Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 26

< January 25	January 27 >

January 26

File:Marisa Miller Fantasy Bra.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, non-free image - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustifiable FU image, subject is living person and image is not subject of commentary to satisfy NFCC.8 ÷seresin 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#2. No contextual significance, and the source is a commercial photo site. --Mosmof (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That image can be deleted since there is a free one here. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Photo is a valuable visual aid regarding a portion of the text and released on the company's site specifically for free distribution. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 05:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Miller is famous as a swimsuit and lingerie model, her work with Victoria Secret is a significant part of her fame. The photo not only illustrates that huge part of her career - her work as a Victoria Secret Angel - but shows her having been selected as the model for the Fantasy bra, the most high profile media campaign that company runs and is a career highpoint ~~WP:NFCC#8~~ no other image could show. The only other career highpoint close to this significant is her featuring on the cover of sports illustrated magazine swimsuit edition.
Photo is of a substantially lower resolution (and could be lowered further if that is a concern to anyone) than the original version of an image provided by Victoria Secret for just this kind of use so there are no commercial concerns as ~~WP:NFCC#2~~ mentions. Look to the original source of the image to see where usage details are spelled out. If this isn't a fair use I'm left wondering when are copyright ever allowed? This process is so complicated and time consuming it seems like a better fairer policy would be for Wikipedia to exclude copyright images entirely rather than have vague rules that make the exceptions seem arbitrary and waste a whole lot of time and good faith efforts of editors like Mbinebri. -- Horkana (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct and I was wrong about the NFCC#2 concerns. I mistakenly thought it was an editorial image. That said, I still don't see how it passes WP:NFCC#8, when there is no discussion of the image. Yes, the article discusses the bra and the Victoria Secret campaign, but the image itself is not discussed. --Mosmof (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not entirely sure what you mean. There are other images of her available but only this one has the special licensing permissions. If the article text needs to be improved in some way then shouldn't that be explained on the article talk page and editors given a chance to fix it? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but it sounds like because I've provided a proper textual description (for mobile users or users with special accessibility needs) that somehow undermines the justification to keep the image? The words are a start, the image gives the full picture, and the significance of a jewel encrusted item of clothing is far clearer and the reader understanding far more complete when we show instead of just telling. -- Horkana (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I don't know if it's all that important to mention, but user Rockfang reduced the size of the image to better comply with non-free content criteria. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 00:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is the barest mention of the particular bra in the text and we have a free image of her wearing a bra already. Fails NFCC#1 as we have an adequate free alternative (free image, text or nothing), and could supplement this with a free image of the bra. Fails NFCC#8 as well - I cannot see what significant understanding this gives to readers, we do not need to illustrate everything - Peripitus (Talk) 09:35, 3 February 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:Stewie Griffin - Pilot.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC.3a; an superior image used for identification is already present in the article. ÷seresin 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not intended for identification but is there to show how the first appearance differs from his later appearance. This is consistent with the article for Bart Simpson and other Simpsons characters. -- Horkana (talk) 00:23, 30 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.

File:Chris Griffin - Pilot.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC.3a; an superior image used for identification is already present in the article. ÷seresin 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Meg Griffin - Pilot.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC.3a; an superior image used for identification is already present in the article. ÷seresin 01:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Griffin family - Family Guy pilot.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC.3a; an superior image is already present in the articles which uses it for identification. It fails NFCC.8 in the rest. ÷seresin 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Familyguyskyline.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: The result of the discussion was: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC.8 as comparison to actual skyline is not significant and can be adequately explained with text. ÷seresin 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look at the picture as it's used in the article. This makes a very simple and clear statement that cannot be explained the same way through clunky prose which is burdened by the obscure names of buildings.--Louiedog (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need to see the skyline to understand the topic. I do note that the sentence that this image is supporting is original research that's reference is simply a streetmap. If a reliable source discusses the significance of the skyline image it may be justified - currently it is not. Does not significantly add to reader's understanding and fails WP:NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 05:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - in combination with the skyline image above it, this definitely satisfies the fair use transformative criteria. It also illustrates article text perfectly, and it's not a high res image, but of sufficient quality to be acceptable to an encyclopedia. Will not in any way impinge on commercial rights of the owner. This is one of the rarest cases of clear cut use of correct fair use I've ever seen. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain why the image is necessary to understand the subject. What about it cannot be explained in text. ÷seresin 22:56, 3 February 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:Lois Griffin - Pilot.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC.3a; an superior image used for identification is already present in the article. ÷seresin 01:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Evolution of Peter Griffin.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails NFCC.8; the progression of the character is not considerable, and no sources are used for commentary. ÷seresin 01:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saddamkey.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Admin MBisanz here, the uploader typed in a fake OTRS ticket permission for this image of Saddam. MBisanz is an OTRS volunteer and given the timy resolution, I submit the photo is a violation of someone else's rights. I ask that it be deleted within 1 week for being a clear copyright violation. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Philippe gallet 1702.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UlloJohnGottaNewMotor PictureDisc.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, doesn't meet NFCC#8 apparently. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:UlloJohnGottaNewMotor PictureDisc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DaveG12345 (notify | contribs).

