< July 19	July 21 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abusive--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:33, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, subject not identified, too small to be useful B (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Commercial of cars!!--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:35, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use, has a border so possibly copied from somewhere B (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could be considered a natural monument. May find an article for it--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use B (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May change my mind if the uploader explains encyclopedic usage--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:38, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality (small), replaced by File:Thomas Henry Carter cph.3b27384.jpg. howcheng {chat} 04:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New is better and bigger--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, uploaded for deleted article B (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate those guys who upload images of themselves--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:42, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, uploaded for deleted article B (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate those guys who upload images of themselves--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:42, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, uploaded for deleted article B (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate those guys who upload images of themselves--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:43, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, uploaded for deleted article B (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate those guys who upload images of themselves--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:43, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, uploaded for deleted article B (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate those guys who upload images of themselves--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:44, 27 July 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.

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 ^(TALK) 00:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, screenshot from an unidentified video game - license claim is dubious B (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as presumed non-free images. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Very brutal video game--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:46, 27 July 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.

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, probably copied from somewhere, but completely unusable on a variety of levels B (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic (not even for Uncyclopedia)--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask uploader first Surely has something to say but I do not understand it.--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:51, 27 July 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.

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Obsoleted by File:Finnair Logo.svg, no foreseeable use. FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above --JetBlast (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Me too--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:53, 27 July 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.

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two months ago, the previous deletion discussion closed as 'no consensus'. I am now renominating the image because I feel it is necessary to muster a consensus one way or the other. I would ask people to avoid making WP:NOTAGAIN-type arguments. Thanks.

It is my position that this picture fails NFCC 8. For someone to understand the episode, they do not need to be familiar with the aesthetic appearance of this TARDIS console. For someone to understand that a child won a competition to design the console, they don't need to be familiar with its aesthetic appearance. The aesthetic appearance doesn't seem to be subject to any real critical commentary in the article, which merely mentions that it is formed out of household objects including a coathanger: no part of that description requires illustration; everybody knows what a coathanger looks like.

For what it's worth, the image is also borderline replaceable (NFCC 1) – a phrase such as "...composed of a glowing TARDIS console, protected by TARDIS walls on two sides but open on the others..." would be perfectly informative and adequate, and this is a point on which there was some agreement at the previous discussion.

However, the simple fact is that no part of the article relies upon a perfect mental image of the TARDIS' aesthetics, and that is all there is to it IMO. ╟─Treasury Tag►contemnor─╢ 08:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a blatant case of WP:NOTAGAIN and the nominator seems to understand this himself. All he seems to offer is his own personal POV as if his opinion is what matters. Warden (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the speedy keep criteria do you think applies?
The previous discussion closed as 'no consensus' over two months ago, and it is perfectly common practice for such issues to be re-opened after a while, which is precisely what WP:NOTAGAIN and WP:CCC say.
My "personal POV" is an argument in a deletion discussion. I notice that you haven't put forward any arguments at all. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 09:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments will be much the same as those made just seven weeks ago. I can cut/paste them all again but why? The fact that this discussion closed so recently indicates that SK#2 applies. This also seems to be a case of Refusal to "get the point". Warden (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for alleging bad faith on my part, which is your usual tactic whenever anyone initiates a deletion discussion of anything. If you disagree that 'no consensus' closes can be relisted after waiting two months, then that is your choice, but I would have to disagree with you. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 10:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our deletion policy states "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". That seems to be what is being done here. Warden (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The NFCC#1 point is trivial - I could easily replace many accepted NFCC images with short text segments but we don't because there is sometimes the need for visual comprehension to make it easier to understand what's going on; it if it were the regular cast members behind the normal TARDIS console, I'd be all on that because we have other NFCC in appropriate places that show this, but there's three unique elements that have never been shown anywhere else, so while you can make "TARDIS-like" text comparisons, it is not as strong. (Given the changes and variations we've seen in the TARDIS console room as well, just saying "TARDIS-like" console does not clear up visually what it looks like.) The other arguments towards NFCC#8 trivialize the fact that a major television show and the people involved brought in a child's idea and realized that, and the existing discussion in the article about that, as well as completing ignoring that the image servers two other purposes: to show what the final makeshift TARDIS room looks like, and the role/presence of the guess actress within the show, this latter point also discussed in the article. Particularly for television shows, getting development information outside of casting is rare, and here is a case where there is sourcing on the contest, who judged it, the elements that went into the makeshift console, aspects incorporated into the writing (eg the vanity mirror), and the fact there's going to be a special toyset of the console made. Having an idea of what that looks like may not increase a readers understanding 100%, but NFCC#8 does not require that to be 100%, just "significantly" which I believe is the case here for non-fantics of the show. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you copy-paste the part(s) of the article which require illustration in this fashion? ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 13:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to copy and paste to spam this discussion, but I point to the third sentence of Casting and the whole second of Filming for the parts that gain understanding via the image and would be more difficult to comprehend without it. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, understanding of The Doctor's Wife (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is significantly improved by image of non-standard TARDIS console and image of "Idris".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with above commenters. Everyone knows what a coat hanger looks like, but when the coat hanger as a visual element is amalgamated into a compoment of an imaginary object, it undergoes a transformative process; everyone knows what a coat hanger looks like, but a sculpture made of coat hangers is not the same. Finally, we're talking about an imaginary object; relying solely on text is sorely insufficient for a comprehensive understanding of an imaginary object. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes NFCC #1 and #8, being a single and informative low-res screenshot used only in an article about that episode. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMNSHO, this is merely a variation of forum shopping via WP:NOTAGAIN. Buffs (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its low-res and has a fair use rational. Sfxprefects (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep One of the best after-2005 episodes--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for trying to help! Unfortunately, that isn't considered a valid reason to keep something in a discussion. See WP:ILIKEIT. However, it looks like this image is going to be kept anyway, so there's no need to worry about it. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:01, 27 July 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.

