Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's 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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SP A1081.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rakchira Shira (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan 122.162.132.87 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This looks a lot like blanking by the uploader as a deletion request. De728631 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sides.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Javargas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Version by User:Javargas and User:Levdr1lostpassword might not be own work since there is a link to an external web site. It says "Permission: yes", but there is no source of permission. Version by User:Lionhead99 has neither source nor licence. Stefan2 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this was meant to be sent to "possibly unfree files", but I forgot to fill in the checkbox. Sorry. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of evidence regarding authorship. We'd need an OTRS email for confirmation to keep this. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 F4 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chrysoprase Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kimberly camba (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No rationale, and now no article: it was deleted as A7/promotional. User is indef blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Transfer to Commons as PD-textlogo. This is not original enough to be copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF-Schriftzug.png (de:Datei:BF-Schriftzug.png) may be a problem here. Besides, the country of the logo is unknown, so it isn't possible to check whether the logo is below the threshold of originality in the source country. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From Google's cache of our recently deleted article Chrysoprase (TV Series) I could see that this is a show on Youtube by Kimberley Camba from the Philippines. Since the uploader Kimberly camba has licensed it under a fair-use claim I suspect they're just a fan though but if that is the real Ms Camba she might want to relicense the logo via OTRS. De728631 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Magichris.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brevadt (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

As long as the person on the photo isn't identified, this picture is useless. Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Transfer to Commons and exif-rotate it. It might find a useful destination over there. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think that a photo of an unidentified person would be useful? What category would you put it in? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it's hard to see because the thumbnail is distorted. But from the full image you can see that he's holding a deck of cards and he's wearing a rather large watch. The image can be used for various illustration purposes and Commons:Category:Standing men or Commons:Category:Men with objects should work fine. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 F8 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MG 3901.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dpetie (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

There is something fishy here. On a first look, the image looks fine, but if you look at the source code, you'll find a hidden {{Non-commercial from license selector}} which is not OK. Thus, the file might be unfree. Additionally, the file is useless since the person is unidentified. Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Transfer to Commons. The uploader himself has quickly removed that disclaimer on the first day [1], so I don't see a problem here. De728631 (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think that a photo of an unidentified person would be useful? What category would you put it in? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone may be looking for a random guitarist with guitars. And musicians can more easily be identified than others. De728631 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just the checked the summary for the second time. This is country musician Jerry Douglas. De728631 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Useful image. Moved it over. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 F9 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:107TH ARC CAP 33XX.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bengal40 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Speedy deletion has been declined. While it is correct that US Army insignia are usually in the public domain because they have been devised as an official work of the Federal Government, this specific file is a copyright infringement. It is not a two-dimensional graphic image such as a drawing or painting but it is a photograph of a woven shoulder patch which is for sale at [2]. While the design of the shield may be in the public domain, the image is not, because it is a photograph of a three-dimensional derivative. I would also like to raise the point that this design is not listed among the official insignia of this unit that have been devised by the US Army Institute of Heraldry. So we need further proof that this shield has in fact been created by a soldier on duty and is not a voluntary work. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deleted. I was the one who declined the speedy, because I was unaware of the situation: an unoriginal image of a work like this one cannot have any copyright separate from the image itself, and I thought that De728631 had tagged it as a copyvio because the image was separately copyrighted. However, the last two sentences in this deletion rationale demonstrate that the image is not an official US Army work; as such, the image is copyrighted without proof of a free license, so it needs to go. Thank you for the convincing explanation. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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; fur added. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Demirchyan kev.