Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 8

< August 7	August 9 >

August 8

File:4 Beyoncé deluxe.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on with Andrew, but we do not inclde deluxe covers because we "just like them". The image is the deluxe version of a similar cover. Neither B'Day or I Am... Sasha Fierce has pictures of the deluxe edition, 4 is not an exception. Fails NFCC#1 and #8. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator, It isn't drastically different from the original cover, which is the only reason to show alternate covers. Same text, colors, and almost the same pose only in a different direction. The latter shouldn't be reason enough to keep this image. — Gabe 19 ^(talk ^contribs) 09:59, 9 August 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.

File:Kubrick with sister.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough abuse of non-free content on Stanley Kubrick. There's no need to use a picture of Kubrick as a boy to talk about his childhood. damiens.rf 03:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If there is "abuse" of non-free images, you should deal with those first. The other non-free images you're referring to, which were not added by me, are screen shots from his films. Some might assume that an early photo of a notable person in their "Early life" section belongs in their article, more than a screen shot from his movies, for which there are separate articles. Hence, it is strange in the extreme to delete this and keep the movie shots. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:There are already two FREE shots of a young Kubrick in the article, and the non-free ones fail to comply with NFCC#8 as there is no critical commentary about these particular photoes and nothing about these particular photoes that enhances the reader's understanding. Please note I am voting delete on only TWO of the THREE images uploaded by Wikiwatcher1. On the third I have simply written a comment without voting, but the remaining one seems to me to have a much stronger case in its favor.[(Addendum Note that the policy employed on the image page overtly states to use the image "when the image itself (emphasis added) is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts". A clear fail!)]--WickerGuy (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Agree with Wickerguy. Can't see the justification for including this as per NFCC#8. Screenshots have accompanying commentary in the article describing them, which increases readers' understanding of the topics being discussed. This appears to be decoration. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:50, 8 August 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.

File:Kubrick HS grad.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough abuse of non-free content on Stanley Kubrick. There's no need to use a headshot of Kubrick as a young man to talk about his early years. damiens.rf 03:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If there is "abuse" of non-free images, you should deal with those first. The other non-free images you're referring to, which were not added by me, are screen shots from his films. Some might assume that an early photo of a notable person in their "Early life" section belongs in their article, more than a screen shot from his movies, for which there are separate articles. Hence, it is strange in the extreme to delete one of the only portraits of him and keep the movie shots. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there are four paragraphs in the Early life section that discuss his teen years and especially his high school problems. His graduation photo lets readers know what he looked like. Can any image and rationale be more appropriate for that section? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For better or for worse, WP policy for this kind of non-free image (i.e. one overtly licensed as a "historic" image) is that the article commentary must connect with the image itself (composition, etc.) rather than with simply what the image depicts. In the case of the Kasterine photo discussed below, we have a concerted effort by a photographer who knew Kubrick well really trying to convey something via photo of what Kubrick was like. Thus we can easily create commentary that connects with the image itself. Here by contrast we have a hired hand (who may be quite skilled) photographing SK among hundreds of other high school students he has never met. We are only taking here about what the image depicts, not the composition of the image. This is clearly laid out in the criterion for "historic" images which is how you licensed it. Nice photo, but won't pass.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:There are already two FREE shots of a young Kubrick in the article, and the non-free ones fail to comply with NFCC#8 as there is no critical commentary about these particular photoes and nothing about these particular photoes that enhances the reader's understanding. Please note I am voting delete on only TWO of the THREE images uploaded by Wikiwatcher1. On the third I have simply written a comment without voting, but the remaining one seems to me to have a much stronger case in its favor.[(Addendum Note that the policy employed on the image page overtly states to use the image "when the image itself (emphasis added) is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts". A clear fail!)] --WickerGuy (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:For same reasons as "Kubrick with sister". This also appears to fall under decoration. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:53, 8 August 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.

