Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 27

< June 26	June 28 >

June 27

File:IMGP0883.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 ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no obvious encyclopedic use B (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to better name Bulwersator (talk) 11:40, 27 June 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.

Images from Kabuki dreams

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. -FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 01:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned images from a non-notable (though Creative Commons licensed) video B (talk) 04:03, 27 June 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.

Images from Alex Sedano

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. -FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 01:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencylcopedic. Images are from alexsedano.com, which makes no claim of a free license. The uploader refers to Alex Sedano in the third person, so there's no evidence to support that the license is real. B (talk) 04:10, 27 June 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:MissSharonBrown1961.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 ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image could not be found on the provided source. Also, there's no reason to believe it was published without a copyright notice (no information about its original publication is provided). damiens.rf 08:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the image is now on Commons, there's no reason to keep it. I do however object to the sourcing implications being put forward. Apparently the original source website listed has now been shut down. When the photo was originally posted,the site: Jimmy's Pageant Page was up and running with information allowing public domain use of the images on the page. Sf46 (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just posting an image publicly doesn't make it public domain. "Public domain" is a legal designation that means that it has no copyright protections ... "public" just means that anyone can see it. The latter does not imply the former. I used archive.org to look at old versions of the site and, though we don't have a direct link to where the image came from, there are no claims that any content on the site is public domain. Also, from looking around, it's clear that this site used images from a variety of sources and so this image may not have even been his to license to begin with. We also have no evidence supporting the claim that it was published without a copyright notice. --B (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any evidence in archive.org of a copyright release for that photo either, even if he had the rights to do so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 30 June 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:Futa 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not self-created; uploader with a history of copyright problems; poor quality logo on top of a background of unknown origin. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I, the copyright holder of this work" is probably untrue Bulwersator (talk) 11:38, 27 June 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:Nasuhi Ertegün by David Shankbone.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 ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted contemporary sculpture, no freedom of panorama in the united states Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:53, 27 June 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:LAESI wikipedia01.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no description, no foreseeable use. FASTILY ^(TALK) 16:55, 27 June 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:Ansell Logo.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: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, used in a now deleted article, no foreseeable use. FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:05, 27 June 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:RayMuzyka.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The person in the photo is not Ray Muzyka. The uploader relied on a bad caption in the original image. Google "ray muzyka" if you need proof that the person in the photo is not Ray Muzyka. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:19, 27 June 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:Metamaterial for 1.5micron wavelength.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 ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A free version of this diagram could easily be produced B (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the diagram part perhaps, but most of this image is a photomicrograph. That can't be produced independently. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no free version of this image. This image is copyrighted by "Optics Letters", a scientific journal. Here is the source link: Optics Letters, Vol. 31, Issue 12, pp. 1800-1802 (2006) doi:10.1364/OL.31.001800]. A search of the internet produces no free image. A reproduction of this image would be a copyright violation of the publisher's work. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A diagram illustrating the measurements that this is intended to show could be created. The fact that it doesn't currently exist changes nothing. The standard is not whether one currently exists, but whether one could be created. --B (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no capability to create such an image. Also it would be a copyright violation. If you want to create one then feel free. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop

I think the Graphics lab is a good idea. I didn't know we (Wikipedia) had this available. I think this pretty much solves everything. Please, give me a couple of days to make sure I have all my ducks lined up for the files that User:B and I have been discussing on this page. Then go ahead and delete the files. I will replace them with free images, or charts, or whatever, manufactured by the lab (if they are willing). I suppose I would be willing to help out with these images if they need help. Thanks for suggesting this. Hopefully, it is understood which files (on this page) I refer to. If not I can list them here. --Steve Quinn (talk) 00:09, 29 June 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:Depiction of 30° oriented ellipsometry experiment.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A free version of this diagram could easily be produced B (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_June_27#File:Metamaterial_for_1.5micron_wavelength.jpg

This isn't just a diagram, it's also a photomicrograph. That can't be replicated. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no free version of this image. This image is copyrighted by by AAAS - Science doi:10.1126/science.1094025 Yen, T. J.; Padilla, W. J.; Fang, N.; Vier, D. C.; Smith, D. R.; Pendry, J. B.; Basov, D. N.; Zhang, X. (2004). "Terahertz Magnetic Response from Artificial Materials". Science. 303 (5663): 1494–1496. doi:10.1126/science.1094025. PMID 15001772..