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kevorkmail (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Demirchyan kev.jpg for an explanation why it is unfree. In the article Komitas Pantheon, it is used in a gallery which is a no-go for unfree images. In the article Karen Demirchyan, it is not referenced to in the text and there is already a photo of the person, so this photo isn't needed there. Thus, I think it also fails WP:NFCC. Stefan2 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with fair-use rationale for Karen Demirchyan. The image is useful for the article to portray the prominent status and sort of cult regarding this person even after his death. I've added a reference to his tomb in the article text. The file should however be removed from the article on the Komitas Pantheon since there are enough free images to illustrate that article. De728631 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just occured to me that we should probably review the other tomb images at Komitas Pantheon too. Some of them are really artistic. De728631 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already started a lot of deletion requests here and on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 - I've weighed the arguments across all the discussions, and found the arguments in favor of keeping to be valid and firmly grounded in policy, and I have found that the current use of the image on both articles is consistent with both Wikipedia policy and US-based laws. The comments about "popular culture" are a bit hokey and unnecessary if you ask me (the image could validly be included without the explicit wording), but I'm not here to quibble use of words. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Supermushroom.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Diego Moya (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 7. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The image is used in the newly created history and influence section of the power-up article. The claim for fair use is that it illustrates the Super Mushroom power-up, which is significant to the history of video games. A peer reviewed article discusses its physical aspect and how it relates to popular culture. Diego (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The file is also included at Super Mario (series)#Recurring gameplay elements. Diego (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I've notified this discussion at WikiProject Video games as promised. Diego (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is how the image was used at the time of the first nomination for deletion and this is how it's being used now. Although the non-free-use rationale is the same in both cases, I think the actual usage has substantially moved towards the claim used for fair use (but then I'm partial to this). Diego (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons as the initial nomination: the usage of this image in the two articles in which it appears violates WP:NFCC #1 (replaceability) and #8 (encyclopedic value). I will first note that it appears that the Life Sciences article Diego mentions only references Super Mario as an aside, and it is not an article that critically examines the use of a mushroom of species A. Muscaria in Super Mario. With that said, we now turn to each article to see whether NFCC are satisfied:
  • Power-up (Feb. 16, 2012 revision). The image is no longer in the lead, as it was when the image was nominated for deletion. The lead image is now from SuperTuxKart (it is debatable whether this is the best image, but the point is that it has been replaced by a free image of similar value). The image at question here is now found in the history section, whose second paragraph is a well-referenced description of what the Super Mushroom does, why it is important in popular culture, and the history behind the adoption of the Super Mushroom in Super Mario Bros. The image, on the othee hand, is merely an illustration of the mushroom. Its caption, describing it as a "notorious [sic] representation of Amanita muscaria", is sourced to the same Life Sciences article mentioned above, which only mentions Super Mario and other games in passing and is not an article describing the role of the depiction in the game. This is a close call, but in light of the fact that there are no sources describing the role of the specific depiction of a real-life mushroom in Super Mario, it fails WP:NFCC #8 for use in the history section.
  • Super Mario (series) (Feb. 18, 2012 revision). The image was not included in this article at the original nomination. The image is found in the section Recurring gameplay elements. Unlike power-up, this article contains the statement "Originally, it was shaped after a common mushroom, but since Super Mario Bros. 2 it gained a more cartoonish shape, becoming round and stubby, with a smiling face on the stalk," which goes directly to the depiction of the super mushroom, but the statement has no independent sources provided. Ultimately, the image fails to provide much additional encyclopedic value beyond the paragraph describing the Super Mushroom, and so the uploader has failed eir burden of showing that the image's "omission would be detrimental to the [reader's] understanding [of the Super Mushroom]," as required by WP:NFCC #8.

Since this non-free image fails WP:NFCC for both pages in which it is used, it should be deleted. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that "encyclopedic" is a subjective concept, what would you consider an enclyclopedic use? When an image illustrating a concept is or is not enough information to enhance the reader's comprehension on the topic? If you don't give a specific criterion for when information is enough, your opinion that I failed to provide burden of evidence is just that, an opinion. So let's see what evidence I provided:
• The Life Sciences article is more than what other images get. The article entire topic is about Amanita in popular culture. The SuperMushroom is mentioned right between "Idealized representations of this species permeate popular culture" (a direct reference to the item's visual aspect) and "In short, mushrooms from this genus are heavily investigated scientifically and extremely well known conceptually: in many ways, they have become an integral part of human society", both of which comments apply to the SuperMushroom as referent of the sentences. It's also equated to the Schmurfs house as a "video game obstacle". How much more coverage do you require from a peer reviewed academic article, and how many kept fair use images get this much?