File:Kubrick smiling-Kasterine.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough abuse of non-free content on Stanley Kubrick. This is an unnecessary non-free photo of the man. A paragraph was added to the article explaining how this picture was taken, in a tentative to justify the use of the image. This is a very bad habit and is detrimental to the project. damiens.rf 04:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Damiens - As long as NFCC#8 is met in regard to supporting text being added for justification, it doesn't really matter when it is added, as long as it is added. If this is done when the image is added, or soon after, I don't see it as being "detrimental" to the project. What I see as detrimental to the project is editors who have taken it upon themselves to disruptively FfD every single non-free image they come across without bothering to discuss it first on the article talk page with involved editors, or listing multiple images uploaded by one editor on FfD, thus gaming the system by overwhelming the editor with multiple simultaneous FfDs to deal with, instead of FfDing them one at a time. The road to "detriment to WP" is paved with "good intentions". Shirtwaist ☎ 22:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put it differently, it is legit to pull in an image for one reason, and then find a better reason. Consider the parallel case of Peter Jackson hiring Andy Serkis for Lord of the Rings. At first, Serkis was hired ONLY to do voice-over for Gollum. THEN Jackson discovered Serkis was a gifted mime, and LATER decided to do Gollum as a CGI motion-capture and ALSO have Serkis mime Gollum's movements. Serkis was hired for one job, and then discovered to be good at a related job and given that one as well. The same principle applies to the use of non-free images in articles. This is the fallacy in your earlier objections to two other Kubrick-related images. At any rate, I just don't think it's true that the paragraph was added by Wikiwatcher1 in a tentative effort to justify the image. Kasterine's relationship to Kubrick is inherently interesting, and the paragraph is a worthy addition to the article even if the image were to go.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If there is current "abuse" of non-free images, you should deal with those first. The other non-free images you're referring to, which were added by others, are screen shots from his films. Some might assume that a rare and significant portrait belongs in a director's bio article, more than a screen shot from his movies, for which there are separate articles. Hence, it is strange in the extreme to delete the only portraits of him, which includes valuable commentary about the photo, and keep the movie shots. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The number of non-free screenshots from movies in this article was over the past several months reduced from 18 to 8, although I realize several would argue that 8 is still too many. Additionally, 4 non-free screenshot images have been replaced with free ones. The 8 remaining non-free were chosen with care for their relevance to the article. Wikiwatcher1 recently added three non-free images of Kubrick himself to the article of which I myself deleted two as clearly and unambiguously failing to comply with WP:NFCC number 8. [(New Addendum: There are already two free images of a young Kubrick in the article. Why would we need two more non-free ones? This also matters in addition to their non-compliance with NFCC #8!)] However, this last seems to be of some at least marginal significance as it was photographed by a well-known and significant collaborator with Kubrick whom SK frequently invited to the set to take candid photoes, unusual as Kubrick normally kept a closed set. The article previously had only two (free) photos of a very young Kubrick, and none of him in his mature years. I concede it remains unclear how the exact contents of the photo contribute to the reader's understanding, and possibly more (or just modified) commentary is required. However, I believe damiens.rf is entirely mistaken in claiming that the paragraph was added by Wikiwatcher1 merely to justify the use of the photo. [(New Addendum: The added paragraph is clearly inherently interesting material in its own right, as Kubrick who normally kept a closed set invited this one photographer repeatedly to take candid photoes. The accompanying photo remains the only photo in the article of Kubrick past his early 20s.)] Demians.rf has misemployed this argument in the past. Kubrick is a contemporary (recently deceased) innovative visual artist, and effective and carefully chosen images in this article may just as likely generate reader interest in viewing the films, thus enhancing their profitability rather than harming it.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Readers are perfectly capable of understanding Stanley Kubrick without seeing a photo of him in his 20s. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You miss my point that this here is the ONE photo of him in the article NOT in his 20s (we have two free ones of the latter, so I object to adding two more NON-FREE but that's the two above images, NOT THIS one) so you aren't really following the discussion very closely. I think the marginal significance is that this photo, is that it was taken by a photographer who worked closely with Kubrick and was frequently invited over many years to places where normally the press was shut out. However, there might be a better choice for a photo by this photographer.