A search of the internet produces no free image. A reproduction of this image would be a copyright violation of the publisher. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A diagram illustrating the measurements that this is intended to show could be created. The fact that it doesn't currently exist changes nothing. The standard is not whether one currently exists, but whether one could be created. --B (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any derivative or reproduction of this image is copyright infringement. These are all unique images, which professionally depict the research described in the article. The copyright is held by the journal noted in the source section of the template. This complies with the non-free criteria If I need to add more rationale I will. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:01, 28 June 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:Annulus-applied-to-metamaterial-cloak.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A free version of this diagram could easily be produced B (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no free version of this image. This image is copyrighted by by AAAS - Science , a scientific journal. Here is the source link:
Pendry, J.B.; Schurig, D.; Smith, D. R. (2006). "Controlling Electromagnetic Electromagnetic Fields". Science. 312 (5514): 1780–1782. doi:10.1126/science.1125907. PMID 16728597. Here is the PDF download for this article. This also is copyrighted by the same scientific journal. A search of the internet produces no accurate free image. A reproduction of this image would be a copyright violation of the publisher's work. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A diagram illustrating the content that this is intended to show could be created. The fact that it doesn't currently exist changes nothing. The standard is not whether one currently exists, but whether one could be created. --B (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CRYSTAL. Also, any derivative or reproduction of this image is copyright infringement. These are all unique images, which professionally depict the research described in the article. This complies with non-free criteria. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is a policy for deciding what articles we include. It is not a policy for determining whether it is acceptable to use a fair use image. And again, a new chart depicting the same data can be created. Are you really saying that the first time someone creates a chart showing a certain piece of information, nobody can ever create another chart showing that same piece of information again for all eternity (or until Congress gets tired of extending the Mickey Mouse copyright act, whichever comes first)? --B (talk) 11:39, 28 June 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:Copper split resonator and resonance curve.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 ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A free version of this diagram could easily be produced B (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright for this image belongs to "Physical Review Letters". Please see source on template affixed to image. I lifted this image off a PDF file using GIMP. However, it is still a copyrighted image. Reproducing this image without proper attribution is a copyright infringement. There are no free images available. This seems to be a campaign to force editors to place inferior images into Wikipedia articles - see above sections peraining to User:Steve Quinn and the next one below. I am taking this to WP:ANI. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any derivative or reproduction of this image is copyright infringement. These are all unique images, which professionally depict the research described in the article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, an SVG image depicting the same information would be a much more higher quality image, not an inferior one. The underlying data depicted on this graph is not copyrightable (facts are not subject to copyright) and so someone so inclined could make a free version. If you ask nicely at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop and point them to the underlying data elements to use, I bet you could find someone to make one for you. --B (talk) 11:36, 28 June 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:Two arrays of nanoholes in a metal screen.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A free version of this diagram could easily be produced B (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any derivative or reproduction of this image is copyright infringement. These are all unique images, which professionally depict the research described in the article. The copyright is held by the journal noted in the source section of the template. This complies with the non-free criteria. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. This image depicts two charts. The underlying data elements (or math calculations, etc) that they show are not copyrightable (facts are not subject to copyright). Someone can make their own chart depicting the same data elements. If you ask nicely at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop, I bet you could find someone to make one for you. --B (talk) 11:34, 28 June 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:JA y A.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 ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User just uploaded this image to en.wiki because it was nominated for deletion in commons commons:File:Jose_Andino_y_Amezquita.jpg. The same concerns applies: "no evidence this drawing is from 1800". Also, the current source on en.wiki is some offline book, but the image is the pixel-by-pixel copy of the one at commons, whose source is some blog. This is all suspicious. damiens.rf 19:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This image should be Kept, I believe that this a false assumption and misleading accusation by the nominator. While it is true that the first image (in "Commons") will most likely be deleted because it come from a "Blog" regardless of the fact that the blog is a blog owned by the school named after the subject. The new upload comes from the "Colecciones Puertorriqueñas"; by: Cesáreo Rosa Nieves y Esther M. Melón: Biografías; Ediciones México, 1985 in which it is stated that the image is c.1800., which I believe is the same place that the blog obtained it from. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:48, 27 June 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:Samsung i8000.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 ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was tagged for Speedy Delete as invalid non-free, The phone is on sale and so the picture IS replaceable by a free one. Mtking (talk) 20:03, 27 June 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:2,2,2-trichloroethanol-Line-Structure.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned/replaced in 2,2,2-Trichloroethanol and not drawn according to WP:CSDG. Leyo 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor choice of font. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:09, 29 June 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:Jethro Tull war Child cover inverted.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 ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to see an inverted version of the cover? Has it been previously published (if it hasn't, it is original research). Fails WP:NFCC#8. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do we need to see an inverted version"?