Rationale claims it is a cover but it is a picture disc. No discussed in the article and is not the primary image for the subject. Does not significantly add to reader's understanding and so fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 06:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as uploader) - to address the specific points raised:

I think only the (non-editable) parts of the Templates themselves "claim it is a cover" - the contents of the templates that I am able to edit make clear it is a picture disc. AFAIK, there are no equivalent templates relating specifically to picture discs (let me know if such things exist), and Templates "must" be used for image rationales etc. these days, otherwise bots blindly nominate everything for deletion! :-(
It is not the primary image for the subject (my Rationale was wrong there), but the picture disc is certainly discussed in the article, in very specific terms of the marketing of the single in question - which is the only reason I uploaded the image in the first place! So I feel that part of the nom's objection ("No discussed in the article") is mistaken.
Obviously, I feel the image significantly adds to the reader's understanding, which again is why I uploaded it. In fact, I originally intended uploading the single's rear sleeve image instead (which is also specifically discussed in the article), but I felt that would have been more problematic from a fair-use POV, since the rear cover directly reproduces material that is itself copyrighted by the Ford Motor Company. Hence, I decided the picture disc was a better choice to give the reader the requisite information in the least problematic way.
Reviewing the Fair-Use Template as I had it originally, I think I had filled it in incorrectly (I had Use = Infobox and had not specified an alternate Purpose) - I have fixed that now (I think!). Please let me know here or at my Talkpage if there is still a problem relating to this.
BTW: the nom doesn't specify, but if the problem is with the image's physical location in the Infobox (rather than elsewhere in the article), then please feel free to move it (or let me know on my Talkpage, and I will move it). Before I placed the image in the Infobox, I had noted that alternate cover art is commonly appended to album/single article Infoboxes without any controversy, simply for the sake of neatness, provided the image's inclusion in the article also otherwise complies with fair-use policy - which I feel this one does, which is why I included this image in this article's Infobox. Regards. --DaveG12345 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is - what significant understanding does it give the reader that is not covered by the existing text "the 1983 reissue included a picture disc format featuring Sayle reclining on the bonnet of a Cortina Mark III" ? For me the text covers this quite adequately. Peripitus (Talk) 20:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so the procedural stuff mentioned in the nom is now OK, and the nom boils down to whether or not the image in the article satisfies WP:NFCC#8. I feel it does. In particular, I feel it meets current consensus of NFCC#8 interpretation as being clarified right now in this Talk Page discussion. FWIW, I found that (e.g.) Jheald's interpretation of this policy seemed to basically match mine, the comments in this diff[1] (and related discussion) being particularly relevant here. I feel this obviously isn't a case of "alternate cover art" being a simple change of lettering or font on otherwise identical "alternate" covers - those should certainly be deleted from WP (and this IFD is rightly full of them). The case here is totally different - the picture disc is illustrative of a completely different marketing approach for the 1983 single reissue, with completely different artwork to the original sleeve, all of which the article clearly discusses in compliance with NFCC#8 (and the article could be expanded in future here, of course). --DaveG12345 (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8 cold. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:31, 4 February 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:US1THsm.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not used by any article. Probably meant to be used by List of Hawaii state highways, but it isn't in that article at the present time. (If there were need to use it again, the Roads project could easily recreate a superior-quality SVG, with a name more easily remembered.) AEWalden is an absentee uploader not having edited since June 2006. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LibertyParkTunnel.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map detailing a proposed tunnel project that was shown to be original research in an AFD on the subject's article in October 2007. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Newstart 1.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: speedy delete - personal info! And yes, the Australian govt. has copyright over this sort of thing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value: what does seeing a government form do to enhance the reader's understanding of social security? Additionally, a copyvio: all material of the Australian government is copyright. The "no copyright extant" claim in the non-free use rationale is erroneous. Mkativerata (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) It enhances by way of illustration: for example article Social Security (United States) has an ID card as an illustration.

