Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20

File:Brian Albertson, member of the 2003-04 FPS State Champion Team.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 00:35, 20 January 2011 (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:Brotherhood.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 00:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful, only use has been related to vandalism/inappropriate editing. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2011 (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:Bschimni.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 00:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The summary indicates that PD-self might not be a legitimate license; even if the correct license is found, it's still unusable in the associated WP:BLP per WP:NONFREE anyway. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:06, 20 January 2011 (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:Bulgarian-airport.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: renamed and moved to Commons by nominator (File:Sofia Airport 2003.jpg), early close. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 00:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Commons: someone familiar with Bulgarian airports (which I'm not) would be able to identify this airport without difficulty. The image itself has no copyright-related problems, and it's a good-quality image of a sort that we often don't have. Nyttend (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nyttend. It's Sofia airport ([1]), before the 2006 expansion of the runway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Commons with better name. Kelly ^hi! 17:08, 20 January 2011 (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:Q Baby.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, no description. Kelly ^hi! 02:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unidentifiable subject, low quality, no evidence of usefulness. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:08, 20 January 2011 (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:ISBN 9780712309530.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: no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-free images of book cover are usually only permitted in articles about the book itself which is not the case here, but is used in an article about the organisation that published the book. It is not contextually significant to the article as it publication can be described easily in prose, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the policy NFCC does not restrict the cover of a book to articles purely about a book/guide. The article British Library Philatelic Collections is not about the organization, it is about the collections that the guide is precisely about and there is no other guide that does this. The article mentions the guide itself and explains what is on the cover so relevance seems clear and explicit. The image is unlikely to ever be challenged (which is rather the point of NFCC) as the British Library is delighted to have an article illustrated and has been involved in its creation and will continue to help with later expert review of content. Refer to WP:GLAM/BL to see collaboration page for evidence of an open and continuing positive dialogue with the copyright holding organization. Fæ (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons mentioned by Fæ above.Harrypotter (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree the article is about the collection and the booklet is mentioned in the prose, but whether it's use might impinges on the commercial opportunities of the copyright holder, which would come under WP:NFCC#2, that is not why it was nominated for deletion. It was nominated because the use of this non-free image does not add anything significant to the article and certainly it is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic if the non-free image is omitted because the existing prose clearly informs readers that this booklet exists and what the collection is about. The use of the booklet front cover is unnecessary to that understanding and the British Library's delight at use of a copyright image has nothing to do with our implementation of our non-free policy or their collaboration with WP:GLAM/BL. Of course the library could extend its collaboration by releasing the image under a free licence, otherwise our non-free criteria must be complied with. ww2censor (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you have shifted the basis of your rationale, I presume you have conceded that NFCC#8 no longer appears to be a good reason to delete this image. As for the new rationale of NFCC#2, I see no basis for use in this article to be "likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". You could argue that no article that discusses a book ever could fully justify having a fair use image of the book cover as there will always be some potential argument for loss for a copyright holder (no matter how unlikely), but that is not the intention of NFCC (hence the use of the word "likely") or the current consensus on Wikipedia's interpretation of fair use. Fæ (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you think I have shifted my position. My reasoning is based on NFCC#8 as I have clearly stated in both my posts; it is not detrimental to reader's understanding of the topic if this non-free image is removed. I only mentioned that NFCC#2 did not apply because you mentioned it first but I am not going to get into a greater discussion on NFCC#2 (which should take place elsewhere) but the accepted use under that criteria might be interpreted by some as making the use of any book cover in any article is not permitted but our accepted fair-use of such images is in the infobox of articles about the book itself which is why many such images have been deleted when added to author articles as an inappropriate use. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you supply a link to an established policy or consensus showing that book cover images can only be used on free-standing articles about the book rather than articles which include the book? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Non-free book cover}} ww2censor (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that template states it applies to images which are used "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question", which is exactly what the article it is used in does. BTW, a template is neither a policy or a consensus (which is what I asked for) but might be the outcome of such. Fæ (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, the article is not about the book, otherwise the article would be called something like Treasurers in Focus: Stamps and the article would start; "Treasurers in Focus: Stamps is a book about the postage stamps in the philatelic collections of the British Library, etc.," but the article is about the philatelic collections, both stamps and postal history, held by the British Library. The use of this image seems rather similar to the use of a book cover image on an author article where such images are removed. Such widely used templates that implement policy are generally based on a consensus by editors interested in such matters otherwise they would not remain for the length of time this one has been using the relevant text which is about five years. I am not going to go searching back 5-8 years for you to find such consensus or discussions on this template because its use is well known to editors who review non-free images and if you don't agree with that perhaps you should bring the matter up on the NFCC policy talk page. This is simply an unnecessary use of a non-free image in the article British Library Philatelic Collections. ww2censor (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2011 (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:Polodesktop.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unused file; other files by this uploader have had questionable licensing issues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete – was used to illustrate deleted article about a non-notable video game. The uploader asserted he was himself the game developer, which means copyright might actually be okay, but it's still not useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 20 January 2011 (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:SantanaLopezGlee.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed speedy deletion requests. All of these are replacable by freely availible equivalents, already on commons. See Characters of Glee for the freely availible pics. Jayron32 05:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of the actor is in my opinion not equivalent to a picture of the character.
But that's a big issue, and I'm not sure whether that's only my interpretation of the NFCC. Character images like those are used throughout the project, and whether those are generally unacceptable without an extraordinary rationale (i.e. not a templated one) should IMO be established in a wider forum (maybe it already was?), not in an FfD for just one bunch: It would leave us with a whole lot of work to clean them all up (by deletion or addition of a strong rationale), and it would certainly be highly controversial and should be backed by a strong consensus. Amalthea 13:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember what the outcome was the last of the innumerable times this has been debated. Wasn't there something about the idea that if the actor's appearance in his role is recognizably the same as his real-world appearance (like: normal, modern clothes etc.), a real-life photograph counts as a legitimate replacement? In the present case, since the cast summary article apparently can live quite well with real-life photos, that would seem like a prima facie argument that the detail articles could do the same? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that the point is that irreplacability means that the picture communicates something about the character that cannot be communicated by either the text alone or a freely availible picture. The only thing identifying about the characters in each of these pictures is the face of the actor that portrays them. There is nothing else in the copyright pictures which cannot be clearly communicated either via the text (such as describing the wheelchair used by one of the characters). I mean, look at the picture for Will Schuster. You can't claim that anything in that picture justifies keeping it in preference to the freely availible pic of the actor that plays him. For the characters that have supposedly unique costumes which identifies them as seperate from the actors; those costumes are not so unique as to defy description in the text. "Puck often wears his hair in a mohawk" or "Brittany is almost always dressed in her cheerleader uniform" doesn't require a seperate picture to explain what is meant. --Jayron32 13:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, I think you've summed it up right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really hate those extremely blurry lines, this is bound to result in endless FfDs and re-uploads. If I take your "normal clothing", most folks would probably agree that makeup and costume of Jack Sparrow is extreme enough for a non-free image. The various James Bonds? Doubtful, a suit as a trademark look is rather trivial. Jean-Luc Picard? Possibly, but really, for most parts of the world a cheerleading uniform is just as alien as a Star Trek uniform is: you see it on TV.
