included this image only to illustrate the textual description in the article, "The Miami Incident", which was a major turning point in the band's career. Doc9871 (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I agree with the reasoning provided by Floydian and Doc9871. The "Rationale for fair use" provided for the image is correct and appropriate. CuriousEric (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Doc9871. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A general response to the above: What it does do is provide a visual accompaniment to a textual description. That visual accompaniment is necessary in order to show the contrast in appearance from File:Jim_Morrisonsinging.jpg is exactly right. Our NFCC require that an image be necessary to understand the subject, not serve as a visual accompaniment. There is no need to demonstrate that a picture taken of a subject in different clothing, at a different time and in different lighting looks different from another image we have of him (and that is the only rationale that has been put forth for this image, as the rationale on the file page is wholly without merit). Demonstrating what he looked like at this concert is not necessary to understand the band or "the incident"—the image doesn't even illustrate much of the incident, as it is low-quality and unclear. As a side note, the NFCC8 discussion is moot because the source information is invalid, as the only source provided is "flickr.com". It is likely this picture, but given other images that user has uploaded which he clearly does not own yet claims All Rights Reserved, it is unlikely that the flickr user owns the image. So the image is deletable anyway for faulty source information. ÷seresin 03:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  By that logic we can delete any fair use image from all biographies of dead people. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - "The current image has a lot of shadows that function artistically, but do not really aid in understanding how the subjects appear." If images are up for deletion based on the "artistic interpretation" of an editor proposing deletion, perhaps it's time to focus on the non-free image policy on WP... Doc9871 (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you have your FfD entries confused. ÷seresin 06:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Eep! You're right; sorry 'bout that. :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is no discussion I can find in the article that requires this image for support. The relevant section discusses mostly his behaviour, not his appearance. Given this I can't see what of significance (NFCC#8 failure) this image adds to reader's understanding. The sourcing is very poor and the flickr user does not own the image (does not meet NFCC#10a). Lastly, given the very poor sourcing, this may be a press image and we fall foul of NFCC#2. This images fails the criteria on far too many points - Peripitus (Talk) 20:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the full sized flickr image this is a scan of a printed source, probably a newspaper. Image fails WP:NFCC#2 in this usage - Peripitus (Talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which commercial opportunities are being taken? The ability of a newspaper print from likely several decades ago to continue to sell? I think it lost that opportunity the day after it came off the press, when the new newspaper came out. I do not disagree that the true source needs to be located though.

WP:NFCC#2 is enough to justify a delete. Yes, despite to common misconception, there is a market for old images. That's why images agencies have large image banks. I could want to use this picture on the cover of a book about the subject (or maybe ... in a webpage about the subject) and then I would have ask permission for the copyright holder. And there is the chance for him making some money. --Damiens.rf 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then all fair use images qualify for delete under NFCC#2 - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. We have promotional material, album covers, logos, etc... --Damiens.rf 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Practically unsourced. Rettetast (talk) 21:35, 11 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.

File:Internet Explorer 5 logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SufferWell1396 (notify | contribs).

• vector version avalible File:Internet Explorer logo old.svg

• • The Vector version was at File:Internet Explorer 5 logo.svg. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Internet Explorer 3.0 banner.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RingtailedFox (notify | contribs).

• Vector Version Available at :File:Internet Explorer 3.0 banner.svg

• Keep: Replacement is of worse quality. It is blurry due to trace of a low resolution source file. --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:59, 14 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:File name.ext (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:File name.ext listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).

• Mr. Unknown (talk) 01:26, 5 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mr. Unknown's Milestone of Userboxes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Mr. Unknown's Milestone of Userboxes.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).

• Mr. Unknown (talk) 01:26, 5 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⚡ 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ror2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NOCTIS4EVR (notify | contribs).

• Screenshot of a Web page. Unused, unclear encyclopedic purpose. —Bkell (talk) 01:40, 5 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. Comment from closer - can that be really CC-by-SA? That's a logo, I would have thought this couldn't be the case. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Appears to be a user-created logo, which is slightly different from the official logo at http://www.redress.org/. It was previously listed at WP:PUI, but as it's pretty clearly free it's outside of the remit of that page. Whether it is unencyclopedic as user-created should be considered here. Chick Bowen 02:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In principle a user-created logo is deficient when the actual logo can be uploaded as it is not copyrighted (which I believe is the case here, as it is only text). But in my mind, this logo and the official one are close enough that it's hard to care and call for this be deleted and the official logo uploaded in its place. So if someone bothers to upload the official logo, delete this one. Otherwise I have no problem leaving it. ÷seresin 02:29, 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Norfolk (County class destroyer).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SoLando (notify | contribs).

• This non-free image is used "to show HMS Norfolk before she was refitted with Exocet launchers". As can be seen from File:HMS Norfolk USS Claude-V-Ricketts(DDG-5) HNLMS De-Ruyter DN-SC-82-08446.jpg, showing the after, it is quite easy to see and describe what changed. One turret removed, some box things added in its place. Given that we have a free image and the incredible power of the written word at our disposal, it's not at all clear that this image meets WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8 in this context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 04:02, 5 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⚡ 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Obsolete Orphan, questionable copyright (conditional use)- copyright not specified by source website. Has been replaced by File:ThedaClarkHospital.jpg. I am willing to take a better picture if this one should be improved upon. Royalbroil 05:28, 5 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⚡ 10:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bezirk-Mittelfranken.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wst.wiki (notify | contribs).

• OB Mittelfranken_Wappen.svg 195.200.70.43 (talk) 09:54, 5 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⚡ 10:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Bezirk Oberbayern.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RobNS (notify | contribs).