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is actually a need to explain why would we need such a photo. --damiens.rf 21:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surprisingly few people know what Kubrick looked like as an adult. Images of him are far less ubiquitous than say images of Steven Spielberg or Alfred Hitchcock. Show the average Joe on the street pictures of the top film directors from the second half of the twentieth century (Francis Coppola, Martin Scorcese, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood) and I would wager good money that fewer could identify Kubrick than just about anyone else. (How else could Alan Conway have pulled off his fraudulent Kubrick impersonation so easily for so long?) However, I think we need to think through a little more carefully about what makes the photoes by Dmitri Kasterine especially notable and distinctive, and I strongly suspect this particular shot of Kasterine is NOT the best choice!! Multiple photoes of Kubrick by Kasterine are on this page [1] and there are some obvious examples on this page that are better, such as [2] or [3]. Furthermore, Dmitri Kasterine can be contacted by e-mail and we can easily ask permission to use one of the photoes. I'm not saying the case for this image is really strong, only that it is much better than the other two images uploaded to the article by Wikiwatcher1.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Although there is commentary in the article about the photographer's access to Kubrick on his movie sets, this image doesn't seem to relate to that aspect. It just looks like a snapshot of the guy that could've been taken anywhere. I'd much rather vote to keep one of the other images that depict Kubrick at work on one of his sets (preferably '2001', but that's just IMO), but I would expect extra commentary on the actual image itself to support it, not just a general statement that Kasterine took some pictures of Kubrick. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for replacement Research shows that THIS photo of Kubrick by Kasterine is Kasterine's personal favorite and he gives highly specific reasons in an interview as to why he believes it captures the essence of Kubrick's personality. Kasterine both had unparalleled access to Kubrick and is considered the most important portrait photographers of the 20th century. We should use THIS photo [4] instead of the current Kasterine shot, and drawing on the interview with Kasterine we can easily put in appropriate commentary. Again, the article has no other shots of Kubrick past his mid-20s, and very few readers know what Kubrick looked like in his later years.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Relevant interview at [5].--WickerGuy (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Let's run it up the flagpole and see who gives the "Kubrick Stare". Shirtwaist ☎ 22:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No 2nd here. Adding another camera-holding photo, also from a distance, does not show as much of his personality as the existing portrait. That's what portraits are for. This is biography of someone who also had a private life, and a natural close-up is clearly much better, in my not-so-humble opinion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwatcher1, you have a good point, but I think we are on firmer ground [(Addendum: per Wikipedia fair use policies)] if we go with Dmitri Kasterine's own judgement as to what his best photo of Kubrick is, especially given that DK has commented extensively on why that photo in his opinion captures the Kubrick's persona so well.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement Made If the majority is happy with the replacement image (also by photographer Kasterine- I used just the upper half and added appropriate commentary in the Kubrick article), the original can now be deleted.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This replacement is just a maneuver to keep a similar non-free image in the article. The new image suffers from the exact same problem as the one nominated here: It's just a copyrighted photo alongside with a paragraph saying that a given photographer had the opportunity to shot the biography's subject. Not to mention that the paragraph was just to justify the use of one more cute image (with only the concern of adding the paragraph six minutes before the addition of the image). Delete Both. --damiens.rf 17:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demiens, this is one of the weakest and most specious arguments I have heard you use in all my encounters with you (and I actually do agree with you about 40% of the time). I'm not a mind-reader, but (for the third time) I see not one shred of evidence that Wikiwatcher1 added the paragraph just to justify the image. The weakness of your argument is especially evident from: a) the fact that the paragraph is quite obviously a worthy addition to the article in its own right even WITHOUT the photograph- if a photographer over the course of 10 years is given unprecedented access to film sets normally close to the press, because Kubrick has an unusually high level of trust in this guy, that's absolutely worth mentioning in the article even WITHOUT the photo!!! Your pointless call to delete the paragraph as well indicates, I think, a level of desperation! b) The highly subjective word "cute" is a word that reactionaries like Glenn Beck use for things they don't like when they are unable to articulate a better case against it. You are pretty much veering into the category of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. See especially last paragraph of that section of the WP manual!!

