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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn in order to take to a different venue. As this is hinging on free/non-free, this should go to PUF. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jkatzen (notify | contribs | uploads).

• This image is a WMATA-produced map of the Washington Metro system, showing the line to Dulles in place. This image is presently orphaned. The original uploader asserts that courts are split on whether WMATA is a federal agency or not, and due to some of the more recent cases indicating such, WMATA is federal and thus all of its works are public domain. I am not a lawyer, but I'm not quite willing to swallow that argument because at least to me it makes WMATA's status ambiguous at best. A cropped version of this image was deleted via PUF at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_October_10#File:WMATA_Silver_Line_map.png. This file was rediscovered recently due to a message left on my talk page, and I believe it is the case that due to less-than-convincing evidence of WMATA's alleged federal status, we should treat this image as non-free. Treated as a non-free image, it fails WP:NFCC#1 (this map could be modded to show Silver on it, for instance). Therefore this image should be deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A majority of courts, and every one since 1986, has ruled that WMATA is a federal agency. To start, please see Elcon Enterprises v WMATA (D.C.Cir. 1992) and its discussion of a split among its district courts dating from the mid-1970s. Please see pages 1479-1480, especially the last paragraph of the section where the court makes it a point in dicta, that it believes the district court that had ruled the other way in 1977 conflicts with the higher court's ruling in 1986 that WMATA could be awarded sovereign immunity as a "federal agency or instrumentality". Elcon was then later cited by the court that had previously ruled the other way as support for the proposition that it's a federal agency. (Monument Realty v. WMATA, D.D.C. 2008). WMATA is unique among transit compacts in that there was so much federal involvement in it and because Congress had to sign off on its creation beyond the simple ratification necessary for compacts that don't involve D.C. Jkatzen (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this image is only orphaned because it was replaced at some point on the Silver Line (Washington Metro) page (by someone else) with a PNG version of the file. It was deleted and removed from the page without my input on the deletion discussion. Should this debate end in a "keep", I would re-place this back into the Silver Line page. Jkatzen (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I understand the argument for deleting it but I agree that we should keep this file. If the courts decide that it should be deleted then we can delete it. Till then I believe WP has the right the use it. What I might suggest though is post it to the Image/Photo shop and see if someone can make one that displays this as well as the New purple line on one image. --Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm actually surprised this map isn't used on the Washington Metro page. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.WP:NFCC#1 does not apply to PD. Since a majority of the Courts have ruled that WMATA is a Federal Agency, it is illogical for the nominator to assume the role of judge on this image. Especially since admitting he is not a lawyer. The argument that is being discussed here is if ((PD-USGov)) applies or not. Until this can be established on the Image's talk page, then a more clearer rationale for deletion can be argued by the Nominating editor for deletion. Until then it should be kept. QuAzGaA 16:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WMATA disagrees - its webpage says "© 2010 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority". Recommend someone contact them or even bump up to WP:VPP/Wikimedia's council before keeping, as their legal experts are probably smarter than us. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other government agencies that think (mistakenly) they have the right to copyright, based on web site footers: The IRS, Recovery.gov, and the Bureau of Public Debt. Clearly web site footers trump the law. Jkatzen (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No; all of those sites have a disclaimer providing further information that their "copyright" allows free use [1] [2] [3]. The DC Metro Page [4], however, claims that it "diligently protects its intellectual property and will take all steps to prevent unpermitted use, up to and including, litigation." Frankly, we would be foolish to think we know better than they do. Err on the side of caution guys; create your own map. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly contorting language. They don't have copyright at all under federal law, not that their "copyright" allows free use. Some of the sites contradict their copyright notices elsewhere. My primary point: what an agency thinks only matters in the absence of statute or a court ruling. In the case of WMATA, almost all the judicial history (and all since 1986) overwhelms any belief WMATA might incorrectly have. Accordingly, I'm not "thinking I know better than" WMATA -- I'm thinking the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and its district courts have overruled WMATA multiple times. Jkatzen (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it would be a good idea to contact Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel about this discussion, in order to get the Foundation's opinion on this matter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion should have been made on the File's Discussion page as this FFD is clearly migrating toward a "PD or not to PD" argument. I suggest closing this debate and creating a new one there concerning this File's PD status. Then if need-be, the Wikimedia legal counsel would be contacted if that is the determined course of action. Otherwise, deletion until this is resolved should not be considered. IMHO, contacting legal counsel at this time would be a unproductive. WMATA should be contacted first and an OTRS ticket issued before any further actions. QuAzGaA 13:39, 22 November 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Injured Afghan child Granai.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Invalid fair use tag: image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7, fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 08:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though "Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. This isn't at all what the uploader's accusation of bad faith says it is. I simply reviewed all their images and almost all have copyright issues. The fair use rationale is valid? Where's all the images' critical comentary? That's how we determine whether they're uniquely historical Swarm ^X 21:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary image only tangentially related to the Granai airstrike with little specific commentary on the child. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unnecessary image? The article is about the killing and injuring of a large number of civilians - mostly children. It is one of the children killed or severely injured in the bombing and the image is necessary to illustrate this. It is highly related to the article. IQinn (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is only one of the children. The article in question is about the Granai airstrike itself, not necessarily the casualties of the airstrike, and does not provide adequate coverage of children casualties or carve out an entire section to discuss them, and only briefly mentions casualties, children or not, in a general sense. Unlike File:Narang night raid.jpg, which the associated article Narang night raid covers in significant depth and ranks as a major subject to be discussed, this image explains little of why it would be a necessary depiction of the article it is linked to when it is but an example and that the loss of the image does not detract from the encyclopedic content. And unlike the other file, this does not cover all the casualties of the airstrike at once, whereas the other captures all ten victims of the Narang night raid in a single shot. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not move the image to the body of the article? If the majority of the casualties were indeed children as the article states, I do not see anything outrageous about including a photo that shows an injured child. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:30, 13 November 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azizabad airstrike destruction.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 08:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though "Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary image of an unidentified child for which there exists little to no commentary; and tangentially related to the Azizabad airstrike only as a casualty. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As you can read in the free use rational the image is used "to illustrate the destruction of the buildings caused by the Azizabad airstrike" It is necessary to illustrate the vast destruction to the infrastructure caused by the air strike. It is highly related to the article. IQinn (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think this particular image is sufficiently "historic" to justify fair-use of agency photo. Rwendland (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Azizabad airstrike happen in 2008. I think the image is as historic as it can. Could you please define what you mean by "historic". IQinn (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is an agency photo, still probably charged for, I think a high degree of historic justification is required, approaching iconic status such as File:The Falling Man.jpg. This image is only one of a slide-show in the source article, without specific comment in the article. Very specificly I think it fails unacceptable non-free criteria 5: "A photo from a press agency, unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." Rwendland (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per Rwendland Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 17 November 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qxz-ad223.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by S1312 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Families; the subject page upon which it was meant to be used, and its substantial duplicate File:Qxz-ad217.GIF. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:39, 11 November 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azizabad airstrike video footage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Very low quality image; image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 08:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though "Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same as above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you please provide a specific reason. There is no fit all here. One image is needed to show the vast destruction to the infrastructure and specially this one here is highly needed to illustrate the casualties and the fact that people were killed. These are all highly important images to the article Azizabad airstrike especially in the light that some still dispute that the air strike had caused this intense destruction to buildings and human life. IQinn (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the source loosely asserts it is a "cellphone images shot by a villager", which is supported by the quality of the image, so unacceptable non-free criteria #7 (photo from a press agency) does not seem to apply. Strictly, it seems to me, the image would have no copyright as the author is not a national or domiciliary of the United States or a copyright treaty party. Rwendland (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While Afghanistan obviously has higher priorities than enforcing its copyright laws at the moment, it seems likely that such laws exist and the photo is either the property of the photographer or whichever media agency they sold/donated it to. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They don't actually have any copyright laws (Afghanistan and copyright issues), as reflected in the most recent U.S. Govt circular.[5] So I doubt that an Afghan villager could legally assign any (non-existant) copyright to the agency that distributed the video/photo. Rwendland (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comments OK, thanks for that correction. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 18 November 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sangir airstrike civilian death.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 08:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though "Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same as above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please provide a specific reason. There is no fit all here. This image here part of the Sangin airstrike is highly related to the article and it is necessary to illustrate the victims. The article would be almost worthless without the image. IQinn (talk) 03:36, 12 November 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kunduz airstrike mass grave.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 08:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though "Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same as above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please provide a specific reason for your !vote to delete this important image. The Kunduz airstrike killed up to 179 people including about 100 civilians. The images is highly related to the article and absolutely necessary as there are still a lot of people who deny or doubt that the incident even occurred or that it had this magnitude of destruction to human life. IQinn (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The image has been tagged with a statement that the photo itself (rather than the event it depicts) has been the subject of significant coverage. That doesn't actually seem to have been the case unless some sources can be provided discussing the photo's historical significance as an image. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 17 November 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Damadola airstrike builduing destruction.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 08:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though "Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same as above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please provide a specific reason. There is no fit all. This image of the destruction caused by the Damadola airstrike that killed at least 18 people is one of few or even the only image that shows the devastating impact caused by Drone strikes. It is highly related to the article and is absolutely necessary. There are still a large number of people who doubt that these Drone strikes happen or people who can not believe, deny or can not imagine the devastating impact that these strikes can have. IQinn (talk) 04:09, 12 November 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 Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Narang night raid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 08:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though "Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Depicts the ten civilian casualties mentioned in the article. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per TelCoNaSpVe. Also this appears to be a rawa.org photo, who ask people to help them by "find art galleries, museums or any other such centers to host RAWA photo exhibition",[6] so we do not appear to hurt any commercial activity. Rwendland (talk) 15:11, 12 November 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:C lock logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:#File:C lock logo.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs | uploads).

• Obsolete, combination lock logo.jpg should be used instead Mrtv1 (talk) 10:57, 11 November 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 hexen 6 yl radical.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Tvo22 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned (was in Radical clock) and very low quality. Leyo 15:13, 11 November 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benzyne formation.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Amaterasu omikami (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned (was in Benzyne) and low quality. Leyo 15:17, 11 November 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.