Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 19

< May 18	May 20 >

May 19

File:SnapfireImage5.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 as F4 by Luk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useless image of obvious abysmal quality. Eeekster (talk) 02:37, 19 May 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:DSCN3812.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: moved to Commons at File:Elgin pocket watch.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very pretty watch, but there's no indication as to what kind of watch it is. Therefore it's unusable. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons as File:Elgin pocket watch, as a nice image of a pocket watch, someone can use on pocket watch articles, or about the Elgin company. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:36, 19 May 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:DSCN3028.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 JaGa^talk 08:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, not encyclopedic, very likely a copyvio. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:08, 19 May 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:IMG-20110302-00007.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. — Edokter (talk) — 20:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that this is being used in an article, I am contending that this image is useless, as it does not display anything worth displaying. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Sven Manguard Wha? 05:40, 19 May 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:IMG0002.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 JaGa^talk 08:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image not identified, therefore unusable. Uploader has no other contributions. Based on lack of information, no way of knowing copyright status of art either. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:20, 19 May 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:Doctors wife screenshot.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 May 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. This is not AfD; the sourced commentary must be in the article, and not just merely exist. I am willing to restore if appropriate commentary gets added. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC) No consensus. I misread one of the comments. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Readers' understanding of the article would not be damaged if this image were deleted, so it fails NFCC 8. The makeshift TARDIS could be described in words to an adequate extent. Sure, it wouldn't enable people to visualise it 100% perfectly, but they don't need to merely in order to understand the episode's plot and the fact that this particular console was designed by a Blue Peter child. People only need to know that it's makeshift, cobbled together, and partially open IMO. Something like, "...composed of a glowing TARDIS console, protected by TARDIS walls on two sides but open on the others..." seems more than sufficient, and indeed that's way more than is even mentioned in the article: the actual aesthetics and visual appearance of the console are subject to no critcal commentary whatsoever in the article [1] and that is all there is to it. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 08:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have seen several mainstream reviews of this significant episode and they are all illustrated with a fair use picture of the Tardis avatar wife. This picture is a good one in showing several of the salient features. Understanding of the nature of a Tardis console is best communicated by a picture because we should not assume that all readers are veteran Dr Who fans - they might be young Blue Peter viewers, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But all you've done, Colonel, is to establish – and I'd agree with you on this – that the image passes NFCC1, ie. that it would not be possible to perfectly convey the console's appearance without a picture. However, the point which Future Perfect and myself are trying to make is that it fails NFCC8, because readers don't need a perfect mental image of the console in order to understand the salient points which are a)that it's been cobbled together and b)that it was designed by a child. The plot doesn't depend on the aesthetics. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 15:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see our policy which explains that we are not exclusively concerned with an explanation of the plot. The Blue Peter consideration is a real-world one. Showing a picture of the console is essential because, to the current Blue Peter viewer, a console is something like a Playstation. In the past, the word has meant an architectural feature - a sort of bracket - and who knows what it might mean in the future. It remains my considered view that we should keep the picture. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know we're not exclusively concerned with the plot. But as I've said below, whether the console design featured green fur, live birds, a medieval tapestry or an orange-juice dispenser, the article would still look almost identical; the nitty-gritty-detailed aesthetics of the console design are simply not necessary for someone to understand the article. Also, we don't write Wikipedia for an audience of people who don't understand basic English language concepts such as 'console' – if you are concerned that younger readers may not know what the word means, then putting in an explanation, or just trusting to people's knowledge of the tongue, would be preferable to including a non-free image. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 13:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As discussed at the article's talk page before uploading, at the present time there is no sourced discussion of the elements in question, but I know they exist (it is easily checked by google news) - it's easily verified and by necessity will be part of the end article. Additionally, I stress that you can't just say "makeshift TARDIS console" and that it was designed by a 12 year old and assume that the reader can visualize that. It's designed by a child, so does that mean it's pink and frilly? Tough, bulks, with laser beams and guns all over the place? --MASEM (t) 12:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying that the critical commentary which would support this image's inclusion is yet to be added to the article, then one must logically conclude that you are admitting that as it stands, the graphic fails NFCC8, in which case I must ask why you chose to upload it at this stage? However, your point about frilly laser-beams or whatever is irrelevant. As Future Perfect and I have both said, why should it matter to a reader of the article whether it's pink or purple or green with polka-dots? Nothing relies on an understanding of exactly what it looks like. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 15:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because one facet of the reason to use the image is already present: the contest result from Blue Peter. When the commentary about Jones' performance gets added, that will simply strengthen the reason. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I must apologise then: I was misled by your saying, "At the present time there is no sourced discussion of the elements in question, but I know they exist." That has dealt with the first sentence of my comment above. Now perhaps you could turn your attention to sentences two, three and four, which I notice you seem to have overlooked. Cheers. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 07:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can stretch the logic and claim that every image is replaceable by text, and thus no non-free image should ever be included. The point is with NFCC is to balance the ease and value of comprehension of the actual image to the reader's understanding, to that of avoiding non-free and replacing with free. Focusing strickly on the console element (and not the actors/characters) for the time being: lets assume there was no contest and the console idea was created by some art department person; in this hypothetical, there was dev info that they had to envision what this would look like and construct it but it was all part of their same job for the last 5 series. Knowing that, I would likely be able to envision what they would come up with with just the words "makeshift console", because its the same persons that designed the previous consoles, so by creative extrapolation, I can envision that ok. But in reality here, we know this was done by a young fan; this is a completely new element that I can't extrapolate without either visualization via NFC or exasperating detail in text. I would have to ask, how consistent is the console with the old and new series - does it have all the usual elements we've seen on consoles in the past? I know I can describe it (as a fan of the series) as a mish-mash of the various types of consoles in the series, old-and-new, including its 6-sided shape and time rotor, but that's OR to say that within the body of the text to replace the image with text. This is why in this case, I would justify that part of the reason to use that image is that it serves to identify a noted creative element contributed from someone outside the usual boundaries of the show.