(You seem to consistently think that eye-catching and critically illuminating are mutually exclusive qualities, and that if a fair use photo is eye-catching it probably is not critically illuminating, and the the explanations for the latter are just shallow rationalizations. Has it ever occurred to you that sometimes a fair use picture actually really is BOTH eye-catching AND critically illuminating?)

The replacement photo has the virtue that the photographer himself has commented on the photos significance (given that it is his favorite of his Kubrick photos.) WP policy is pretty clear in wanting verifiable secondary sources to establish the cultural significance of what is included, whether pop culture references or fair use photographs. We have it for this photo! Thus there is a clear and obvious reason why per WP fair use policy this photo is a better choice than the photo originally uploaded by Wikiwatcher1.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that the original photo was obviously chosen for the article because it's a remarkably skilled portrait of Kubrick taken by someone with a long-standing collaborative relationship with him. It's not a "fanboy" picture. You, Demians, are projecting a shifty deceptive manipulativeness into the motives for uploading it that simply isn't there. It's craft, not cruft, and craft in the sense of "artistry" but not put in for reasons that are "crafty" (in the sense of deceptive).

Generally, trying to impute "bad faith" to another editor (without very good reason) in a request for deletion is bad form, as outlined in WP:GOODFAITH. Please don't do it.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new image looks fine to me - an interesting and illuminating shot of the director at work with supporting text that expounds on it. I say keep it. I can't understand what Damiens has against editors following the rules he seems so fanatic about? NFCC#8 is satisfied...and still he complains? That seems detrimental to me, not to mention his frequent assuming bad faith. Shirtwaist ☎ 04:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always good to reread WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions now and then.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:00, 11 August 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.

File:Kirk Douglas Wall.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to use a non-free image of Kirk Douglas in Jerusalem to explain he's Jewish. The image is used as a decoration and conveys no relevant information. damiens.rf 04:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's clearly relevant to the commentary and helps illustrate the subject. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This image fails WP:NFCC#8. It shows Kirk Douglas praying at the Western Wall around 1973. The corresponding text in the article goes into depth about his Jewish upbringing and faith. The presence of this image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and its removal would not "be detrimental to that understanding"—this image does not provide understanding about Douglas's Jewish faith that is not already provided by the text. [Copied from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 August 6.] —Bkell (talk) 04:58, 9 August 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.

File:Tiomkin - session.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free picture showing a film score composer conducting an orchestra during an unidentified recording session. The fairuse rationale claims the image illustrates the "detailed commentary describing his techniques" but there's nothing on this image that helps in the understanding of the section about this artist's techniques. damiens.rf 04:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Section states, He completes the final score after assembling all the musicians and orchestra, rehearses a number of times, and then records the final soundtrack.[14] The image, with all the recording equipment alongside, helps give a visual description of the subject in that section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the kind of information that needs an illustration to be conveyed. Were it a free image, and it would be great to have. But since we restrict ourselves to use non-free content to the cases where the textual information would somewhat feel incomplete without it, we can't have this material. --damiens.rf 18:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again the license accompanying the image states "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself (emphasis added) is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts". I don't think this passes. Nice choice, though.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see no useful contribution that the image makes towards understanding the passage it's purported to illustrate. The crucial thing about what the text describes is a sequence of actions; a photograph of a generic situation from one such action can tell us nothing about this sequence, and nothing about how the working techniques of this conductor are in any way special. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 8 August 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.