Three select pages from a government form for one social security benefit is not necessary for an understanding of social security in Australia.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) Please cite your sources when you say that Australian government forms are copyrighted. There is no copyright claim on Australian government forms. Please note: "Permission to use Commonwealth copyright must be obtained in all instances except for those allowed in the Copyright Act 1968. Substantial free usage is provided for under the Act, including reproduction for criticism or review, news reporting, research and private study." http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_CommonwealthCopyrightAdministration_Commonwealthcopyright#section1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duprie37 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This falls into none of those free categories. Its not news reporting. Its not research or study. The article doesn't criticise or review the forms. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the copyright issue applies here as there is no © symbol on the form. However, I do agree that all these files need to be deleted, due to the privacy issue raised, as the customer reference number is visible. Duprie37 (talk) 08:44, 28 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.

File:Newstart 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: speedy delete - personal info! And yes, the Australian govt. has copyright over this sort of thing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value: what does seeing a government form do to enhance the reader's understanding of social security? Additionally, a copyvio: all material of the Australian government is copyright. The "no copyright extant" claim in the non-free use rationale is erroneous. Finally, the display of the "reference number" at the top of the page is a breach of someone's privacy, and in my view, a breach of Australian law which protects personal information held by the government. Mkativerata (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) It enhances by way of illustration: for example article Social Security (United States) has an ID card as an illustration.

2) Please cite your sources when you say that Australian government forms are copyrighted. There is no copyright claim on Australian government forms. Please note: "Permission to use Commonwealth copyright must be obtained in all instances except for those allowed in the Copyright Act 1968. Substantial free usage is provided for under the Act, including reproduction for criticism or review, news reporting, research and private study." http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_CommonwealthCopyrightAdministration_Commonwealthcopyright#section1

3) This is correct: the CRN number breaches privacy laws and for this reason the file should be deleted.

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:Newstart 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: speedy delete - personal info! And yes, the Australian govt. has copyright over this sort of thing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value: what does seeing a government form do to enhance the reader's understanding of social security? Additionally, a copyvio: all material of the Australian government is copyright. The "no copyright extant" claim in the non-free use rationale is erroneous. Finally, the display of the "reference number" at the top of the page is a breach of someone's privacy, and in my view, a breach of Australian law which protects personal information held by the government. Mkativerata (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) It enhances by way of illustration: for example article Social Security (United States) has an ID card as an illustration.

2) Please cite your sources when you say that Australian government forms are copyrighted. There is no copyright claim on Australian government forms. Please note: "Permission to use Commonwealth copyright must be obtained in all instances except for those allowed in the Copyright Act 1968. Substantial free usage is provided for under the Act, including reproduction for criticism or review, news reporting, research and private study." http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_CommonwealthCopyrightAdministration_Commonwealthcopyright#section1

3) This is correct: the CRN number breaches privacy laws and for this reason the file should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duprie37 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 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.

File:Replace this image female.svg

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: Closing without prejudice for a number of reasons: incomplete nom - the image wasn't tagged. This image doesn't actually exist at commons under this exact file name as some have said below. And also, removing this image will require more widely publicized community discussion at a more central venue as it is a repetition of previously held RFCs on the same matter. –xeno^talk 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 2 years ago it was agreed not to use place holders,CON was split over how to proceed as some wanted to wait till a replacement could be devised this has not happened. These should be removed from wiki post haste Gnevin (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit odd to delete this file - when it's still available on Commons under the same name and is used on a large number of pages - as a proxy for getting rid of the system. It'll still show up on pages, just without the functionality; if you want to get rid of the legacy system, this isn't a very effective way to do it!

See also earlier discussions on FFD - 2008-12-06, 2008-03-12, 2007-08-06, 2007-05-22. Shimgray | talk | 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware it was on common or that commons had a different procedure when I nominated this. This FFD can be closed Gnevin (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 07:02, 29 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.

File:Missing flag.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:OI this is a Wikipedia invention for a Wikipedia problem. This "flag" illustrates the unpublished idea of a "Missing flag" an idea that exists only on Wikipedia Gnevin (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vlag ontbreekt.svg

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 ⚡ 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:OI this is a Wikipedia invention for a Wikipedia problem. This "flag" illustrates the unpublished idea of a "Missing flag" an idea that exists only on Wikipedia Gnevin (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ocarina range.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR, essentially meaningless without a clef to indicate what these pitches are, not a good way to represent the pitch range of an instrument that is not standardized (ocarinas come in many ranges, with nothing particularly typical about this), the stem on the second note is on the wrong side, etc. Chick Bowen 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JoelBooks.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, personal photo of no encyclopedic value. Marasmusine (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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