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⚡ 05:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TonyScott.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 528Hz (notify | contribs | uploads).

The rationale by the uploader, if upheld, would be true for all copyrighted images of living persons someone wanted to insert in Wikipedia articles. Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no excuse under wikipedia fair use. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 10 March 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 all. Apparently, AnomieBOT won't close this mass-nom automatically. I have to do *everything* around here... :-) SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Paganini Quartet (original members).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:PQ with Segovia & Castelnuovo-Tedesco.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:PQ AT CARDS.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:The Paganini Strads.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Paganini Quartet has three pictures of the quartet in question, along with a picture of their violins, all being used under a claim of fair use. At most, it is appropriate to use one photo under a claim of fair use. So if we keep one, we should probably keep File:The Paganini Quartet (original members).jpg and delete the others. HOWEVER, the uploader of this photo claims to be the executor of the estate that owns the photo. We don't accept contributions of photos under restrictive terms. If this estate would like to donate a photo for use on Wikipedia, they need to do so under a free content license. --B (talk) 02:50, 9 March 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arms.JPEG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rjt uk (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use, looks to have been scanned from somewhere. B (talk) 02:33, 9 March 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag.JPEG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rjt uk (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use, looks to have been scanned from somewhere. B (talk) 02:34, 9 March 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Towel Seat.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Towelseat (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 02:40, 9 March 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:WApedia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ComputerGuy (notify | contribs | uploads).

Derivative of the Wikipedia logo, labeled "WApediA", "Your Washington Wiki". There is a note saying that it is not orphaned, but "what links here" doesn't show any relevant uses. The description is "Logo of WAPedia, for use on RequestWikia". The English Wikipedia is not webhosting for Wikia. B (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Rehman 03:56, 9 March 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: moved both to Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TLVHil.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elmorino123 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• File:DSC02917.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Orphaned, unencyclopedic pictures uploaded by a blocked user. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly could be useful, how are they unencyclopaedic? —innotata 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not used anywhere, and the two ambiguous pictures of oddly-shaped buildings doesn't add much encyclopedic value. Just because I take a picture of some skyscraper downtown doesn't mean that it's automatically suitable for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They would be good enough to illustrate if needed, and there is nothing particularly unencyclopaedic about them; as far as I can tell, these are the sort of images that fall into the project scope on Commons, which are usually fine there, and which Commons gets all the time. —innotata 02:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where has there been any extensive discussion that has concluded that this quality of image should actually be deleted? In don't think this is anywhere near what criterion for deletion the top of Wikipedia:Files for deletion for low quality refers to: "extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns". —innotata 02:26, 16 March 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 without prejudice against obtaining permission from the copyright holder and submission of said permission to OTRS. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foot bahubali21.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ImperiumCaelestis (notify | contribs | uploads).

The photograph itself is not hundreds of years old and, presumably, this inscription still exists and thus the photograph could be replaced with a free version. B (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is from the Konkani Language and cultural foundation, which I am a member of. It is a semi governmental organisation working for the cause of the Konkani language, the state language of Goa, and the image is the oldest inscription in this language; something that is a matter of pride in the community. display of this image is allowed under the "freedom of panorama" clause of the Indian copyright act. Imperium ^Caelestis 20:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the statue in question is in the public domain. Rather, the photograph of the statue is a creative work. --B (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The image fails fair-use as it is replaceable. There is no reason to see why it cannot be replaced with an alternative free equivalent in the future. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 06:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users B and Joyson, if you could give me some time, I'll get in touch with the organisation through email and get a copyright clearance or the name of the photographer. Imperium ^Caelestis 10:41, 14 March 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Konkani-catholic-catechism.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ImperiumCaelestis (notify | contribs | uploads).