File:88 bonfire.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to believe this image is PD. The source says "All Rights Reserved" and "It is the user's responsibility to secure permission from the copyright holders for publication. Permission must be obtained in writing prior to publication. Please contact the Cushing Library for further information.", but the file is tagged here as public domain because "it was first published in the U.S. between 1978 and 1989, and [...] distributed to the public without a copyright notice, and the copyright was not later registered" - but I wonder how can we verify this claim. damiens.rf 16:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, this wasn't the original source of the photo. The Cushing Library has decided to effectively transfer all its photos to Flickr instead of keeping them on their server. Fine by me, but a lot of things have been lost in the transition.
1. From my recollection, the photo was originally listed as from 1988's Aggie Bonfire, but it was on a separate website.
2. The date on the file says that "This photo was taken on October 17, 2008". This is COMPLETELY impossible. The last Aggie Bonfire to burn on campus was in 1998. Clearly, this date is completely wrong (other photos from the Cushing Library have similar problems).
3. Damiens has been waging a campaign against me personally (a grudge?) and against others. He is almost completely ignorant of copyright law and our image use criteria (multiple attempts to delete images that are clearly, simply mislabeled and others solely because he doesn't consider user space a "use" of an image [therefore the images are "orphaned" in his opinion]) ...and he doesn't seem to care. His motivation after his most recent disparaging comments should certainly be taken into account. I have prior attempted discussion on this image on my talk page, but he has not seen fit to respond. He asks in a snarky manner "I wonder how we can verify this claim". I have told him on numerous occasions he is welcome to search the U.S. Copyright Office's records, but apparently, he has not chosen to use this information and pretend that he doesn't know better in order to make snide remarks insinuating some malfeasant act on my part.

IMNSHO, this is a bad faith nomination and an attempt to further harass me personally (note the lack of ANY other nominations by this user on this page). Buffs (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, Buffs, stop the ad personam rants. (I believe you yourself were warned on ANI the other day.) About the dates: First the point about "2008" is a red herring. That's of course just Flickr's representation of the exif date in the file, which in this case means the date of scanning from what was of course originally a non-digital photograph. Irrelevant. Second, what the website actually says about the date is "1994?". I cannot of course test your claim that it originally said 1988, but if 1994 is true, there is of course no way it could possibly have become PD in the meantime. Third, even if the library is wrong and it did originally say 1988, if you are so proud of your superior knowledge of copyright, you should of course know that it is not sufficient to show that it was produced before 1989, but that it was published before 1989. Which you have not done. So, before you go on blaming other people for not doing the work of checking whether its copyright was renewed or registered, you should of course know that such a search is impossible as long as you haven't done your homework and stated where and when before 1989 the publication was. In the absence of such publication information, we have, of course, no other option than to believe what the reliable source is saying and assume 1994 as the terminus post quem, which makes PD impossible. Hence, delete per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? You warn me against using "ad personam" attacks, and then go on to say how I was warned on ANI...pot meet the kettle collection... However, "in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue." In this case, the motive is certainly relevant. I was "warned" to avoid Damiens (kinda hard when he brings up images I uploaded), not avoid all discussion whatsoever.

However, the larger issue right now is the image itself. The image was published prior to 1989. In the case of this image, it was used in Texas A&M literature and later on several Texas A&M websites. Whether that was prior to 1989 I don't know, but I am quite certain that the image was used and published in 1988 and it was annotated on the original site (no longer available). Of course, you don't have any direct evidence other than my word on the subject, however, there is clear indirect evidence that this image existed prior to the upload onto Flickr and all of the information available on the Library site is no longer present. I will do my best to contact the library, but I am currently unable to do so. If someone wishes to contact them in my stead, the phone number is listed on Flickr. The folks at the Cushing Library are quite nice.

"So, before you go on blaming other people for not doing the work of checking whether its copyright was renewed or registered, you should of course know that such a search is impossible as long as you haven't done your homework and stated where and when before 1989 the publication was." Have you even tried to use that link I provided? You can search it to your heart's content using any number of search criteria. It isn't limited to the date. Buffs (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? "The image was published prior to 1989. [...] Whether that was prior to 1989 I don't know, but I am quite certain that the image was used and published in 1988" – How does this make any sense? And what is "evidence that this image existed prior to the upload onto Flickr" supposed to mean? Well, duh, of course it existed; nobody suggested they faked it. And are you really saying we should blindly start digging in that catalog, when you have told us neither who published the photograph, where they published it, in what format they published it, and under what title? Try to not be absurd please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you parse my words, of course it doesn't make sense. The image was used and published in 1988 and [that information] was annotated on the original site. I am also (as in "in addition to the previous statement") quite certain that image was also used in A&M literature, but I am not very certain if that specific literature was used designed prior to 1989. I'm also not certain if that was the literature cited.