If the nominator had bothered to look at the article, which they very obviously failed to do, then this would be obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I did look at the article. It says: "The front cover is a composite photograph featuring a positive color print of Melbourne, Australia at night, and a negative print of a studio photo of lead singer Ian Anderson."

That still doesn't explain to me why we need an image which does not actually illustrate the album cover. The fact that it was inverted, along with showing the real cover, is sufficient. Inverting the actual cover just to show what Anderson actually looked like fails WP:NFCC because it was not used in the real release. Even if it was, do we need two images of one album, especially when they are as similar as these two? I'd say not, per WP:NFCC#8.

I invite you to described what obvious reason there is to need to see an inverted version. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is obvious. You might still regard this reason as inadequate to meet NFCC (I expect it to be eventually deleted on that basis), but that's a separate question. Simply listing it in ignorance and asking "Why?" looks far too much like a nomination with no attempt made to look at its use. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain what the obvious reason is? I did think about this nomination and read parts of the article beforehand, contrary to what you seem to think, and would certainly want the image kept if there is a legitimate reason which I'm just overlooking. I really don't see any obvious reason, so saying "The reason is obvious" doesn't help me to see your side of the discussion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that you haven't yet addressed any of my concerns, such as about original research and NFCC#8. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it sufficiently constitutes 'original research' (had I needed to reverse the image using a camera & darkroom etc. it would). And although I don't believe this album's cover-art is extremely high on the list of 'most iconic 70's album covers ever' I do think that it is a significant one for Jethro Tull fans. Therefore I think it is informative to show that the semi-iconic cover is not an original painting etc., but merely a color photograph negative print. --Eskovan (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for providing a reasonable argument for keeping the image, rather than just saying that the reason "is obvious" and accusing me of not looking at the article before nominating the image for deletion. Now, onto my real response.

Isn't describing that fact in text sufficient? How does the image's presence in the article "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (per WP:NFCC#8). Would "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? I don't think it would be detrimental. The original cover is shown and the article describes that the image is an inverted picture and not a painting, so seeing the inverted cover does not significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic.

Just as a general note, I'm not too picky about album articles having two cover images as long as they are sufficiently different; e.g., a special edition of an album may have a dramatically different alternative cover. In this case, though, the image are so similar that a textual description would work as well as showing the inverted image (which wasn't even a released cover used for a special edition or the like). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:27, 28 June 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:2003 Greece 10 Euro OS Horse Riding 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free coin image only in use on equestrianism, for which it has no non-free use rationale and is likely replaceable by a free image. Kelly ^hi! 23:00, 27 June 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.