Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 31

< March 30	April 1 >

March 31

File:Tashi Delek.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free logo of a Chinese company. It is being used in the Tashi delek article, apparently to illustrate the commercial usage of a traditional Tibetan greeting. We do not need a non-free image to illustrate this usage; the fact that this phrase is used commercially, if that is indeed important, can be easily conveyed with text. If it is necessary for some reason to graphically illustrate a common style or context in which this phrase is rendered, then a freely licensed mock-up can be made. A second non-free image is also used in the Tashi delek article, apparently to illustrate the same point. The use of these non-free images fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It's a useful fair-use, to explain the Chinese commercial use of Tashi Delek. Espcially the irregular Pinyin such as "Bei Jing" for Beijing. And those unformal English font, and Chinese typeset to show "classical"... All these significance can't be insteaded by text. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:50, 31 March 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.

File:Tashi Delek.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above. —Bkell (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: same to above-oppose. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:51, 31 March 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.

File:Testingforthemassesgermany.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of a Wikipedia article in JPEG format. —Bkell (talk) 01:40, 31 March 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.

File:Diffrentrentalstar.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of a Wikipedia article in JPEG format. A cropped version of the image above. —Bkell (talk) 01:42, 31 March 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.

File:Toddychoddyzacharytowowellogo2.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, user-created logo. Not enough context is provided to determine what this is a logo for or in what way this image could be used in an encyclopedic manner. —Bkell (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per above. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:55, 31 March 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.

File:Jer1 small.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo; likely a photo of the uploader. —Bkell (talk) 01:56, 31 March 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.

File:Alalam-british-soldiers.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, said not to meet all of WP:NFCC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No critical commentary about the screen capture itself on the article.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see critical commentary in the image caption. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see just a loosely sourced comment of the events depicted by the image, not a commentary about the image itself, as requested for fair use.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only seeming significance of this image is that the woman is wearing a headscarf. ...Faye Turney, and that she was seen wearing a head scarf adequately conveys this information. So the image fails NFCC.8 ÷seresin 17:57, 10 April 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.

File:Deleuze.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non free screen capture used to show the subject of the article, without critical commentary of the image itself.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See criterion #7: "A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds." --Jimbo W junior (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The difference between this image and the example you cite is that Bonds is alive and thus (possibly) freely photographable, while this person, being dead, is not. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the only difference between a non-free image of Bonds and another of the late Deleuze would be the possibility of free replacement, but this is pointless here. Dead or alive, a still from a tv interview can't be uploaded to illustrate an article about the interviewee. The fair use of this material is for critical commentary of the program itself.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We generally allow FU images of deceased persons when it is highly unlikely that a free image can be found. I know little of the subject, so I cannot say whether it is likely or not. I think, though, that it is acceptable FU. Though when we're going to use a FU image, we may as well use the best one we can find rather than one like this. ÷seresin 17:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try a search on Google images. You would find a number of non-free, good quality images of Deleuze which qualify for fair use per WP policies. This screenshot, without critical commentary, fails NFCC#2.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why. ÷seresin 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP criterion 6 for acceptable use of images (use of images from a news agency for critical commentary only of the image itself) is intended for protection of commercial opportunities of the copyright holders, as established on NFCC#2.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't apply. The NFCC.2 criterion was put into place to protect organizations which derive profit from use of their images, such as the AP. This is a still from an interview: we are not replacing the original market role of the image, nor is our use limiting their ability to profit from the image. ÷seresin 17:59, 11 April 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.

File:Pj-logo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:22, 31 March 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.

File:Alison Krauss - Stay.ogg

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content and structure of song not discussed in article. Adds nothing to understanding. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:24, 31 March 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.

File:Brad Paisley Whiskey Lullaby (Featuring Alison Krauss).ogg

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. May meet all of WP:NFCC at some future date but doesn't now, apparently. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content and structure of song not discussed in article. Adds nothing to understanding. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the other two can probably go, I would say this is a relatively valuable sound sample. Whiskey Lullaby was a hugely famous, hugely successful single of Krauss', letting you touch on both a generally successful song and her work with other artists. The article is obviously no longer up to snuff, but any Krauss article will and does discuss Whiskey Lullaby. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:50, 31 March 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.