"Well, duh, of course it existed; nobody suggested they faked it." Wow. How very condescending of you! My point was not that this image existed prior to 1989, but that it existed on the Cushing Library website before it was uploaded to Flickr (note that the image's upload date is prior to its most recent incarnation on Flickr.

"And are you really saying we should blindly start digging in that catalog...?" No, I am suggesting you use your God-given intelligence and search through it using a non time-intensive method such as utilizing the site's search function. Feel free to search it using any number of criteria you believe should be used. I suggest "Aggie Bonfire" or the author of the photo as given on the webpage listed above, "Mike Kellett". You certainly are welcome to search other criteria, but I have been unable to find any record of said image.

"Try not to be absurd please". Likewise. Buffs (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note This is an issue with the site the image came from changing information. Buffs (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a late addition, by the way: the above discussion of whether it could be found in a database of copyright registrations is another red herring (stupid me for not recognizing that immediately.) For things created in 1988, registration or renewal would already have been irrelevant. The only thing that could make a publication from 1988 fall into the public domain would be if it was published without a copyright notice. The only way to prove this was the case would be to show the context of the original print publication in which it was contained. Absent that, there's no way we can assume lack of such a notice (since we can't in fact assume publication in the first place). Again, if it was published at any later date (for instance if it's just a private photograph that was first published by the archive when they put it on the web), or if it was created any time after 1989 (no matter the publication history), then there is no conceivable way it could be out of copyright. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  And as I stated above, the information you are asking for was on the site that this image was originally pulled from. No one is asking you to assume anything. Check the copyright records yourself.
  
  I also have a serious problem with the way some people treat images on WP, specifically imposing an opinion that is not merited in law: "all images are non-free unless proven otherwise." This is not a policy or guideline anywhere on WP, only a mistaken belief by a sizeable vocal group. Prior to 1989, this wasn't the case. A published image without a copyright notice or one that failed to maintain such a copyright with the copyright office immediately became public domain for failure to comply with the copyright laws at the time. There is no such requirement in the WP upload process or image use policies where we have to show someone on the web where an image was used. I could just as easily lied and said it was on display and had been on display in the library since 1988 to make the usage on WP "concrete", but that wouldn't have been the truth.
  
  This whole conversation flies in the face of WP:AGF; I uploaded this image properly and it was vetted by quite a few people during the FAC process.
  
  Bottom Line: It met the criteria for use when it was uploaded. The library disassembling its website doesn't change the fact that it was properly uploaded and annotated as a PD image. The verification information simply isn't as readily available. Buffs (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you took it from a website that gave enough information to substantiate a claim of public domain, it would have been your duty as an uploader to link to that page and say exactly what it said. Don't complain about the university allegedly changing its webpages, when you didn't even fulfill the minimum requirement of citing the source page back then to begin with. This also means it can't possibly be true that people "vetted" your claim during the FAC -- you gave them nothing to run such a check on. In fact, the FAC was in 2007 and you only uploaded this image two years later; it was never discussed anywhere. -- And no, even before 1988, we cannot simply assume PD by default. Rubbish. You put a tag on the file that made a very specific factual claim: "a substantial number of authorized copies were distributed to the public without a copyright notice", before 1989. By no means can this simply be assumed or concluded from the presence of the image on a webpage in 2008 or 2009 or 2011. The burden was on you to prove this, back in 2009 just as it is now, and you didn't. By the way, I highly doubt the university did in fact change its webpage. Because it's still there, not only on the Flickr mirror. It's here: [6]. It was posted on that page in 2008, it has the exact same description and copyright notice as the Flickr mirror page has (dated to 1994, named author, described as copyrighted). The page has been unchanged at least since mid-2010 (wayback archive). There is no reason at all to believe it was ever saying anything different from what it is saying now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note after closure: How nice. You found another copy of the same image. However, and as I stated before, I got this photo from the CUSHING LIBRARY page, not photos.tamu.edu. Since the image has been deleted, it hardly makes it possible to verify the dates you mention above, but, whatever, it's gone and clearly consensus is against me and the law on this one. PD or not, the image isn't going to be used here. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 18 August 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.