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are way too many images used in William Andrew Salius Fane de Salis, and this one really isn't needed. It is one of his brother's medals, not even his. Copyright status is somewhat unclear, and there is absolutely no need for this image in the article. I can't think of any good foreseeable encyclopedic use. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any copyright issues here. The medal is from the 1800s and lacks any possible copyright. It certainly could be used elsewhere or kept on Commons. Buffs (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the article Not only keep it but keep it in the same article. If you beleive that it is useless remove his brother from the article.--46.246.173.61 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless--46.246.173.61 (talk) 18:02, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a picture. Original copyright applies. damiens.rf 15:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic--46.246.173.61 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poor quality, used only in an archive, probably non-free. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:19, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, user's only contribution, not enough info to determine encyclopedic use Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNeeds scooting--46.246.173.61 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by various higher-quality images at the commons[1] Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepEncyclopedic--46.246.173.61 (talk) 18:06, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned ,probably nonfree, superseded by File:CA Juventud.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 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.

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free book cover being used just because one article briefly mentions the book's existence (and an books launch event). damiens.rf 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep book article written, non free cover Slowking4: 7@1|x 19:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Slowking. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:21, 27 July 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.

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free book cover being used just because one article briefly mentions the book existence. damiens.rf 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep book article written, non free cover.[2] any others book articles you want written? Slowking4: 7@1|x 19:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "book stubs for life"?--damiens.rf 13:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be snippy. You disagree. Just leave it at that. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it should only be used in article on the book itself. The article should be expanded, of course. But that's not a requirement for the image to be kept. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quadell. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 26 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use not valid. The page Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories already has several images. The image created by one individual is used in a non-neutral manner to apply to an entire movement. Furthermore, the image is not discussed in the article. William S. Saturn (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's valid. This is the only image that shows what many commentators (well sourced in the article and the talk page) see as a racist motivation to the birther movement. I chose is specifically because it was distributed by an elected official rather than some random blogger of no import. The nominating editor is of the opinion that the accusations of racism are politically motivated, which some of them may be, but there is also widespread resentment at the perceived racism of the movement that has nothing to do with a political agenda. I seriously doubt CNN is out race baiting for political gain. William may not see the racism, or may engage in OR by comparing the reaction of one black presidential aspirant with another to counter it, but many people do see it as racist, this is well referenced, and per WEIGHT is important enough to belong in the lede. One argument against including the topic of racism in the lede is that it is not well-enough developed in the body, and part of developing a topic in the body is providing images. — kwami (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not discussed in article, nothing to support the idea that a textual equivalent wouldn't be sufficient (partly because the photoshopping is rather lame). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the photoshopping isn't relevant. The point of the image is to show that this stuff really exists. Saying that s.o. emailed an image of the president as a monkey isn't the same thing as actually showing the image. A pic is worth a thousand words, etc. The caption explains the connection to the text of the article. Yes, it's an example of what's covered in the text, but any image we get will have similar copyright issues. If you can find a free substitute, I'd be happy to use it. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as a reliable source says "there was a photoshopped image of this going around the internet", we don't need visual evidence of it. If there is no source that says this, then including this is original research/biased additions --MASEM (t) 14:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Words alone don't describe an image that is important for its own sake. That's a fundamental point about non-free images - see WP:NFCI #8 and 9. For example, we have an image of L.H.O.O.Q. - a famous image of very low quality. It is not enough to merely say that Marcel Duchamp drew a mustache and beard on the Mona Lisa. - 16:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We have that latter image because it is free, and thus all concerns like this go out the window. If this was a established Creative Commons image (it could have been), then we wouldn't be here. But as copyright, we need to judge if it adds any educational value to the article, and that answer is no. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, bad example. We'd have that image if it wasn't free, because it's the subject of that article. I was looking for a case where the image itself is a simple mash-up. Surely there are others, but the proposition is a lot more general than that. It is fundamental to non-free use: the actual image is used to illustrate sourced commentary about the image's expressive content precisely because words alone don't convey the point. It's one of those things you, the generic you, just don't appreciate unless you see with your own eyes. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~this is an encyclopedia.~~ (reworded below) – Quadell ^(talk) 14:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has that to do with this image? Most of the editors of the article agree that the material is encyclopedic, but that's not what this discussion is about. How would you recommend illustrating this topic, which is often a visual one? — kwami (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The presumption that something has to be illustrated does not track with WP:NFCC #1; "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all" is an acid test. The same information can be conveyed in text, and in fact has in the image's caption. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is not a frivolous use of images just to decorate the page. The offense that is taken comes from images like these; to illustrate the reason for the offense, we need to give an example of the offensive imagery. If you can find one in the public domain, by all means replace it. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Kwami, it's not helping your case to have to argue with everyone who comments. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwami; Saying "portrayed Obama's parents as monkeys" is every bit as offensive as showing a picture depicting the same thing. Or, do you think saying "portrayed Obama's parents as monkeys" is somehow less offensive? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest to answer with a question: Why would that official send this image and caption it with "Now you know why no birth certificate", when she could have simply said, "He has no birth certificate because he's a monkey", without an accompanying image? People respond differently to images than they do to words. This image illustrates what people find offensive far more effectively IMO than words could.

