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⚡ 04:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:UCWTITLE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ucwlover (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned file, target article was deleted via prod. — ξ^xplicit 00:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 04:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raymond Chester, John Fuqua, Ed Hayes, Roland Nicholson, Jr., George Nock, Mark Washington, .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Sean Corrigan (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Image is orphaned and not likely to be used in any articles. This image appears to be a photograph of a photograph (you can see the corners of the original photograph), so it's likely a copyvio of some official photograph rather than an own work of the uploader. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree, not own work. --Martin H. (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I fully disagree. I took the picture. This was a national championship football team, an historical one because of what happened to HBCU football teams in the following years. Morgan State football~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Corrigan (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Undercarriage Layouts Bogie 03.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Fjournoud (notify | contribs | uploads).

• orphaned, UE Skier Dude (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, can't see how this is useful. Nyttend (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untitledsen1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Neweco (notify | contribs | uploads).

• orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:UsrBoxBg2.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Vprajkumar (notify | contribs | uploads).

• orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:VK cover March 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ramashray (notify | contribs | uploads).

• We don't need this extra non-free magazine cover. The article already uses one. Let's keep a minimal usage, Damiens.rf 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 04:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC0021.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by ArmoredPersonel (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned and doesn't seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose; that is, other images (such as the images in Direct free kick) better demonstrate the formation of a wall before a free kick in football/soccer. –MuZemike 17:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Although it really is a boring picture (nobody is even in the seats in the background), image should probably be used in Pinecrest High School, as there is currently only one image there. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC00210.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Pickering high11 (notify | contribs | uploads).

File:DSC00210.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Pickering high11 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, no description, and I wouldn't be able to figure out where to place this image. –MuZemike 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Also added File:DSC00210.jpg, which is redundant to the other one but smaller filesize. –MuZemike 17:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC00220.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jewbacca (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, vague description, (I don't think the description reflects what the image says, and I cannot access the previous versions of this file.) and I wouldn't be able to determine where to place this file. –MuZemike 17:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC00225.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Fuzzzz (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, no description (besides "rabbit", which isn't helping much). –MuZemike 18:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also out of focus, so there are certainly better free pictures of rabbits available. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vuodenowords.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Tekanu (notify | contribs | uploads).

• User:Tekanu was a sole purpose account that launched a "Tekanu microstate" nonsense/spam campaign. Their main article was speedy deleted as nonsense. This is a mop-up of the images left behind as part of that campaign. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 18:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vuodesmallbirds.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Tekanu (notify | contribs | uploads).

• User:Tekanu was a sole purpose account that launched a "Tekanu microstate" nonsense/spam campaign. Their main article was speedy deleted as nonsense. This is a mop-up of the images left behind as part of that campaign. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 18:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki lewin.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Wolfsilvermoon (notify | contribs | uploads).

• orphaned, absent uploader, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 04:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Natalie Wood on Yacht.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Violates WP:NFC#UUI #6 as it is copyrighted by Scope Features which is a press agency. Also fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is a public domain image available and WP:NFCC#8 as there is no commentary on the picture nor even the content of the picture which would be aided by a visual representation. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This a photo at a time and place relevant to her accidental death, a topic discussed in detail (probably too much detail.) Because it shows her there shortly before the accident, it is a more personal photo, very unlike a typical movie-related image of her career. The image and commentary adds to the understanding of the bio and article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with the comments made by the previous user; this is a historically significant photograph, being a candid shot taken a mere two weeks before Wood's untimely death. This may well be one of the last photographs taken of Natalie Wood, and it is a valuable and substantive aid to the accompanying paragraphs discussing Wood's death. Furthermore, I feel it should be noted that the proposal for the deletion of this photograph seems rather arbitrary, considering that there are several other photographs of Wood within the same article which are under copyright just as this particular image is, yet I see no issue being raised with the other photographs. I also wish to disagree with the comment made by the first user with regard to the lack of commentary about the photograph; the accompanying text discusses Wood's death upon the very yacht on which she is pictured less than two weeks after the photograph was taken. Thus, I believe the photograph's significance speaks for itself. R.h.c.afounder1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

  Could you tell me how it significantly increase the reader's understanding that she was on a yacht? or anything else, for that matter? VernoWhitney (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By referring to it as "a yacht," as opposed to "the very yacht," it seems you answered your own question. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, except for the fact that it still doesn't do any more than saying "she was photographed on the very yacht two weeks before she died" would. That does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" nor would its omission be "detrimental to that understanding" as required by WP:NFCC#8. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be considered an historically significant photo. The other criteria are always subjective, in that for someone very interested in how she looked at the time before she died, it would indeed add significantly to their understanding. It just depends on what the viewer brings to the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sorry, but we've gone through a veritable plethora of copyrighted images of Natalie Wood, and an argument could be made for each of them that they have historic value. In this case, just because they are on a yacht doesn't lend it historical creedence. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the significance does not lie in the mere fact that she is pictured on a yacht; its significance is that this may be the last photograph ever taken of Wood, and incidentally, it happens to have been taken on the same yacht that played a major role in her untimely death two weeks later. I would be inclined to say that any "last photograph" that exists of a celebrity of Natalie Wood's stature would in any case be historically significant and relevant to any article which pertains to that person; however, in Wood's case, I feel a final photograph of her is particularly significant because the events leading to Wood's tragic--and somewhat mysterious--death was and remains the subject of much discussion, which lends a certain gravity to this photograph. In a sense, this photograph, as insignificant as it may seem, is one of the few artifacts which provides any smidgen of insight into the bizarre and tragic death of one of Hollywood's most beloved actresses. R.h.c.afounder1 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the person that some have alleged may have contributed to her death was her husband, Robert Wagner, with whom she is embracing. Wood's sister wants to reopen the investigation of her death. Large sections of her various book bios have included the events leading up to her death. This photo of them together, even without the yacht, would no doubt have significance to many viewers.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone contesting that it fails WP:NFC#UUI #6 in that it belongs to a press agency? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The rule should be removed due to its erroneous implications: that the U.S. Copyright laws include a higher standard for press agencies. They don't, of course. There is only one copyright law, and it is the same for everyone. Anything that is copyrighted, whether it came from a book, magazine, billboard, newspaper, web site, blog, or movie poster, has the same copyright. How this special rule for "press agencies" got slipped in here is unknown, unless the editor had a conflict of interest. That goes even more for rule #7, for a particular baseball player's baseball card. These rules are invalid on their face since they imply, for example, that a web site photo has less protection than a press agency's, or that a Micky Mantle card is less protected than Barry Bonds'. These rules are not guidelines, but more misrepresentations of law, and should be removed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not contesting that it's a press agency photo that violates the guideline - you're just saying that the guideline is wrong. You should take that up at WT:NFC. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did once on another photo, but no one commented. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that I'll at least comment if you start a discussion there. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Regardless if this is one of the last photos of the subject, it's not essential to the readers' understanding and omitting it would not be detrimental to that understanding. — ξ^xplicit 23:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brian May VOX AC30.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Seemeel (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Uploader claims the image is "non-copyrighted", but hasn't provided any evidence of that. Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qzxad-214.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by OpenTheWindows (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Replacing with a new GIF version. PNG doesn't support animations. Plus, this will be unused too, when I get the new ad working. OpenTheWindows, sir! 23:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Obsolete, now File:Qzxad-214.gif. OpenTheWindows, sir! 23:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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