File:AM40thBoxTagExactCovered.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:48, 8 August 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.

File:AM40thBoxEnds.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 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.

File:AM40thBoxEndsExact.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 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.

File:AMliterature tags0002.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 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.

File:AMliterature tags0001.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 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.

File:Vicki2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, no verification of permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 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.

File:S1 PIC1.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:42, 8 August 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.

File:Pre-Pam3-5-04c.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low-res, not really clear that uploader is author or where this picture came from Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 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.

File:Circumcircle.angles.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by higher-quality SVGs in Circumcircle Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:48, 8 August 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.

File:Int day 1.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 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.

File:Swiss Stall.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 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.

File:WorldRaces1.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 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.

File:Mayfield Place.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by PNG File:Mayfield Place.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:56, 8 August 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.

File:Hamurabisalaska.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:56, 8 August 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.

File:CIMG5553.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, never added to an article, insufficient information to determine encyclopedic use Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:57, 8 August 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.

File:Middle C Keyboard.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality - also not a good illustration for middle C, because this could be most any C on the keyboard Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:58, 8 August 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.

File:Leothuaniaaaan.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, pretty sure this is Unencyclopedic - uploaded by vandal Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 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.

File:MetalTrax01.gif

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Metaltrax deleted) Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 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.

File:BwSSHamilton.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Scarlet Sins deleted) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 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.

File:FabTrax01.gif

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (FabTrax deleted), possible copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 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.

File:GirlOnBike.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 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.

File:Railfan3.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, somewhat doubt that this is self-made Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 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.

File:Exit 3.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unneeded, could easily be recreated if necessary Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 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.

File:Exit 11.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unneeded, could easily be recreated if necessary Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 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.

File:Exit 26.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unneeded, could easily be recreated if necessary Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 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.

File:Exit 29.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unneeded, could easily be recreated if necessary Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:03, 8 August 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.

File:Exit 30.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unneeded, could easily be recreated if necessary Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:03, 8 August 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.

File:Sacad yonis3.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is already captured in the chart File:Isaaq.jpg. don't think we need two copies of this - unsourced and somwhat dubious Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure File:Isaaq.jpg qualifies as (well) sourced, either. It cites other Wikipedia articles, and a Somali language website (from which it isn't clear if or how it supports the diagram). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. Clan/caste/etc wiki articles are notoriously badly sourced, but I'm only cleaning out orphan images at the moment. It may well be that that image should also be deleted at some point.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 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.

File:MikePanetta.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 8 August 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.

File:NEW ME.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 8 August 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.

File:Charles Lynch.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no real source, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 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.

File:Invitromeat.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also: File:Invitromeat2.jpg

Non-free photograph of an "artist's interpretation" showing something that is not what the article in vitro meat is actually about. The article is about attempts at producing meat artificially; what this image shows is simply a piece of natural meat put into a glass container; it is likely to bear no similarity to what the subject of the article would actually look like. This is both highly misleading with respect to the encyclopedic coverage of the article, and also makes the image fail WP:NFCC (it conveys no actual useful information about the topic of the article, and moreover the creative work of the "artist" is not otherwise the object of discussion). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've removed both images from the article; here, for the record, is a link to the way they were beig used: [7]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 8 August 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.

File:Cc investment process.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Cadence Asset Management deleted) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 8 August 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.

File:Explor01.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 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.

File:Michael Oren.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, source not stated, we have other images such as File:Michael Oren official portrait.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 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.

File:Icon airlines logo.jpeg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icon (airline)) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 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.

File:Mark Leci.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 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.

File:Normal 100 4116.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 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.

File:G42006(1).jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 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.

File:Housing characteristics and birth rates.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unuseful because lacks source for data Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 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.

File:Log1.gif

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 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.

File:Log01.gif

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 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.

File:Log02.gif

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 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.

File:Log01b.gif

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 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.

File:Housing characteristics and fertility rates.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unuseful bc no source for data Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 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.

File:Jkcover.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:59, 8 August 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.

