< March 27	March 29 >

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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:13, 28 March 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:57, 28 March 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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's a derivative work as well, unless the user who uploaded the photograph created the painting. The leftorium 17:04, 2 April 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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:58, 28 March 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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:59, 28 March 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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:00, 28 March 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: Keep and tag as non-free. PhilKnight (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely doesn't fall under pd-textlogo. fetchcomms☛ 04:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have tagged the file as non-free. — ξ ^xplicit 17:36, 5 April 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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused maps of New Zealand, that have an inaccuracy - North Island oversized by about 30%. All but first two are hardcoded location maps that have been replaced with template. XLerate (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur: Not useful images, delete. fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 07:35, 3 April 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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These hardcoded location maps have been replaced with the location map template, and are duplicates of File:NZ-NI plain map.png XLerate (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur: Not useful images, delete fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 07:37, 3 April 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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These hardcoded location maps have been replaced with the location map template, and are duplicates of File:NZ-SI plain map.png. XLerate (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur: Not useful images, delete fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 07:37, 3 April 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 ⚡ 21:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there are many free images of Bofors guns available at commons:Category:Bofors, fair use of this copyrighted image is not appropriate. Vssun (talk) 11:05, 28 March 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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a commercial copyrighted website. I think this image wont fall under FU Vssun (talk) 11:34, 28 March 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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Uploader claims that image is in the public domain because it was a work of the U.S. federal government. However, the photo dates from the early 1950s, long before anyone in the Rodham family had any association with the government. It is clearly from the Rodham family private collection and was put up on a federal website for illustrative purposes once Hillary Rodham Clinton became First Lady in the 1990s. That does not make it public domain. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 07:40, 3 April 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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image is mutilated version of original : author signature and surrounding detail have been clipped off. File also has wrong name : this shows the 8th Marquess. Correctly named full version is now on Commons as File:8th Marquess of Tweeddale Vanity Fair 8 January 1876.jpg Rcbutcher (talk) 13:06, 28 March 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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image of an artwork is corrupt (laterally inverted). Correct version is now on Commons as File:Archibald Campbell Tait Vanity Fair 25 December 1869.jpg Rcbutcher (talk) 14:31, 28 March 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. Each non-free image must significantly add to the reader's understanding, and those arguing for keep didn't fully explain why this image was required. PhilKnight (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dougall already has one fair use image. Dougall died in 1999 and it may be difficult to find a free image, but there is no need for two fair use images. Cloudbound (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no clear reason to not allow two fair-use images. One is in black and white, the other is in colour. Both are useful to the project. fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 07:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suppose it doesn't matter which one is deleted, but the use of two non-free images is excessive use of non-free content per WP:NFCC#3a. — ξ ^xplicit 19:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree totally with Fr33kman above.78.48.103.238 (talk) 13:42, 7 April 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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by far better version of same caricature on Commons : File:Anthony Wilson Thorold Bishop of Rochester Vanity Fair 10 January 1885.jpg Rcbutcher (talk) 22:45, 28 March 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.

March 28

File:Kosher deli store in hendon.jpg

File:Fountain of Time father time2.jpg

File:Kennedy-mural.jpg

File:Park Jaebum1.jpg

File:Tidal Turbine.jpg

File:Toonloop-screenshot-leavecolor.jpg

File:DGA Security Systems Logo.png

File:SimpleNZmap.png

File:NZ-TeRataBridge-map.jpg

File:NZ-Lindis P.png

File:Kargil Bofors.jpg

File:Tiger hill capture.jpg

File:Rodham family portrait.jpg

File:9th Marquess of Tweeddale.png

File:Archibald Campbell Tait.png

File:BBC Nine O'Clock News 1970.jpg

File:AnthonyWilsonThorold.jpg