File:Alison Krauss - Down to the River to Pray.ogg

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content and structure of song not discussed in article. Adds nothing to understanding. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:24, 31 March 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.

File:LP In the End.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Does not significantly add to a reader's understanding of the article. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:26, 31 March 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.

File:Telephone1.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. The removal of the file would not be detrimental to a reader's understanding. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as uploader. The description of the image gives of the details and reasons for why this image should not be deleted. Alecsdaniel (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "to be used for encyclopaedic purpose in the music section of the article wiki linked above". Great. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason was at the description part, I've moved it. Alecsdaniel (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I definitely agree with the uploader — "The reader can't visually understand this [costume] without an image, since there are so many possilibities of how those clothes and accesories could look." This picture might not have an "encyclopaedic purpose", but it's clearly a must have in the "Music video" part. Lucian C. (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image don't help me to get all idea from music video, another screenshot could be posted. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 01:56, 5 April 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.

File:OldWiseTaoistMonk.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lavelk is a serial copyviolator who uploads images from other places and claims them as his own to license out. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Lavelk from Photobucket, commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 12#Possible to revoke OTRS?, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/China images, commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 7#User:Nyo and commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Attention 6#Ignored requests for image deletion / copyright violation. As he steals images from forums and websites (which might be long-gone), and scans from printed media, it is a wasteful task to hunt for information on them. Jappalang (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to evidence of copyvios provided by Jappalang. I had expected that Lavelk had taken this himself/herself and thus had the right to release it without conditions. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 31 March 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.

File:Muttrah.nightwalk.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:39, 31 March 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.

File:New york police department car-2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. Essentially a duplicate of File:New_york_police_department_car.jpg. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:40, 31 March 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.

File:New york police department car-3.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. Essentially a duplicate of File:New york police department car.jpg. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:41, 31 March 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.

File:SebastianMagliano.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:46, 31 March 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.

File:Sjlajarabuildingpnhs.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, non-encyclopedic image Bluemask (talk) 07:18, 31 March 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.

File:Puntanhs3.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, non-encyclopedic image Bluemask (talk) 07:20, 31 March 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.

File:Ginalyn aquino.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, non-encyclopedic image Bluemask (talk) 07:25, 31 March 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.

File:WORLDHEALTH.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. Superseded by File:Universal Health Care World Map.svg. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:12, 31 March 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.

File:Waverly Giant Front.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:25, 31 March 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.

File:TMR Concert Picture 4 4 36 PM.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:25, 31 March 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.

File:Sonya.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:25, 31 March 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.

File:MDGFreleasedate.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Vanity Photo, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:25, 31 March 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.

File:Meg otakon2009.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, vanity photo, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:26, 31 March 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.

File:HanoiRocks1982.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence provided that this is a promotional image in a press kit. feydey (talk) 12:13, 31 March 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.