I wish I could find the news report of this I saw yesterday. They had this same image displayed behind the reporters covering the story, to illustrate the situation just as I think we should. — kwami (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as a tertiary source of information, we have no implicit need for the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Let me restate my objection less flippantly. I don't believe this image passes NFCC#8 in the article it's in, or in any article that currently exists on Wikipedia. (It does pass #1, #2, #3, #4, etc.) It doesn't help me understand birth certificate conspiracy theories. It is my personal opinion that these theories generally have a racist undertone and motivation, but that POV doesn't belong in the article unsourced, and having this image here assumes it to be true. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only "no" but "hell no". Some second-rate 4chan photoshop has no place or purpose in any Wikipedia article. Anyone trying to place this image into an article should have been blocked for vandalism or trolling, or both, honestly. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what vandalism and trolling are, why would you bring them up?

Again, the quality of the image has nothing to do with its relevance to the article. — kwami (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know precisely what they are. There is no good-faith reason as to why anyone would add this to an article, so all we are left with is trolling or simple vandalism. That clear the issue up for you? Tarc (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You are evidently incapable of understanding any point of view but your own, and you therefore assume bad faith of anyone whose view differs from yours. Thanks for clearing that up: I'll know not to pay attention to your opinion in the future. — kwami (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no tolerance for agenda-pushing. As far as this matter is concerned, what level of attention you pay to me is irrelevant; my "vote", as it were, is cast. Have a nice day. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is you, Tarc, that seems to be pushing an agenda - by your own definition. There is a legitimate, supportable reason to describe racism in the article in question. Some say yes, some say no. That is not an "agenda", it is a content question. You of all people should know better than using the word "vandalism" or accusing people of trolling or bad faith, those are specialized terms on Wikipedia reserved for clearly identified cases and behavioral policy stands firmly against throwing those accusations around lightly. If you run around screaming like that and calling for editors to be blocked when you find things that you strongly disagree with, nobody is going to take that kind of outburst seriously. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can describe it, if it is relevant, without some random "I RIGHT-CLICKED-AND-SAVED-AS THIS FROM TEH INTERNETZ" image to illustrate it. Tarc (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I believe there are three policy reasons to delete the image:

Per Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic.". How is this image relevant to the sole article in which it is used? Other than the caption of the image itself, there's no mention of Davenport and this picture. As the imagesis not used in any other articles, I believe this supports deletion of the image.
Per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Moral_issues, "The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable: ... Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject". The image unfairly demeans and ridicules the President.
Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light.". The image is false (the subject is not a monkey), and it is disparaging (his parents are not monkeys).

