The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξxplicit 05:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable non-free image. Actually a free image does already exist at File:Britannica Bookbinding - St. Cuthbert's Gospels.jpg. Kelly hi! 20:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: delete. Not seeing very convincing keep arguments. — ξxplicit 05:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CAD drawing of a building. I fail to see why it wouldn't be replaceable. I added ((di-replaceable fair use)), but it was removed without explanation. The image also fails WP:NFCC#3b, so I added ((non-free reduce)), which was also deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is irreplacable because it came from the computer system of the Architect and is therefore unique.
Can you also explain what your other concerns are? I am not so familiar with WP and all the other tags you have there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes88 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see you try to replace the image? How are you going to do it? With what CAD system, and with what original contour site data? The resolution on he original CAD system is much much higher. You need the higher resolution to actually build. I fail to still fail to understand your arguments, It is almost like saying I have paint, therefore I can draw the Mona Lisa. And therefore the Mona Lisa is replacable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes88 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lets address the concerns:
1) Is the drawing replaceable
I agree in that say you had a picture of a doughnut. That doughnut picture can be repaced with a free non copyrighted doughnut picture and it would work just as well.
I thought that the picture would make a nice description of the site and would go well with the article. I asked the Architect, and he kindly agreed to sent me the CAD drawing and allowed it to be shown here. I think it would not be polite to ask him to give up all his copyright of his work. I think that no one else can replace the drawing. This is because no one else has access to the site data and therefore it is not possible to replace the drawing. The building and contours were laser site surveyed. And that data was then loaded into the CAD prgram. Not all CAD programs can do this, certianly not the cheap ones. A professional Architect program was used. So for someone else to re-create the drawing, that person would need site access and then spend the next 5 days or so with a helper to site survey. Then to put in the data to a computer. Then you would need to spend maybe, if you knew what you were doing another 3-4 months CADing the drawing up. So in recreating the drawing I would say not possible.
I agree that if you did jumped through all these hoops then you can recreate it. But as with the Mona Lisa argument, you can also recreate that, or anything else for that matter.
2) Resolution
CAD drawings that you need to build from are big. Think A0 pieces of paper. Or guys in hard hats looking at pieces of paper on the bonnet of a construction vehicle. Usually they are accurate to 1mm in "real-world" dimensions. The picture included here is not at that level or resultion. I guess some US layer advised on this so lower resolutuion is better from the legal point of view.
3) Can we get another picture that would work just as well.
I think no because this is the best there is. It is from the same system that was used to build. The drawing though is not "usuable" to build, but does provide the "best" representation of the site. I.E. a reader would then know how the building is layed out and the arcitecture of the building, which is the main point of the article.
4) Reason for use
The reason for use is not "here is a great CAD picture" or even this Architect is good or bad. The reason for use in the article is because I wanted to show the layout of the building and this drawing is the best available. We can make the article better in adding some references to the CAD picture and explain the building. I was planning to do that at some later date before running into this issue on just putting the picture there, which is frankly very discoraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.197.9 (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have added some text. But seems like I cannot add the picture. So not much point in adding any text. If I want to add the picture, is there a way do do it? Or is there no way to do it? If there is a way to do it tell me. If there is not way tell me too. Please do not just cite, like a lawyer soem weird WP XXXX which I guess is some rule. Give it to me in plain english. I think the picture is good for the article. So if=s this a copyright issue? Or is this some other issue?
Incendetly can you give me one example of a irreplaceable picture. So I can understand that rule better? It almost seems that any picture by default can be blocked, because of it is replacable. I.E. Some one can go around deleting pictures stating, hey, I can replace it. I.E. if SweAT of the BROW is not a good test as to if something is replaceable, What is the test for something is replacable or not? I the reason d'etre of the site is to attract articles, this rule / policy seems surprisingly counter productive.
A map I understand is tough to replace. I.E. yes someone worked hard to create the map, And hence it is not fair to just post it and use it. In this case I agree. The Architect has also worked hard to create this drawing. He is willing to have it posted on Wikipedia and agrees to that? Then why can we not use the picture?
I looked again at the upload procedure, did I use the wrong tag or screwed up the upload? I used the one for 2D Architecture drawings? I asked the architect and he said OK for Wikipedia. So that means to me if a school girl used it in a 5th grade project that would be fine, If someone downloaded the picture from Wikipedia that would be OK. If they claimed hey this is my work that would not be OK, If the picture was used in a document without saying that this was the Architects work that would not be OK, If someone built using a house from it, sort of unlikely because the picture only works on that site and for that building, that would not be OK . If someone used the picture in a book, so long as the Arcitects name was mentioned and quoted and the book was tastefully done, that would be OK. If someone used the picture and made lost of money off it without the Architects permission, that would not be OK. If someone changed his picture and used it for something else that would not be OK. The Architect knows enough about the internet such that there is not a lot to stop anybody doing anything with your picture. He knows this and said it was OK to use on Wikipedia. Is there a way to use the picture?