• OB Wappen_Oberbayern.svg 195.200.70.43 (talk) 09:54, 5 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⚡ 10:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Bezirk Niederbayern.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RobNS (notify | contribs).

• OB Wappen_Bezirk_Niederbayern.svg 195.200.70.43 (talk) 09:54, 5 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⚡ 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ram sethu 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Suyashmanjul (notify | contribs).

• A 90 degrees rotated duplicate of commons:File:NASA satellite photo of Rama's Bridge.jpeg with the wrong license/authorship claims. The license could easily be fixed but it would still be a duplicate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 5 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⚡ 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dfb2 sm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Da Flava Boyz (notify | contribs).

• Unused, no context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 15:44, 5 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: consensus to delete on the grounds that this is replacable. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Leander F109 (Leander-class frigate).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SoLando (notify | contribs).

• The non-free content rationale claims that this image is not replaceable as the ship in question was sunk in 1989. This is possibly true in a very narrow sense but WP:NFCC#1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". Would a free picture of a very similar ship serve the same purpose in the article, which is "to identify and illustrate"? If so, this image is replaceable by commons:File:HMS Naiad F39 1982.jpeg. If for some reason it is decided that the image must show the same ship, the image is still very likely to be replaceable as the US Navy took pictures of allied ships during the very frequent exercises of the Cold War period. The limited set of images searchable at DefenseImagery does not include one of this ship, but the Naval Historical Center holds very many more which can be seen in their physical archives. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the original uploader, I have no objections to the deletion of this image; however, I wouldn't necessarily support its substitution with an image of, for instance, Naiad. Although these two vessels were of an identical configuration, it could almost be equivalent to replacing an image of the Eiffel Tower with one depicting the Las Vegas replica. I can sympathise with the need for illustration and it is only a personal opinion. I've searched the DoD's media libary and unfortunately wasn't able to locate an image explicitly identified as being Leander. SoLando (Talk) 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We _really_ should not be illustrating a ship's article with a picture of a different ship. I'd object even if there were no picture available. Point to the class of ship or to an article on a different ship, but don't use a picture of one thing to illustrate something else. Hobit (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What Angusmclellan has suggested is exactly what I see in Jane's and some other such reference books. I cannot see what significant understanding reader's lose by having an almost identical ship shown. The wonderful power of the written word can fill the gap. Peripitus (Talk) 11:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am uneasy with using an image of another ship to justify deleting a FU image; while there probably isn't much information lost, it isn't the same ship. That said, it seems likely to be replaceable with a PD-US image, so it should be deleted on those grounds. If extensive search determines it is not, though, I do not oppose use of this image. ÷seresin 02:32, 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unused, no context for encyclopedic use. Wikipedia is not Facebook. —Bkell (talk) 15:50, 5 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⚡ 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unused, no context for encyclopedic use. Wikipedia is not Facebook. —Bkell (talk) 15:50, 5 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⚡ 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unused, no context for encyclopedic use. Wikipedia is not Facebook. —Bkell (talk) 15:50, 5 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⚡ 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Compfront.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pixiedust1206 (notify | contribs).

• Unused. No context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 16:07, 5 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⚡ 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hrvatski piloti.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ivanjek (notify | contribs).

• Unused. Source and licensing information doesn't make sense. —Bkell (talk) 16:10, 5 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lost iPod game.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thedemonhog (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:39, 5 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lakiahn Age.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EatMyShortz (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:40, 5 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Direbo Age.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EatMyShortz (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:41, 5 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Voltaic Age.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chucker (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:41, 5 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Todelmer Age.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EatMyShortz (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:42, 5 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:45, 5 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teledahn-Vista.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GalimatiasGesture (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:46, 5 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:POPWW and I cannot lie.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kizor (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough as uploader. I maintain that this image is a valuable illustration of the content and design of Warrior Within, especially in contrast to other installments. The fact that it is also deranged does not detract from its merits. While adding it to the subject article I was met by another editor, who informed me that these were not my true opinions. It was clear that I'd have to make re-adding the image a part of a larger, collaborative article improvement project. This I have not done, because this is overenthusiastic buttocks we're talking about. C'mon. I'm busy. Tell you what: if you withdraw this deletion nomination (I'm leery of the things), I'll get on with things, or nuke the image myself on the 13th. --Kizor 02:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out whether this is a neutral comment, a !vote to delete, or a G7 request. I'm not entirely sure. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an explanation of how the problem is real but fixable, a promise to get on with fixing it or zap the image myself if things don't get done, a request to close the deletion discussion as unnecessary (to avoid any upcoming shouting matches and one-line, no-thought deletes - or is FfD more civil than AfD?), and a whole lot of verbiage. --Kizor 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since we have an OTRS for it, it could be moved to Commons (as could each of the above). Jheald (talk) 20:22, 6 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Narayan Age.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chucker (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:47, 5 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: Kept but licence changed to {{PD-textlogo}} - Peripitus (Talk) 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITV1 logo 1999-2002.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AxG (notify | contribs).

• Not required within History of ITV television idents. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would have thought that since the purpose of the article is to trace the evolution of ITV's on-screen identity, this is exactly the sort of thing that article should be showing. As can be seen, it is quite different both to the identity that came before, and the current ITV logo; and it is commented on in the article. Seeing the progression of different branding images like this is, I would have thought, exactly what a reader comes to an article like this to find out. Jheald (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this {{pd-ineligible}}? ViperSnake151  Talk  12:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be better to have images of idents rather than logos in the article. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retag {{PD-textlogo}}. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 8 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.