Three-dimensional photo of a book. Though we could use a 2-D scan of the book under a claim of fair use, the three-dimensional photo is a creative derivative work. B (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the site says '"The provisional Konkani translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Katolik Povitr Sobhechi Dotorn) was published by the Catholic Diocese of Karwar in the Great Jubilee Year, 2000. In a message introducing the work, the then Bishop of Karwar, Most. Rev. William D'Mellow expressed his "ardent desire" that Church's Catechism "must reach at least each family in this diocese for study, reflection and practice", a desire that inspired that the Presbterium of the Diocese to take up the task of having the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) translated into Konkani, the local liturgical langauge of the people of Karwar.

This is an image of a piece of religious literatureImperium ^Caelestis 20:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a three dimensional image of the book. As such, it is a creative work. I suggest you obtain an image of the cover. See this for instance. Then it will qualify as fair-use. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 06:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion user Joyson. I am hunting on the internet for a 2D image image of the same. In the event we can not manage to get one, could this image stay on fair use grounds?? warm regardsImperium ^Caelestis 10:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the image cannot stay for the aforementioned reason. A three dimensonal image if taken becomes a creative work. The image should illustrate the book cover, nothing more. Your best shot would be for you to contact someone who could provide such an image. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 11:03, 14 March 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. No reason to think that we can't make our own thing to illustrate this concept. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naqsh.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ImperiumCaelestis (notify | contribs | uploads).

It is not necessary to use a copyrighted newspaper just to show an example of the language. There are surely out-of-copyright examples. B (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only newspaper in the Nawayathi Konkani language. Literature on this community and in this language is meagre as is it numerical minority within the Indian Muslims. If this image is deleted, there will be no other image to illustrate. Imperium ^Caelestis 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying there isn't a single out-of-copyright work in this language anywhere in existence? --B (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe, but yes indeed. this is an absolute minority occupying an area of about 50 sq.km in India. and I retierate, this is the only paper, that too a fortnightly in this language.Imperium ^Caelestis 20:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Imperium's argument does have a point. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 06:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JoysonImperium ^Caelestis 10:30, 14 March 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rewritingmedusa.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Smith eliot (notify | contribs | uploads).

Unused file uploaded by artist. The artist has no article on Wikipedia so I doubt the file will be used. MGA73 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Also, wrong licence? Rehman 12:47, 10 March 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hbg stage.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Saaga (notify | contribs | uploads).

Unused. File was deleted on Commons because it was unclear who the photographer was. Could be the uploader. But it is unused so I suggest we delete the file. MGA73 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per deletion on Commons. Rehman 12:46, 10 March 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 G7 by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antenna 5 Radio Network.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

(({Reason))} Iva a5 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted. FYI, for your own uploads, if you are asking to have them deleted immediately after mistakenly uploading, you can just tag them with ((db-g7)). --B (talk) 23:27, 9 March 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:561st 57th & Wild Weasel emblems.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Electrified mocha chinchilla (notify | contribs | uploads).

Extremely blurry photo of three logos. They're very hard to make out. We already have the logos at File:57th Wing.svg, File:561st insignia.jpg, and File:Wild Weasels patch.jpg. I don't see that this photo adds anything. Also, the source isn't very good. It's cited as PD as a work of the government, but the photo is clearly taken at an angle and there is some writing in the bottom right corner, so you could argue that it is "creative" and we need a license from the "photographer". B (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. No foreseeable use. Rehman 12:45, 10 March 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: move all to Commons. Seems the path of least resistance. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Trillium.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nat (notify | contribs | uploads)

File:‎Red-Blue Trillium.png‎ (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nat (notify | contribs | uploads)

File:‎Red Gold Trillium.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nat (notify | contribs | uploads)

Unused, the svg versions (File:Red Trillium.svg, File:Red-Blue Trillium.svg, File:Red-Gold Trillium.svg) should be used instead. 117Avenue (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - these should not be deleted unless the full history of the three png's remains intact on the svg's. I recommend using commonshelper to print the history. That said, commons really frowns upon deleting alternate images, but I'm personally neutral, so long as the attribution history is fully ported. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, replacements are good enough, but per Magog, proper attribution should be made in the new file. Rehman 12:44, 10 March 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.