OK so it looks like it is a copyright issue. So can someone explain how to fix this. I need a sort of very dumb guide. Usually I struggle to just stick the picture on the site in the first place. Fortunately usually someone fixes stuff up and I do not have to worry about it. What is a non-free licence, and what is a something else licence. And what does this mean, and how do I do what ever needs to be done. I have seen something somewhere about E-mails with permission or something like that. Again I am sort of lost in the WP XXXX stuff. The Architect is my brother, I sort of maintain the article as a hobby. So every so often I put something there. He said it was OK to put the picture there. Maybe I have put the picture there incorrectly judging by all the message traffic. Neither he nor I sort of know that much about copyright stuff. Hence I just tried to answer all the requests that keep coming my way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.197.9 (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image with no encyclopedic value. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already transferred it to commons... Srikar Kashyap (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Speedy keep as an out-of-process nomination. Once DRV has ruled, an immediate repeat nomination is out-of-process and disruptive. Try again in three months, if new arguments for deletion have arisen Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free TV screenshot showing two Afghan warlords shaking hands in 2001November 2000, in a civil war alliance against a common enemy (the Taliban). Second nomination after a severely faulty first deletion process (nominated 16 April 2012, majority vote for keep on the basis of blatantly politically motivated "I like it" votes; closed – by myself – as delete on the basis of invalidity of the keep votes under NFC policy; deletion overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 25). This needs to be revisited for the following reasons:
The copyright holder has allowed the use of the image for educational purpose only on all Afghanistan-related wikipedia articles. The image, strikingly fulfilling NFCC#8 as User:Jimbo Wales said ("In a case like this, we should realize the educational value and learning impact of actually seeing the two leaders shaking hands"), depicts a unique moment and period of peace in the long history of Afghanistan. The image is of immense symbolic value for the promotion of trans-ethnic peace in Afghanistan. BECAUSE:
source: split along ethnic lines
|
---|
|
sources: ethnic cleansing
|
---|
|
About the event shown in the French media archive video from which the image derives: "Massoud brought together Afghan leaders from all ethnic groups. They flew from London, Paris, the USA, all parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India. He brought them all into the northern area where he was." (Massoud, by Marcela Grad/Webster University Press, p. 65)
"This grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance might finally persuade the American government to change its policy [towards Afghanistan]." (Ghost Wars, by Pulitzer Price winner Steve Coll, p. 558)
"The ‘Lion of Kabul’ [Abdul Haq] and the ‘Lion of Panjshir’ [Ahmad Shah Massoud] ... Haq, Massoud, and Karzai, Afghanistan’s three leading moderates, could transcend the Pashtun—non-Pashtun, north-south divide.” (The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and by Peter Tomsen, p. 566)
“Massoud recommended that the interim government selected by the loya jirga reestablish an Afghan army and prepare a democratic constitution. Nationwide elections would follow. “As I see it,” he said, “all favor a constitutionally based, democratic central government that will support social justice. … Political parties will contest elections and represent their communities at the center. All ethnic groups should have a place in the interim government.” (The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and by Peter Tomsen, p. 572)
Abdul Haq and his brother Abdul Qadir
“Haq had won a reputation as a Pashtun commander defending Islam during the anti-Soviet jihad. … his fame as a commander enlarged his political following outside his tribe and region. … Haq’s network of spies was much larger, reaching into the upper levels of the Taliban. Increasing number of Pashtun Taliban were secretly contacting him as Taliban popularity trended downward. … That is why the ISI had forced Haq out of Pakistan …Haq told me that he was already in touch with the Karzais. They were both part of Zahir Shah’s ‘Rome Group’ of Afghans planning a loya jirga to select a new Afghan leadership to stand against their anti-Taliban activities. … Haq explained that he was communicating by radio with Massoud …” (The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and by Peter Tomsen, p. 565)
"Gunston travelled to meet Haq and his commanders in Rome that month, and later told me he was astonished by the alliance of Afghans Haq had managed to build. "It's crazy you have this today," he said, "yet in Rome there were Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazara leaders. They were all ready to buy in to the process. . . to work under the king's banner for an ethnically balanced Afghanistan."" (The lost lion of Kabul, in The New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2011/11/haq-afghanistan-taliban-kabul)