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I know the "me too" votes are of little value, but the comment "The image created by one individual is used in a non-neutral manner to apply to an entire movement" sums up my feelings exactly. This reeks of agendas and undue weight. --JaGa^talk 05:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete racist image which does nothing for the article. Kwami, must you reply to every "delete"? Please stop the nagging. It's beginning to look like harassment. Bishonen | talk 13:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

No, not every 'delete': Not to legitimate objections. But when the objection is that the image is amateurish, or photoshopped, or some other bit of nonsense, then I do contest it. Since when have we had a requirement that our images be of professional quality, when it is the image itself that is relevant? And is it 'harassment' for me to object to the idiotic statement that I should be blocked for trolling and vandalism for posting this image? That shows an utter lack of understanding of what this is all about, and is certainly closer to harassment than anything I've said. Why didn't you object to that statement, if you're so concerned with civility? This discussion should be about whether the value this image adds to the article (if any) is sufficient to justify fair-use, period. — kwami (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - first of all, AGF for kwami. There is nothing wrong with replying in a threaded fashion and at least for me, it is easier to follow.

To the matter at hand: the image says "emailed by elected Orange County, California Republican official Marilyn Davenport, of Barack Obama as the child of two monkeys, with the caption, 'Now you know why — No birth certificate'." This image was carried by many media outlets and was printed by them. Michael Schroeder, former chairman of the California Republican Party said, "My jaw dropped when I saw it; I've never seen anything so offensive sent out by an elected official."

So here's the question for you in ths thread. You, like me, reacted strongly to this image. Its more than clear that the image is having an effect that a few words probably wouldn't. Wikipedia has the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons in an article, and these were widely regarded as offensive, generating violence and more. So are we reacting against racism appropriately here? Or are we just trying to sanitize a subject? Some people do believe Obama wasn't born in the US. That's a fact. This belief carried Marilyn Davenport so far as to think it funny and appropriate to email this image out. I'm torn because your reactions here are *proving* that the image is irreplaceable, but it also seems unnecessary to include it. To quote Douglas Adams, "The storm had now definitely abated, and what thunder there was now grumbled over more distant hills, like a man saying 'And another thing...' twenty minutes after admitting he's lost the argument."

The article proves its subject matter without question, so is it 'all done'? Is there a point even to adding *anything* at all to the article? I think many people would say, 'why not?'.

Finally, as to the many votes of the style that say 'I like what whoever said', I don't see where they took the time to review the pros and cons much, and the knee-jerk reactions kind of show that kwami is correct in his logic. And if we can't seriously debate 'touchy' things, we should pack up now, because as Quadell says, "this is an encyclopedia". Its not a feel-good novel about kittens; its here to present knowledge, ugly or not. Since I'm still somewhat torn on the inclusion, I just posted this as 'Comment', but I'll be watching to see how people continue. -- Avanu (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic discussion about WP:AGF
I'm having a little trouble parsing your comment, Avanu. Did somebody complain about replying "in threaded fashion"? I don't see it. As for "the many votes that say 'I like what Hullaballoo said,'" only two votes mention Hullaballoo. Did you yourself take the time to review other people's comments much before you decided that they "show that kwami is correct in his logic"? Maybe you'd better read them again. Bishonen \| talk 15:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply] Yes, several people above gripe at kwami for responding in threaded fashion to the comments. -- Avanu (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I think I must have been unclear, or overly mild. By "Did somebody complain about replying "in threaded fashion"? I don't see it", I meant, please show me. Please quote the place(s) where somebody gripes about threaded discussion by Kwami. Please check WP:THREAD and give a straightforward answer. You're making yourself look bad by this evasiveness. Bishonen \| talk 16:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply] example: "Kwami, must you reply to every "delete"? Please stop the nagging." others seemed to complain similarly. Please just drop it though, this wasn't my main point at all. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Just a note here. In AfD and most other process discussions, attempting to refute every argument counter to your position doesn't work, especially if you're making the same point again and again. There's a diminishing return, and eventually it backfires because people begin to tune out. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] @Wikidemon, I completely understand, but that was a very minor comment in my overall post. I'd like to go ahead and hat this semi-off-topic section at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic discussion about WP:AGF