I will add that in the last 24hr someone added additional dev info about Jones' casting selection, with Gainan specifically requesting her for her strangeness and looks; again, the image is serving more than one purpose, which is why I thought about if an image was needed and chose that specific scene because it captures many points I've already seen mentioned in reviews in one go, making it effective for one shot. --MASEM (t) 12:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating this business about it not being replaceable by text, but if you'd read what I've explicitly written above: I agree with you – it cannot be replaced by text which would convey a 100% crystal-clear perfect mental image to the reader. You and I are unanimous on that. Trebles all round. However, I am still not clear which particular passages of the article depend on the image in order to maximise readers' understanding. I concur that one couldn't guess what it looked like based on previous experience, yes it is a "completely new element," but I can only repeat that they don't need to guess or know its exact visual appearance. Suppose it were actually purple and furry: would any of the article be significantly different? I don't think so. Therefore, its precise aesthetics are not a necessary aspect of one's understanding of the article. ╟─Treasury Tag►collectorate─╢ 12:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not how it looks by itself, but how it compares and contrasts to TARDIS consoles of the past that's the factor. Whether the console was pink, furry, etc. etc. those factors aren't the issues, it is how those specific traits compare to the past. That can't be done in text without creating OR, but can be done via a picture. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I can't add it now, but this article [2] and embedded video from Blue Peter go into detail on who selected the design, how it was made, etc. So there's more that can be said than that one line presently in the article. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not how it looks by itself, but how it compares and contrasts to TARDIS consoles of the past that's the factor – so how can one image make a comparison? Surely you'd want to include multiple images in order to show this, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 13:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shown at TARDIS, and no need to weigh down this with more NFC. I will add that I just expanded on the console design within the article having watched the appropriate Blue Peter segment. --MASEM (t) 11:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would we be able to perfectly visualize the "makeshift TARDIS console" without the image? Perhaps not, although TT's attempt at a description seems quite adequate to me. The question is: why would we need to be able to visualize it perfectly? The answer is: we don't. Nothing in the rest of the article depends on that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete per Fut.Perf. Under the arguments to keep this we'd have screenshots for every new background in every TV show. Why is it Doc Who fans are the only ones who keep pushing at the NFCC?--Scott Mac 15:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google news search shows ample coverage of this episode [3] such as in Wired magazine. And as mentioned by others, there was coverage on the contest winner designing the Tardis control. Dream Focus 14:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's ample coverage of the episode. How's that relevant? Yes, there was coverage of the console being designed by a kid who won some contest. How does your comment remotely address the NFCC8 concerns? It doesn't. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 15:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Text can not convey this visual adequately in my opinion, and the image is accompanied by sufficient critical commentary. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another !vote which doesn't even attempt to address NFCC8. How/why would it be difficult for readers to understand the article without seeing the image? ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 12:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you missed the 10 words of my comment, let me spoon-feed it to you: 'Image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, text does not convey it adequately'. Another pointless attempt trying to discredit valid opinions. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, simply repeating your generic proof by assertion still doesn't qualify as "how/why," but nice use of sarcasm! ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 12:31, 24 May 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:Aero industry.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 JaGa^talk 08:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image lacking description - Uploaded by currently blocked user Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:50, 19 May 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:László Nagy Bronze Wolf Carl XVI Gustaf.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free historic photograph. Fails NFCC#8: we don't need to see a photograph of a person receiving an award in order to understand that he received it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 19 May 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:Deathtrapdungeon.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 ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded under GFDL license to be used in the article Deathtrap Dungeon - hand-drawn map of the dungeon. I hold that the image is an unfree derivative work, and that the image doesn't have encyclopedic value to justify its inclusion under fair use. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to the other images uploaded by the user; they can be found at User:Bykhos/maps. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:08, 19 May 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:Clopen symbol.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 as G3 by John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

made up logo for a made up concept; the image itself is OR. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Comment: There are actually four items from the same creator which have been nominated for deletion. They are: File:Clopen symbol.png, Joey Koala, United Under Economy, and Ronald Ellis (American businessman). The latter is the odd one out as Ronald Ellis is merely non-notable rather than fictional. bobrayner (talk) 00:35, 20 May 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:Adult imm1.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 as F8 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Damiens.rf 20:10, 19 May 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:Madonna-brent-murray.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 ⚡ 20:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fails Commons:De minimis TheAnimalKing124 (talk) 20:18, 19 May 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:AdeptLogo.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo. If user made, probably not encyclopedic. If not user made, probably non-free. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:37, 19 May 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:Air Uni Logo.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 as F9 by Sadads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it would be a copyrighted logo. Orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:38, 19 May 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:Archbishop Booth's arms.