  I'd much prefer a more extreme guideline -- either we generally disallow them and ask for a very strong rationale, or we generally allow them for fictional characters of encyclopedic notability. I think the various interpretations of the NFCC can accommodate both, and I personally think that this encyclopedia is better with those images. Amalthea 14:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, we don't have policy guidance on this; you are of course free to start such a discussion. There are two problems with your position. 1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have no idea whether or not the other images you have named should, or should not be deleted, and whether they should, or should not, is irrelevent to this discussion. This discussion is about these images, so we really shouldn't muddy the waters by bringing in a discussion of unrelated images. 2) In the absense of actual, community decided consensus on this issue, we need to work in the framework of the already established community consensus on this. NFCC policies and guidelines make it clear that replaceable images are deletable; these images are replacable. Whether or not other images, which have not yet been deleted, are equally replacable, or whether they are not, is completely irrelevent to these. All we have is the policies we are given and the relationship between these images and the policies. Thinking the encyclopedia is "better" is far too vague a concept; perhaps the encyclopedia is better if I copy text from another source word for word, especially if the writer is more skilled than I am. That doesn't make it right. --Jayron32 14:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You misinterpreted pretty much my entire post, I'll try again:
    I was listing fictional characters, not images, mainly as examples to show the wide spectrum of character looks vs. their respective real-life appearances. My intent was to explain that I find it very difficult to draw a consistent line here, one that I could explain to a new editor, one that won't constantly require discussions. As long as there is no such line people will continue to upload those images.
    
    As I indicated above, I find the established consensus from the NFCC not enough to decide for or against any of those images. I do believe that even an extreme position like "non-free images of all fictional characters of encyclopedic notability are generally acceptable unless there is a free image of that fictional character" can be argued to be within the bounds of the NFCC -- "serves the same encyclopedic purpose" is in my eyes extremely up for interpretation (≠wikilawyering!).
    
    As for my personal opinion, even if you have a good image of the actor, say File:MS0363FB (2).jpg vs. File:Noah Puckerman.png, the article will never be complete without an image of the actual character, if only to have an image that can have a caption stating: That's him. And yes, a complete article is "better".
    Amalthea 13:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as replaceable. Sometimes it's even possible to get free images of actors in role - see File:Connor Trinneer.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 04:00, 27 January 2011 (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:Bidognetti Arrested.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3 as multiple non-free files are used when one would suffice. The arrest of the subject can and is easily conveyed with text. This file does not increase the readers' understanding of the subject, so it fails WP:NFCC#8 as well. — ξ ^xplicit 05:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per Explicit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the included mugshot is more legitimately rationalized as non-replaceable, and multiple WP:NONFREE images in a WP:BLP are unjustifiable. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:12, 20 January 2011 (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:Gimnazija2.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-resolution photo of some building. No description and no context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, unlikely to be truly self-made, and not useful. It's First Grammar School, Celje, which has a better image now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, PD-self tag is dubious, and if copyrighted is replaceable. Currently used image is superior. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:34, 20 January 2011 (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:Massage herapy.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from TV episode. Nondescript random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, no caption, apparently not even characteristic of the episode, purely decorative infobox use. Fails NFCC#8, per innumerable precedents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that fair use is justified, almost non-existent rationale. No commentary indicating image of this particular scene is necessary for understanding of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 20 January 2011 (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:Unplanned Parenthood.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from TV episode. Nondescript random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, no caption, apparently not even characteristic of the episode, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless FUR. Fails NFCC#8, per innumerable precedents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that fair use is justified, almost non-existent rationale. No commentary indicating image of this particular scene is necessary for understanding of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While you're at it why don't you also delete File:House-Paternity.jpg. I think its also for decoration perpose. CrystalFiji 12:22, 24 January 2011 (GMT+12:00).