I'm having a little trouble parsing your comment, Avanu. Did somebody complain about replying "in threaded fashion"? I don't see it. As for "the many votes that say 'I like what Hullaballoo said,'" only two votes mention Hullaballoo. Did you yourself take the time to review other people's comments much before you decided that they "show that kwami is correct in his logic"? Maybe you'd better read them again. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, several people above gripe at kwami for responding in threaded fashion to the comments. -- Avanu (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must have been unclear, or overly mild. By "Did somebody complain about replying "in threaded fashion"? I don't see it", I meant, please show me. Please quote the place(s) where somebody gripes about threaded discussion by Kwami. Please check WP:THREAD and give a straightforward answer. You're making yourself look bad by this evasiveness. Bishonen | talk 16:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

example: "Kwami, must you reply to every "delete"? Please stop the nagging." others seemed to complain similarly. Please just drop it though, this wasn't my main point at all. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here. In AfD and most other process discussions, attempting to refute every argument counter to your position doesn't work, especially if you're making the same point again and again. There's a diminishing return, and eventually it backfires because people begin to tune out. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikidemon, I completely understand, but that was a very minor comment in my overall post. I'd like to go ahead and hat this semi-off-topic section at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the impact of the image, it is that 1) it is easily described by text, and 2) it is not the subject of critical commentary - the fact that someone elected sent it is what caused political ripples, but the image itself is not of any critical value. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the image is, or could / should be, discussed in the citizenship conspiracy theories. It is a significant image in its own right, used to describe the scandal arising over the image that was a part of the conspiracy theory phenomenon, and not some other subject (although there is an entire genre of racist images of Obama and African American people generally, by equating them to non-human primates). This is a classic case where there is no free equivalent. The debate here seems to be a proxy for a debate on that page over whether to cover racism as a factor in the Obama conspiracy theories, something ostensibly about WP:WEIGHT or relevancy, but that has also raised some rather heated personal opinions about where racism may be found and rightly discussed. That discussion that should occur on that article, not here, as this page is generally about non-free use. If the decision is to remove the image then it has no use and would be deleted in routine course. If the decision there is to keep it, it meets NFCC so it would be kept. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with much of what you say, but not your conclusion. (I agree about no free equivalent, for instance.) I have an honest question, though. Do you think the image helps you understand birth-certificate conspiracy theories in general, well enough to justify using a non-free image? I if so, do you think someone with a different POV about these conspiracy theories would agree that this image helps to understand the topic? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note - I've gone ahead and expanded / sourced the discussion of this image in the article. There are at least a million google hits[3] and dozens of news articles[4] describing the image, most in the context of the subject of the article. The image itself is clearly notable, and as of now the subject of sourced commentary in the article by the likes of CNN, the LA Times, and the Daily Mail. The latter paper describes the photograph as a "birther message" that became a matter of "nationwide anger". Other sources that I didn't add include the Washington Post, New York Times, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, etc. Plus many papers of lesser stature. To answer Quadell's question, absolutely yes. The image was widely perceived as an embodiment (and proof, for some doubters) of racism within the birther movement. Those with a different POV about the theories would -- and on Wikipedia, do -- vociferously protest the association of skepticism about Obama's legitimacy with racism. Either way, saying that someone created a racist image or an image widely perceived as racist is one thing, letting the viewers see it for themselves is another. Again, there's a legitimate question about the weight of the racism discussion within the article, but if we're going to cover an image it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that we're refusing to show it on copyright grounds. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Going off this diff, you pretty much have just shown that we can talk about the relationship between the photo and the birth certificate controversy without using the photo itself. You describe, it's pretty clear to an average reader what the photoshop likely looked like, and yet the education value is still there about the racism tones that some saw in it. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not clear to me what the photoedited image looks like, I had no idea until I looked at it. The impact of a racist image usually can't be described in words. It's pretty visceral. That's basically why we use images - we, meaning humans. Or Wikipedians. Or racists. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        But you don't need the exact image to discuss the text you added. Nor does the image show anything related to racism. You've described the photoshop adequately that any reasonable reader can at least envision - if not exactly - and still gain the educational value of understanding that the act of sending that photo had on the political issue. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "Nor does the image show anything related to racism." —Was that a typo?
        