File:Roebuckians.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, likely copyvio (no reason that this would be public domain - pretty sure uploader did not take photo) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 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.

File:Roebuckians 1976.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, likely copyvio (no reason that this would be public domain - pretty sure uploader did not take photo) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 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.

File:Log010.gif

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 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.

File:Festive colors.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, no real encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 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.

File:Lobotomizer.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:01, 8 August 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.

File:PPILOGOMS.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 8 August 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.

File:WikipediaMetalEditBarnstar.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, we appear to already have a barnstar for heavy metal topics: Template:Heavy metal barnstar Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 8 August 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.

File:MrPyro.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, no source Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 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.

File:2005 StateShoot 13.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 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.

File:Steam2007interface.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 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.

File:SEOLA SM80.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 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.

File:Brick -8.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (The~Brick deleted), likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 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.

File:Brick -9.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (The~Brick deleted), likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 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.

File:Brick -10.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (The~Brick deleted), likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 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.

File:Brick -17.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (The~Brick deleted), likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 8 August 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.

File:Brick -14.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (The~Brick deleted), likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 8 August 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.

File:Brick -15.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (The~Brick deleted), likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 8 August 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.

File:Entrance MSC Greece.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:17, 8 August 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.

File:MSCOFFICES.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 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.

File:Sandton.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, not clear that uploader is copyright holder Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file was uploaded at a time when I did not understand the copyright policy here. I am not the copyright holder of that file. Kind regards. — Adriaan (T★C) 09:53, 9 August 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.

File:Laborday009.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 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.

File:Ologoblue.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 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.

File:Punchclock.gif

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 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.

File:Front coverweb.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, possible copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 8 August 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.

File:Redoubt1.jpg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, i'm skeptical that it is actually self-taken given the very low resolution Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:30, 8 August 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.

File:Realghost2.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:30, 8 August 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.

File:Mush stamp.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 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.

File:Maurice keys.jpeg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 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.

File:Troykeynmusiclogo7pe(White).jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 8 August 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.

File:Perlenese Flag.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:34, 8 August 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.

File:What on earth.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 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.

File:PARSradio247.white.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 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.

File:East Asians IQ year scatter.png

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unuseful bc no source for data Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 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.

File:US Europe Minorities IQ year scatter.png

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unuseful bc no source for data Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 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.

File:Kilt Squad.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 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.

File:Plain bow-tie.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 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.

File:Bow tie + tan.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 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.

File:Bow-tie plus scos.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 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.

File:Bow-tie plus sin.PNG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 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.

File:US Europe Minorities IQ shuttergraph.png

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, not useful bc no source for data Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 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.

File:GRE by race.png

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unuseful bc no source for data Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 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.

File:Go to Ground rat.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, encyclopedic value unclear, whether uploader is copyright holder unclear (uploaded some other web-res images) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 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.

File:EyeMustard.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 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.

File:Lat2.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:44, 8 August 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.

File:Pud legs.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

likely copyvio - uploader has contributed images sourced to several different people[8] Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 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.

File:Russell Terrier.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

likely copyvio - uploader has contributed images sourced to several different people[9] Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 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.

File:Russell terrier 1.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

likely copyvio - uploader has contributed images sourced to several different people[10] Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 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.

File:Gotoground.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

likely copyvio - uploader has contributed images sourced to several different people[11] Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 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.

File:Russell Terrier 0002.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

likely copyvio - uploader has contributed images sourced to several different people[12] Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 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.

File:Pushpendre.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 8 August 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.

File:The Hang Side.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 8 August 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.

File:The Hang Bottom.JPG

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 ⚡ 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 8 August 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.

File:Gnothi sauton.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:48, 8 August 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.

File:Johnmitchellumw.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small, orphaned. Replaced by better-quality File:John Mitchell cph.3b35049.jpg. howcheng {chat} 21:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:39, 9 August 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.

File:6teen-yummymummy.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, possibly {{non-free character}}. Kelly ^hi! 23:58, 8 August 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.

File:6teen-darth.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, possibly {{non-free character}}. Kelly ^hi! 23:59, 8 August 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.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 8

August 8

Navigation menu

Search