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:Now What.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from TV episode. Nondescript random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, no caption, apparently not even characteristic of the episode, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless FUR. Fails NFCC#8, per innumerable precedents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that fair use is justified, almost non-existent rationale. No commentary indicating image of this particular scene is necessary for understanding of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 20 January 2011 (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:Selfish.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from TV episode. Nondescript random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, no caption, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless FUR. Article consists purely of overlong plot renarration; there is no commentary that could possibly support the need for a non-free image. Fails NFCC#8, per innumerable precedents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that fair use is justified, almost non-existent rationale. No commentary indicating image of this particular scene is necessary for understanding of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 20 January 2011 (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:Unwritten.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from TV episode. Nondescript random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, no caption, no discernible relation even to the plot, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless FUR. Article consists almost entirely of overlong plot renarration. Fails NFCC#8, per innumerable precedents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that fair use is justified, almost non-existent rationale. No commentary indicating image of this particular scene is necessary for understanding of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 20 January 2011 (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:Office Politics.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from TV episode. Nondescript random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless FUR. Article consists almost entirely of plot summary, no commentary that could support the need for an image. Fails NFCC#8, per innumerable precedents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that fair use is justified, almost non-existent rationale. No commentary indicating image of this particular scene is necessary for understanding of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 20 January 2011 (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:Housepox.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from TV episode. Nondescript random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless FUR. Article consists almost entirely of overlong plot renarration, no commentary that could support the need for an image. Fails NFCC#8, per innumerable precedents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that fair use is justified, almost non-existent rationale. No commentary indicating image of this particular scene is necessary for understanding of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 20 January 2011 (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:Small Sacrifices.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from TV episode. Nondescript random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless FUR. Article consists almost entirely of overlong plot renarration, no commentary that could support the need for an image. Fails NFCC#8, per innumerable precedents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that fair use is justified, almost non-existent rationale. No commentary indicating image of this particular scene is necessary for understanding of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 20 January 2011 (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:Larger Than Life.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot from TV episode. Nondescript random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, purely decorative infobox use, meaningless FUR. Article consists almost entirely of overlong plot renarration, no commentary that could support the need for an image. Fails NFCC#8, per innumerable precedents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that fair use is justified, almost non-existent rationale. No commentary indicating image of this particular scene is necessary for understanding of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 20 January 2011 (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:Eman.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 ⚡ 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyright violation. The uploader claims this is his or her own work, but the file has no metadata, and [2] is a larger version of this photo (notice that it shows more of the subject's right hand)—it seems likely that the image uploaded here was cropped from the larger image in order to remove the text. —Bkell (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self license is dubious, appears to be crop as asserted by nominator. If copyrighted, replaceable and thus unusable in WP:BLP per WP:NONFREE. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:37, 20 January 2011 (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:Ruby12851.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 ⚡ 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyright violation. The uploader, Capolinho, has tagged this image with {{self}} tags, but gives a URL [3] as the source, and says a different user, Ahmadpontymageed, is the author. —Bkell (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use of self tags appears unjustifiable and image is likely copyrighted (and not necessarily to the source from where it was culled). Even if sourceable, would be unusable in WP:BLP per WP:NONFREE. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:16, 20 January 2011 (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:CApic15.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 17:07, 20 January 2011 (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:Byjr.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: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exact image with much better copyright claims exists in commons here. Addationally according to WP:IUP#FORMAT "Photos and scanned images should be in JPEG format". The commons image is jpeg. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to version at Commons, which is superior in terms of copyright description. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:22, 20 January 2011 (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:Lenakils.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 21:57, 20 January 2011 (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:Ach1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 21:59, 20 January 2011 (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:Nicolaimummkils.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 22:00, 20 January 2011 (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:VSSHSFalcon.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is claimed to be the logo of Valley Stream South High School, but it is identical to the logo of the Atlanta Falcons. I don't see this logo on the school's Web page, and the file description page doesn't give a source (it just uses the generic "The logo may be obtained from Valley Stream South High School"). —Bkell (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a scaled-down/rasterized version of File:Atlanta_Falcons_logo.svg. The fair use rationale appears invalid; the image is not needed to identify the subject of the article, as the article is about the school and not solely its sports teams. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:26, 20 January 2011 (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:Raekekils.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 22:16, 20 January 2011 (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:Menkekils.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 22:16, 20 January 2011 (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:Rhh.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, obsoleted by File:Royal Hallamshire Hospital.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid photo. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2011 (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.