        As for not needing the exact image, sure, we could create one: but that would be our invention mascarading as fact. Hardly encyclopedic. — kwami (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it wasn't. The photo - and the text - doesn't show anything racism-related that needs depiction. I understand it was taken that way, but that's not visually obvious here. (Compare with the magazine cover mess for OJ Simpsons, where we show two published magazine covers, one that depicts OJ in clearly darker tones, and was noted critically in the text). And I'm not saying we make a free replacement, I'm saying that the average WP reader is intelligent enough to take the phrase "a photoshopped image of three monkeys dressed as a family, with Obama's face put onto the child" and come up with a reasonably good picture of what the meaning of the line that was sent with that photo is implying. It will not be an exact match, for sure, but should be able to recognize the real image in a different context. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tarc is gaming the system, removing the image with the excuse that it will fail FfD here. It is not his responsibility to predict the outcome of the FfD. Meanwhile, other editors support its removal until discussion on the talk page is resolved. Since non-use is an automatic reason for deletion, this discussion should be put on hold until the discussion on the article is resolved. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have thought of that before you tried to use a non-free image where it doesn't belong. My point...which you either willfully misrepresent or simply did not understand...is that it is either going to be deleted here as an WP:NFCC fail, or it will be deleted because of rejection from the article. Either way, this image simply isn't going to appear in the birth certificate article, it is a fairly forgone conclusion at this point. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's abhorrent whatever the reasoning, and Wikipedia does not need it. Giacomo Returned 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insulting to a prominent living person (BLP issues need sources, not bad photoshops)...oh, it also lacks any encyclopedic value... Buffs (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh so many reasons. Non free image. Unclear origin of constituent images. Event discussed has dubious notability. Can be clearly and succinctly described without image. One image propagated by one person cannot be used to illustrate an entire movement that the same person just so happens to support. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep, f******g keep Anti-Obamist--46.246.173.61 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason for keeping an image. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:22, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free photograph used to decorate the "early days" section of a bio. There's no need for the reader to visualize the scene depicted on the photo. damiens.rf 15:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep it certainly adds to my understanding of what the subject looked like at young age. illustrates the critical commentary: "In that year he was also the Queensland winner of the Rotary 'Youth Speaks for Australia' public speaking contest." Slowking4: 7@1|x 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That passage is not critical commentary about the image. You're misinterpreting the polices you're trying to circumvent. And being an illustration for the early age subject is not generally acceptable as a non-free excuse here. Good luck, though. --damiens.rf 13:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with damiens--46.246.173.61 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, appears to relate to Free viewpoint television but doesn't seem like a useful image Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone took a photo of a rulebook and uploaded it to wikipedia. Silly.--46.246.173.61 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, appears to relate to Free viewpoint television, no source specified, looks like it may not be self-made Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone took a photo of a rulebook and uploaded it to wikipedia. Silly.--46.246.173.61 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a living person. The FUR claims that it's irreplaceable because "Immigration authorities had made it a condition of Dr Haneef's return to India that he did not speak to the media or allow his picture to be taken", but there's no such thing mentioned in the source given (and I wonder how would Australian authorities enforce that in India). damiens.rf 15:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reason--46.246.173.61 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned photo of likely nonfree toy Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do not see where can we use it--46.246.173.61 (talk) 21:22, 27 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent source and copyright information. Image is tagged as GFDL-self and the description says it has "no copyright restrictions" because the website hosting the file "is a not-for-profit organisation". This website is permanently of line. damiens.rf 15:38, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan duplicate of an existing file. damiens.rf 15:39, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copy of previously deleted image File:Kevinrudd3.jpg. damiens.rf 15:41, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan triplicate of an existing file. damiens.rf 15:42, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a photo and a cartoon. Original copyright applies. Orphaned, however. Low quality. damiens.rf 15:54, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete source url. I could also not found the picture after a brief search on the website. (before !voting please re-read this nomination until you understand NFCC#1 is not an issue here) damiens.rf 16:01, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. damiens.rf 16:02, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. damiens.rf 16:03, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. damiens.rf 16:03, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. damiens.rf 16:05, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. damiens.rf 16:07, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. damiens.rf 16:07, 20 July 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.

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. damiens.rf 16:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not an orphan: it's linked at User:Adam Carr/My archive of original cartographic contributions. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if there is really a point in keeping an image that is only used in the author's "list of contributions", then keep it. But I honestly don't see any benefit. --damiens.rf 13:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on damiens, this isn't the first time you've intentionally/negligently labeled something for deletion that isn't eligible. Knock it off. This is just harassment. Buffs (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I love how you always prefer commenting on me instead of in the nomination. Thanks for the attention. --damiens.rf 13:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, in this case, you have made a blatantly false/intentionally misleading statement as justification for deleting the work of another Wikipedian. It ISN'T orphaned and the quality on a user page with a minimal amount of images is largely irrelevant. This isn't the first time you've made such a nomination. I don't care what you want the guidelines/policy to read, but it is inappropriate to impose your opinions as if they are policy. The comment is on your actions, not you personally. Please stop making such nominations. Buffs (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions are completely out of line. accusation of impropriety ()

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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no real source Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no description, Decimating low-pass filter deleted after blanking by uploader of this image Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 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.

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Rectangular hyperbola.svg and others Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for it to go. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:12, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, described as "traced" from a book that is not PD - dubious copyright status Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, described as public domain on an individual's personal site - if this map's content is valuable we could create it from scratch and avoid copyright ambiguities Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 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.

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Pyridoxine structure ver2.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 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.