• Also you seem to have missed the BusinessWeek reference, which does directly discuss the SuperMushroom shape as a mushroom as imitation of the Alice in Wonderland fungus; and the Alice mushroom is also found in the same paragraph of the Life Sciences article. For me, this is enough evidence that the item's aspect has being noted and this is verifiable and encyclopedic, which is enough reason for illustrating it.
• At Super Mario (series) we have a verifiable reference for the item physical description ("... has an ivory stalk below a red and white (originally red and orange) spotted cap"). It is the image you're !voting to delete.[3] Paradox? Self fulfilling profecy? The somewhat subjective "cartoonish" qualifier could be removed, but we have a source nevertheless.
• As for the SuperTux free image, the whole point of the current version and the keep rationale is that the SuperTux image does not replace the SuperMushroom, because both can be included in the article with different usages, so #1 doesn't apply. (And, although it should be obvious, I have to remember user RJaguar3 that the FfD discussion is not to evaluate how the image was used when he nominated the file, but how it's being used now). Diego (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep Described (well) in an article, important historically. #1 Doesn't apply (text isn't sufficient IMO to illustrate this) and #8 doesn't either (why isn't it encyclopedic? It's the visualization of an important bit of video game history/art.) I think fair use is quite reasonable here. Weak because we don't have clear sources that indicate the importance of the image itself. Hobit (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current image is Nintendo's promotional art, so it's the official representation of the item. I can try to dig up a link from the official page. The usage is similar to the main image in Mario, Goomba or all the other images that are not disputed even though they don't have the ammount of sources that I have provided. Seriously, what is so special about this mushroom image? Diego (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:WS logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blackwatch21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Transfer to Commons and change the license to PD-textlogo, this is too simple to be copyrighted under a GFDL or CC license. And since there's already a free license the "orphaned" argument is void too. De728631 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only useful for WikiProject Superheroes which doesn't even seem to exist. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken, I've changed my vote to delete. This image is not needed. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Farsala Siegel.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Greco22 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The source is given as "German Wikipedia". It seems that de:Datei:Farsala Siegel.png originates from a Greek website, so the photographer is unknown. Per commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet, coin photos are copyrighted and this item has a similar shape. The item itself is dated 1883 (implying {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}), so this item fails WP:NFCC#1 because anyone can take free photos of it. Stefan2 (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only official texts are exempt from Greek copyright protection, not images and artwork. See article II, paragraph (5), p. 4. So while anyone can photograph this object on site and store it on Commons or en.wiki per PD-1923, we can't use this specific image which has been taken from the official website of Farsala. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just learned about the Lex loci protectionis on the German WP where my speedy deletion request for the equivalent file has been declined. This principle of the Berne Convention says that copyright protection is only provided according to corresponding local laws, regardless of the country of origin. So the German Wikipedia keeps the image because "official works" are public domain in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. I'm not sure if this can be applied to US legal customs at all? Only federal US works are PD and this is the seal of a local community. De728631 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds a bit strange, but I've asked at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Lex loci protectionis. This one wasn't made by a federal government, so the arguing at German Wikipedia doesn't hold. German Wikipedia can probably get away with this due to fair use, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 F10 by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tsunami puzzle.xls (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 1dragon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Due to the format I cannot see how this could be use encyclopedically. Acather96 (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I didn't know that it was possible to upload Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. While I suppose that they could be useful (e.g. maintaining spreadsheet-tracked types of information in a format that anyone could access and update), I can't see how this specific one is useful, since the uploader says that it was uploaded simply as an illustration, since the coding at Talk:Tsunami (puzzle) shows that we can't cause it to display as an illustration. Nyttend (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Excel files can't be used on pages. Besides, the file looks useless, so there is no point in recreating it as PDF or SVG. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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⚡ 22:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warhound MBT tech drawing.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lyras (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unencyclopedic (someone's fictional creation). 128.189.169.233 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sodensarah.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brant-885 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-notable person? Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Still good for illustration purposes and this blurry image with only the rays of light and her face and guitar protruding from the dark background has even an artistic merit. Transfer to Commons:Category:Guitarists with guitars. De728631 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bsor2.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wingilad1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Photo of an unidentified person. Useless unless someone identifies him. Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This guy appears to be a member of the Israeli military, but that's all I can learn from the uploader's contributions. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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