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 ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree (I don't know how coats of arms work copyright-wise). Regardless, though, file is orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:40, 19 May 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:Andalucia Seal.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 ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this would be PD, and I can't think of a FUR which would apply to it if it was tagged as non-free. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:41, 19 May 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:No.1 UAV Squadron Indian Navy.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 ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a military unmanned aerial vehicle. Speedy deletion as replaceable was contested, and then declined by an admin, on the grounds of a mere guess that "photographic access may well be restricted" (presumablybecause it's classified military hardware). However, (1) this claim isn't even substantiated, and (2) our long-standing practice is that military items such as airplanes or weapon systems do not constitute exceptions to the NFCC rules; even if taking photographs of them may not easily feasible for most civilians much of the time, we do wait until one turns up at a public air show, a technology fair, a military parade or some such occasion where photographs can be taken, which they in fact often do. No reason was given why this machine should be different in this respect than all the hundreds of other military vehicles we have articles about, and where we insist on free images. – Incidentally, the image is also so small it offers hardly any discernible concrete detail about the vehicle; this means it probably actually also fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 19 May 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:Twin Magnum.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: Deleted under CSD A7. — Edokter (talk) — 22:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File page written as an article, I assume to prevent speedy as not notable Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:51, 19 May 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:IMG0044.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 ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencylopedic. Page in a book, not entirely sure which book, used in a userpage that hasn't been edited in some time, for decorative purposes. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:07, 19 May 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:IMG0045.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 ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencylopedic. Page in a book, not entirely sure which book, used in a userpage that hasn't been edited in some time, for decorative purposes. Two of the other pages in this series were already deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:08, 19 May 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:IMG0154.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencylopedic, orphaned, image on an unidentified living person. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:29, 19 May 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:Rdx.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, orphaned, unidentified living person. Almost identical to File:IMG0154.jpg. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:31, 19 May 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:There's more than one of everything.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 ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free episode screenshot. No FUR (the FUR on the page is still referring to a different image, which was overwritten at some point without updating the description, hence it is at present invalid). The present image is merely a generic picture of two protagonists talking, with no particular identificatory value for the episode, and not contributing in any measurable way to understanding the article. Caption says that one of the protagonists is showing the other a certain "device", but the device is hardly visible in the image. Purely decorative use, fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:44, 19 May 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:125px-R825 Regional Route Shield Ireland.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: Deleted under CSD F1. — Edokter (talk) — 22:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. File:R825 Regional Route Shield Ireland.png is a clearly superior alternative to this image and is in use. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:49, 19 May 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:6bds 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, probably not PD. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:56, 19 May 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:Anaconda89.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 ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. No source (what website is "Anaconda89" on?), and so no evidence that the image is public domain. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:58, 19 May 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:Aultbea naval history.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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me that the cited permission shows the copyright holder perfectly willing to allow the image's use on Wikipedia... but that doesn't make the image public domain. In fact, unless it is explicitly released under a license which Wikipedia allows (including PD), Wikipedia does not allow its use... "Wikipedia-only" permission isn't allowed. Without clearer permission from the copyright holder, we can't use the image as free and it would need a fair use rationale... which I don't think anyone would be able to create for the situation. And that's not even to mention the people who hold the copyright on the sign itself and the images in it... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:30, 19 May 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:Auxiliary Brand-Web.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 ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, probably a copyrighted logo. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:35, 19 May 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:Fclogo.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 ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; with no identification of the pictured building, there is no encyclopedic use. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's orphaned, but the details of the building are now there. Myosotis Scorpioides 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, one other question... what's the source of the image? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I truely can't remember. I took loads of pics for the Navenby FAC a couple of years back, as did my mum! A local guy also provided several pics from his website, which I cleared with OTRS permission. I didn't get round to using this photo, although it is a nice one, so didn't bother putting through the OTRS permission stuff. Just delete it if you want. Myosotis Scorpioides 12:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a nice image, so I don't see a need for deletion simply because it is unused, now that the building has been identified. If this is from someone else, though, we would need an OTRS permission tag. Ah, well... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:56, 23 May 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:Unionjack1.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR. Our flag is not this shape, this is almost square, the real one is 1:2 or sometimes 3:5 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:56, 19 May 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.