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, doesn't seem accurate based on Palladian window, we now have File:Palladian window.jpg and others Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deletion on principle — I don't like history to be lost! — but I don't have any particular argument for keeping my 'crummy sketch' around in this brave new world. If I put it on my user page would that un-orphan it enough to keep? Doops | talk 06:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Not accurate how? Doops | talk 06:53, 21 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:50, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by vector version Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by many better maps Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is correctly orphaned - it was uploaded as a resource for building the sort of location & detail maps below. In particular, it's optimised for shrinking. If better resources for doing the same now exist, then out with it. - TB (talk) 22:13, 21 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

File:Scotland Map (Firth of Lorn Detail).png
File:Scotland Map (Loch Ness Detail) Loch Ness.png
File:Grampian Map Balmoral Castle.png
File:Grampian Map Braemar Castle.png
File:Grampian Map Dunnotar Castle.png
File:Grampian Map Kildrummy Castle.png
File:Grampian Map Slains Castle.png

- Are there better images for the same information? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These always were thrown-together maps, intended to be replaced when a more talented designer had time to build better graphics. If this has happened, out with them ;) - TB (talk) 22:09, 21 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Preferential ballot.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, encyclopedic value unclear but somehow relates to Scheme (programming language) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Seasons1.svg and othes Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete (author-req) - was intended only for a discussion in 2004 (quoth I "otherwise it should probably be deleted once the discussion is over"). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:16, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, superseded by File:Moebius strip.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:01, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:ProblemFramesInterfaces.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:ProblemFramesProblemDiagram1.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:ProblemFramesProblemContext1.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:ProblemFramesProblemContext2.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:ProblemFramesProblemDiagram2.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:ProblemFramesContextDiagram1.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:ProblemFramesRequiredBehaviorFrame.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:ProblemFramesInformationDisplayFrame.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:06, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:ProblemFramesSimpleWorkpiecesFrame.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:06, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:ProblemFramesTransformationFrame.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:06, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, could be recreated if needed Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Plurality ballot.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:TaipeiJhongjhengDistrict.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:09, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by vector version Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Donepezil skeletal.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Flavoxate.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Muscarine.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as missing important details (stereochemistry), not per nom. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by vector version Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quality too low to be useful. --Leyo 07:26, 21 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by vector version Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No contest, as creator. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:47, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No contest, as creator. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:47, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No contest, as creator. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:47, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No contest, as creator. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:42, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, not very high quality, we have plenty of examples of similar fractals Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 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.

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:AMT.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, looks like a scan from somewhere Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Australian National Route M31.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:31, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Australian National Route 31.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:31, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uploader claims own work for everything, including historical images. no real source. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uploader claims own work for everything, including historical images. no real source. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uploader claims own work for everything, including historical images. no real source. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uploader claims own work for everything, including historical images. no real source. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uploader claims own work for everything, including historical images. no real source. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uploader claims own work for everything, including historical images. no real source. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, we have many better photos of this animal Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, no source stated for images Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 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.

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 DMacks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Melatonin2.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy F8 commons has higher-quality equivalant at same name. But disagree with nom...png is the standard raster-format and CHEM MOS does not recommend scrapping one just because there is a vector equivalent. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random silliness, no encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:10, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created from copyrighted software, this is not actually a free image, and there's no justification for placing this in the mainspace. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:15, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, this is a non-free image.

According to Fluffernutter, who has permissions-en OTRS access, "OTRS was "unable to be sure that the email address which you have used is indeed that of the site where the content was originally published" and the sender was asked to re-send the email from an email address linked officially to that site, or else release the image under GDFL openly on that site" - and this is from 2009.

Therefore the OTRS claim is false. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:30, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are free images of this guy. damiens.rf 19:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're still discussing whether this image is actually PD in the US or not. See this discussion before closing please. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:17, 21 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A higher quality image of the same subject exists in File:PittPanthers.png. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:13, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undated image - no way to know if copyright has in fact expired Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, dubious rationale for being public domain Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, undated, dubious rationale for being public domain Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uploader does not appear to own the rights to this image Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to have any encyclopedic use, there's no accompanying data, and the SVG isn't rendering properly (in thumb it is not labeled, in full the labeling is huge). Sven Manguard Wha? 21:19, 20 July 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.