“Qadir’s credentials as a prominent leader representing the eastern Pashtun (as against Karzai who is a southern Pashtun) as well as an anti-Taliban force in the United Front and a mujahideen leader against the Soviet occupation were critical in Karzai’s political juggling act [post 9/11]. However, Qadir was assassinated in broad daylight in early July 2002, which constituted a major set-back to Karzai’s efforts to create a stable government and assure the Afghans and the international community …” (South Asia in the World: Problem-Solving Perspectives on Security, Sustainable Development and Good Governance, p. 400)
Ahmad Shah Massoud
"The Afghan who won the Cold War"
"the [Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek and Pashtun] commanders appointed Massoud to be the military commander of all anti-Taliban forces" (The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilization, Civil War, and the future of the region, by Neamatollah Nojumi, p. 170)
"In the run-up to Afghanistan's October 9 [2004] presidential elections, one man holds a greater political punch than all 18 living presidential candidates combined. Though already dead for three years, Ahmad Shah Massoud, a leader of the Northern Alliance's Taliban resistance, has become the political weapon of choice for both President Hamid Karzai and his top rival in the country's first popularly contested presidential ballot. Since his death on September 9, 2001 at the hands of two al Qaeda-linked Islamic radicals, Massoud has been transformed from Tajik mujahedin to national hero -- if not saint. Pictures of Massoud, the Afghan-Tajik mujahedin who battled the Soviets, warlords, and the Taliban for more than 20 years, vastly outnumber those of any other Afghan including those of Karzai. This year, the Massoud cult reached new heights with a September 8 ceremony in Kabul's National Stadium attended by more than 20,000 people ...”
(Central Eurasia Project of the Open Society Institute;
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav101304.shtml)
"Alienated by discussions between President Karzai and the Pakistani military and intelligence officials, minority leaders are taking their first steps toward organizing against what they fear is Mr. Karzai’s long-held desire to restore the dominance of ethnic Pashtuns, who ruled the country for generations. ... “Karzai is giving Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and he is opening up the old schisms,” said Rehman Oghly, an Uzbek member of Parliament and once a member of an anti-Taliban militia. “If he wants to bring in the Taliban, and they begin to use force, then we will go back to civil war and Afghanistan will be split.” ... There are growing indications of ethnic fissures inside the army. President Karzai recently decided to remove Bismullah Khan, the chief of staff of the Afghan Army, and make him the interior minister instead. Mr. Khan is an ethnic Tajik, ... One recent source of tension was the resignation of Armullah Saleh, the head of Afghan intelligence service and an ethnic Tajik. Mr. Saleh, widely regarded as one of the most competent aides, resigned after Mr. Karzai said he no longer had faith that he could do the job. Along with Mr. Khan, the army chief of staff, Mr. Saleh was a former aide to Ahmed Shah Massoud, the legendary commander who fought both the Soviet Union and the Taliban. ... “Karzai has begun the ethnic war,” said Mohammed Mohaqeq, a Hazara leader and a former ally of the president. “The future is very dark.”
further sources: danger of renewed war along ethnic lines
|
---|
|
THE IMAGE symbolizes this period when, for the first time since the destructive wars in Afghanistan began, serious and concrete steps were taken to unify the ethnicities. Senior Afghanistan analysts such as Pulitzer Price winner Steve Coll describe it as the "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" (which also included the Hazaras and Uzbeks). Senior diplomats and regional experts such as Peter Tomsen said this "could transcend the Pashtun—non-Pashtun, north-south divide". There exist some images which show even more of the leaders involved in the grand alliance, but there is no permission of the copyright holder to use them or the copyright holder is unknown. As outlined above, peace between the ethnicities is once again at risk in Afghanistan. As such, this image whose use is explicitly allowed by the copyright holder, fulfills the extremely important task of promoting trans-ethnic peace in Afghanistan.
"...Commander Abdul Haq [Abdul Qadir's brother] who was attempting, with the ex King and senior tribal leaders and defecting Taiban, to put in place an internal peace plan for Afghanistan when September 11 happened. In July of 2001 Abdul Haq met with General Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance, in Dushanbe ; the two agreed to work together with the ex King ... Abdul Haq’s plan still matters if the West is to begin to extricate itself ..." (The Afghan Solution, by Lucy Morgan Edwards, http://lucymorganedwards.com/books/the-afghan-solution/)
JCAla (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
R I D I C U L O U S. Last try.