File:Adapting to Protest.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted non-free image. Yes, the report is important, but the front cover is not, and we are losing nothing in not seeing the front cover. Also far too large. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the front cover of a recent study into policing in the UK. The report was written by the government, specifically by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, in response to the death of Ian Tomlinson, a passer-by who died in 2009 after contact with the police during a political demonstration in London. The government and police would certainly have no problem with our use of the image—quite the reverse because the report is something they want to publicize.
I felt it was important to add this image to the article about Tomlinson's death, which is a featured article, because the article is otherwise very critical of the police, reflecting the sources. Therefore, in the interests of trying to make sure the police view was incorporated and noticed, I added an image of the report's front cover, which not only suggests different ways to police political protests in future, but has been hailed as a blueprint for police reform in general in the UK. That makes it an important document. It seems to me that those reasons are good enough to claim fair use. We have always been able to use the cover of a book under our fair-use guideline, and this image is used to illustrate a specific section about the report. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that the report is important, and warrants discussion in the article. However, that does not mean its cover is required. The cover would be useful in an article on the report itself, as you suggest. However, as a paralell, unless there is something significant about the cover itself, we do not use book covers in the articles on the authors, despite the fact the books will often receive a lot of discussion. It's a question of what the cover itself adds, not a question of how important the publication is to the article. J Milburn (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the five years I've been editing it has always been acceptable to use a book cover in an article about a book, or in a section devoted to it in another article if it has no article of its own, so long as the section isn't frivolous, perfunctory, or unnecessary, and so long as we have no reason to believe the publisher would mind. So unless consensus about that has recently changed, I see this use as within the fair use rules, particularly given the copyright holder is government and not a private company. The problem with that article is that the sources are uniformly negative about the police (with the exception of a few voices that were quickly drowned out of the debate), so I felt strongly that I had to bend over backwards to accommodate a positive police view in the interests of NPOV. My thought when I uploaded that image was that it would act as a signpost saying, "Positive view of the police here!" to make clear that the police had responded to the criticism. That's its function in that article. It's a working image, not a purely decorative one. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "automatic" allowance for a section on a book to have a non-free image of the book's cover, and there has never been in the four years I've been here. For instance, we have a nice long section on the Harry Potter books in the featured article on the author, and there is certainly no need for us to go and force in images of the covers. Concerns about NPOV have no affect on our NFCC- the need for an image is judged on its own merits. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter images have commercial value. This has none. It was published by the government for public dissemination, and they want people to read and see it. From our perspective it helps with NPOV. It helps with information. It helps to show how seriously the police took the criticism. There really is no issue here. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you feel the motives of the copyright holder are, the image is non-free, and so must meet our non-free content criteria- just as with the Harry Potter covers. Discussion of the report helps with those things, yes, but this picture does not aid in any way that the discussion does not- as such, it clearly fails NFCC#8, so there very much is an issue. J Milburn (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just about any book cover would fail give your definition of #8, JM, but that clearly doesn't have consensus, given the number of books cover that are used routinely. In my view, this image draws attention to and increases our readers' understanding of the nature of the Metropolitan police and British government response to Ian Tomlinson's death. It enhances our article's neutrality. It has no monetary value, we have no reason to believe the copyright holder would object, there is no free equivalent, it is being used in a section of an article (see here) that is about the report, and the copyright holder has made the image and the report widely and freely available. That combination meets the criteria in my view. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with J Milburn - the cover doesn't add significantly to the reader's understanding, so this image doesn't comply with item 8 of the WP:NONFREE policy. PhilKnight (talk) 13:02, 8 April 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.

File:Thewheel-season24-wiki.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image no-longer relevant. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:03, 31 March 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.

File:St Margaret's Church and The South Gate.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed Scott Bywater (talk) 15:40, 31 March 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.

File:20090115 SpellingsDuncanLetter.pdf

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, in an unfree format. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:05, 31 March 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.

File:AREMA Electronic Proceedings.pdf

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, in an unfree format. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:05, 31 March 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.

File:Air force web posting response assessment-v2-1 5 09.pdf

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. It's an orphaned duplicate which will never be used here. We're not an orphanage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, in an unfree format. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PDF is standardized by the ISO --> Adobe let pdf free for ages! mabdul 17:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as uploader, I do have to agree with Mabdul that you are erroneous in stating that the [[pdf] format is unfree. It is true that at one point, it was proprietary, but it is now an ISO standard and hence an open and free format. As for the deletion, it is a different version of File:US Air Force Web Posting Response Assessment.png which is used in US Air Force Web Posting Response Assessment. The pdf format, unlike the png, can be magnified without a loss in quality, so unless you can losslessly convert it to the svg format, I would suggest that the pdf not be deleted.Smallman12q (talk) 22:38, 31 March 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.

File:Blech Book Cover.pdf

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, in an unfree format. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:06, 31 March 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.

File:CI Welcome.pdf

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, in an unfree format. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 31 March 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.

File:Chase Johnson.pdf

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, in an unfree format. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 31 March 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.

File:Chromatic polynomial of all 3-vertex graphs.pdf

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, in an unfree format. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 31 March 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.

File:DTWchart01-09.pdf

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, in an unfree format. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 31 March 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.

File:Fig 7-2 Coal Production.pdf

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, in an unfree format. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 31 March 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.

File:Carlitomakingpool.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all clear why an image is required to illustrate the direction. It adds little to the article, and seems primarily decorative. Does not appear to meet our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 31 March 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.

File:Carlitomakingfinale.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all clear why an image is required to illustrate the direction. It adds little to the article, and seems primarily decorative. Does not appear to meet our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 31 March 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.

File:BTSB1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, formerly used on Back to School Backpacks, Inc. Cnilep (talk) 20:53, 31 March 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.