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 ^(TALK) 00:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No direct link to source image, simply says "Panoramio". Some images on Panoramio are CC licensed, but not by any means all IIRC. Certainly, I don't believe any are tagged there as GFDL. Regardless, image lacks proper attribution required by GFDL and CC-BY licenses. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four of them are used in San Mateo, Rizal, a page chock full of questionable uploads. That aside, more information is needed for these to be allowed to say. Losing any of the ones that are used wouldn't even really affect the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. That's why I didn't say there were orphaned. :) –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:09, 21 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, invalid reason to be public domain Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:21, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undated image, no way to know if it is PD or not Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:21, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

invalid reason to be public domain, does not WP:NFCC if nonfree Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No direct link to source image, simply says "Flickr". Some images on Flickr are CC licensed, but not by any means all. Certainly, I don't believe any are tagged there as GFDL. Regardless, image lacks proper attribution required by GFDL and CC-BY licenses. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All but one of this guy's images are questionable at best, I have a feeling that this user dosen't understand that "on the internet" is not the same as "free", and used GFDL because it was the default at the time. This adds nothing to the article, really. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:49, 21 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scan from a book, no indication book is under a free license. This would be better in a Table anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:36, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

source does not say this is public domain (as claimed) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:35, 25 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:40, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

linked permission doesn't necessarily allow for creation of derivative works Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

linked permission doesn't necessarily allow for creation of derivative works Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, poor quality, poor/unclear sourcing. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:02, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, poor quality, poor/unclear sourcing. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:04, 20 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, I'm not seeing how this could be Public Domain. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not PD, and there is no evidence that the "Law office of Venable LLC Washington DC" released it under the claimed license. Delete. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:01, 21 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not a valid public domain rationale. There is no evidence that the archives own the copyrights of the images, which it says "includes everything from amateur family photographs to portraits by the top professionals in the business."[5] So any release is meaningless. In any event, the archives also say that "Some of the images may be protected by copyright."[6] Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also [7] Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:55, 21 July 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.

July 20

File:WikipediaND.JPG

File:Clarepool.jpg

File:Aharon naveh star of david.jpg

File:Exbit on chikun guniya.jpg

File:ThomasHCarter.jpg

File:JosephPerez2006.jpg

File:Joesuit3.jpg

File:Thelimey.jpg

File:Josephperezbricks.jpg

File:Fwo sc1.jpg and 11 others

File:Determinat of matrix 3 by 3.jpg

File:Finnair new logo.png

File:Little finger.JPG

File:Dunstan1970caucus.JPG

File:Fall 2005 ET Preview0076.JPG

File:DNAbasePairing2.png

File:Esc Juventud.JPG

File:President Obama Monkeys.jpg

File:M596285.jpg

File:Ftv4.jpg

File:Ftv3.jpg

File:MohamedHaneef.jpg

File:GIJoeATDragBike2.jpg

File:Hanna1.jpg

File:JohnHowardCrop.JPG

File:KevinRudd3Copy.jpg

File:John Howard May 2006 crop.jpg

File:Trademarkonback.JPG

File:Don Steele.JPG

File:Terry Roberts.jpg

File:Sametro02.jpg

File:Sastate06.jpg

File:Sametro06.jpg

File:Sastate02.jpg

File:Metro07.PNG

File:Map7-2004.gif

File:Map8-2004.gif

File:Limassol-touristic area.jpg

File:Decimating Low Pass Filter.png

File:Tel el Saba October 31 1917.png

File:Manifestdestiny.jpg

File:Popefauvexxiii mysticpath.jpg

File:Metformin.png

File:PalladianWindow2.jpg

File:TCOIL3.png

File:Rankballotnumber2.gif

File:Secantmethod jaredwf.png

File:Schemelists.png

File:Lakewashshipcanal.png

File:Wfm sketch seasons.png

File:Mobius strip jaredwf.png

File:ProblemFramesInterfaces.jpg

File:ProblemFramesProblemDiagram1.jpg

File:ProblemFramesProblemContext1.jpg

File:ProblemFramesProblemContext2.jpg

File:ProblemFramesProblemDiagram2.jpg

File:ProblemFramesContextDiagram1.jpg

File:ProblemFramesRequiredBehaviorFrame.jpg

File:ProblemFramesInformationDisplayFrame.jpg

File:ProblemFramesSimpleWorkpiecesFrame.jpg

File:ProblemFramesTransformationFrame.jpg

File:BachToccataAndFugueInDMinorRecastAsViolinMusic.GIF

File:Onevoteballotname.gif

File:Onevoteballotmark.gif

File:Osmotic pressure.GIF

File:Zhongzheng location.jpg

File:Cisapride.png

File:Donepezil.png

File:Flavoxate.png

File:Muscarine.png

File:Pyridostigmine.png

File:OpenVMS file protection bits.png

File:Wikipedia xenogears ethos.png

File:Wikipedia xenogears kislev.png

File:Wikipedia xenogears nisan.png

File:Wikipedia xenogears yggdrasil.png

File:Jetway.jpg

File:AzerothOverEarthSmall.png

File:Linear and nonlinear IFS.png