(All the other images in above picture have unknown copyright holders or there is no permission for them to be used.) Why is it important:
“The popularity of the Taliban during the first several years was not shared by most urban dwellers and Afghan moderates. These included ethnic groups in the countryside, such as the Hazaras and the Tajiks – traditionally at odds with tribal Pashtuns who make up the bulk of the Taliban." (Killing the Cranes: A Reporters Journey Through Three Decades of War in Afghanistan, by Edward Girardet, p. 307)
"Conflict in Afghanistan seems to have become increasingly defined in ethnic terms, which suggests that Kalashnikovization has contributed to ethnic cleansing and even genocide there." (Afghanistan's endless war: state failure, regional politics, and the rise of the Taliban, Larry P. Goodson, p. 100)
Beginning in 1999, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks started to work more closely together. From 2000 onwards a process was started to unite the ethnicities. In November 2000 - in the event shown on the picture - the most prominent Tajik and Pashtun leaders of Afghanistan opposed to the Taliban officially came together in one meeting and officially decided to end the ethnic divide and cruelty in Afghanistan and to move forward in a unified manner towards a democratic system and free elections.
"Massoud brought together Afghan leaders from all ethnic groups. They flew from London, Paris, the USA, all parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India. He brought them all into the northern area where he was." (Massoud, by Marcela Grad/Webster University Press, p. 65)
"This grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance might finally persuade the American government to change its policy [towards Afghanistan]." (Ghost Wars, by Pulitzer Price winner Steve Coll, p. 558)
"The ‘Lion of Kabul’ [Abdul Haq] and the ‘Lion of Panjshir’ [Ahmad Shah Massoud] ... Haq, Massoud, and Karzai, Afghanistan’s three leading moderates, could transcend the Pashtun—non-Pashtun, north-south divide.” (The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and by Peter Tomsen, p. 566)
Just cause I cannot fit it in where the original claim is made the claim "The copyright holder has allowed the use of the image for educational purpose only on all Afghanistan-related wikipedia articles." is irrelevant. "We reject licenses that limit use exclusively to Wikipedia or for non-commercial purposes" The image must either be fully released under an appropriate "free" license or there must be a specific justifiable fair use. Under the UNACCEPTABLE are "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." emph added and "An image whose subject happens to be a war," or say a meeting between leaders "to illustrate an article on the war." or say the building of friendship/alliance between the leaders. Despite what Jimbo might have said, this fails.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, superseded by File:World Society for the Protection of Animals Logo.svg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NFC#UUI §3. Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2, but maybe ((PD-US-no notice)) or ((PD-US-not renewed)). Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2, but maybe ((PD-US-not renewed)) or ((PD-US-no notice)). Sculpture not dated. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2, but maybe ((PD-US-not renewed)) or ((PD-US-no notice)). Sculpture not dated. Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused user photo, I guess. Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2 but maybe ((PD-US-no notice)) or ((PD-US-not renewed)). Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: delete File:Self by Laura Myntti.jpg as a replaceable non-free image of a living person, no consensus for the remaining two images. — ξxplicit 05:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The files fail WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable and wrong. Many users of the Austro-Hungarian krone are missing, as is Jan Mayen. Bouvetøya and Dronning Maud Land are dubious due to no population. Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, unencyclopedic, page being used for promotion. Acather96 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an orphaned user photo which shadows Commons. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused low resolution and quality scan. Cloudbound (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, unencyclopedic due to lack of description/context. Request for description made in Dec. 2011, no response. Acather96 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now orphaned as a redundant lower quality copy (resolution-wise) of File:Canal at Medlock aqueduct.JPG Acather96 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned user photo Acather96 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of description makes this unencyclopedic, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused low quality png photo derived with gif. Cloudbound (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned. Low quality. Text not in English (mixture of Italian and Esperanto). Text suggests that the file is identical to Commons:File:Stemma-Leone-XIII.jpg which was deleted as copyvio. Shadows Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, lack of description/context makes for no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Acather96 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, lack of description/context makes for no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Acather96 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Poor quality image replaced by File:ChoctawHighwaySign.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused low quality photo. Cloudbound (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image is a CD or single cover, most likely for the band Girls Aloud no foreseeable use -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image is a CD or single cover, most likely for the band Girls Aloud no foreseeable use -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused low quality photo. Cloudbound (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused map. Little foreseeable use. Cloudbound (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused map. Superceded in use by infobox map template. Cloudbound (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused low resolution image. Cloudbound (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused low quality image. Cloudbound (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused low resolution and quality photo. Cloudbound (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]