Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
< April 14 April 16 >

April 15

[edit]

File:Map sunsetcoast.jpg

[edit]
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⚡ 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map sunsetcoast.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marv87 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Is it really own work? Doubtful. Besides, it's unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2012 (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:SuperBowl46.jpg

[edit]
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⚡ 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SuperBowl46.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NoseNuggets (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

A replacement photo has been uploaded. Plus, horrible JPG. OB WebTV3 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2012 (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:North Sydney Girls High School yard.jpg

[edit]
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⚡ 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:North Sydney Girls High School yard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Usingthisname (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low-res photo of a nondescript school yard. Unused. Due to low resolution, not particularly useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2012 (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:Prototype Clay Model (W163).png

[edit]
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⚡ 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prototype Clay Model (W163).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carmaker1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Two non-free photos / screenshots of a car prototype. Sole accompanying text is a statement about "early 1994 when a final design was chosen and approved by the executive board". No explanation of why we'd need to see as many as two photos to understand that statement. No concrete visual details of the photographs are discussed any further. There are no visible design differences between these models and the final released car that I can notice; if there are any they are not being explained and discussed (not surprising, since supposedly it's the "final design".) We don't need visual illustration to demonstrate the self-evident fact that a final design model looks the same as the finished product. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 15 April 2012 (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:Prototype Clay Model (W163) ML430.png

[edit]
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⚡ 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prototype Clay Model (W163) ML430.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carmaker1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Second of a pair of similar items, see next entry above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 15 April 2012 (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:Pilot (The Cosby Show) monopoly lesson.png

[edit]
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: no consensus. — ξxplicit 00:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilot (The Cosby Show) monopoly lesson.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random frame of a rather nondescript scene, not the object of any particular commentary, not needed for understanding the plot or anything else in the text. Meaningless generic FUR. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator obviously failed to read the article. If he had, he would understand that the article is largely about basic economics of needing an education and job as demonstrated with monopoly money. Please reread the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why I'd need this screenshot to understand that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A show is generally allowed one NFCC screenshot of an important scene.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no such general allowance, no matter how many editors pretend there is. Every single item has to individually pass NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The frame is neither nondescript (It is the most important scene in the episode, as per the episode's alternate title). Furthermore, it is not absent particular commentary (E.g., see the Associated Press review by Jerry Buck and Mike Boone's review). Please reread the episode before making random statements without doing so. Your initial objection is offbase and you have presented no other argument.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in those quotes that the image would help me to understand. The critics speak of the dialogue. What does the image tell me about the dialogue? Nothing. In fact, I need a lot of help from the text in order to begin understanding the image; the image does nothing to help me understand the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you continue to not understand that your initial objection was offbase. I.e., that this is the episode's most important scene and that the scene is the subject of critical review?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to not understand the point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that your initial statement is offbase. It should be the following: Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently randomExtremely important frame of a rather nondescript scene, not the object of any particular commentary,scene that is the subject of critical review not needed for understanding depicting the central theme of the plot or anything else in the text. Meaningless generic FUR. Fails NFCC#8.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not agree with this point, that is the basis for our disagreement. Please explain which part you do not agree with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained to you how NFCC#8 applies to this case. I can't do more than that. If you don't want to understand it, there's nothing more I can do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two sentences to the plot section that might make the image seem more relevant to you. ("Cliff gives him an amount of money representing a generous monthly salary for a 'regular person'. He then takes money out of Theo's hand in amounts representing various costs such as housing, food, clothes, transportation and finally a girlfriend.")--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, because now the text helps me even better to understand the image. Trouble is, the image still isn't helping me to understand the text. The text is perfectly understandable all on its own. Still fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to get an understanding of your interpretation from WP:NFCC#8. I looked at WP:FA. 8 of the first 10 FAs alphabetically have infobox images where the text and picture explain each other. Which of these meet your standard at "Abyssinia, Henry", "All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)", "The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)", "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe", "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson", "Confirmed Dead", "Damien (South Park)" and "Doomsday (Doctor Who)"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several of those appear to be bad, at least at first sight, some outrageously so; a few are debatable. But an "otherstuffexists" argument is always weak, even if the "other stuff" is featured articles. I have little trust in the ability and dedication of the FA process when it comes to protecting the non-free content policy, especially in a corner of the project like TV episodes, where NFC abuse is particularly rampant. Fortunately, NFC policy isn't defined at WP:FA, but at WP:NFC, and here at FFD. I could just as easily show you several dozen prior deletion debates of TV episode pictures, which show a very clear, stable consensus about what the reasonable minimum standards are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. My point is that if practically every WP:FA would fail your application of the standard, you must be applying it too strictly. It is fairly widely accepted that an image from an important scene that is the subject of critical review depicting the central theme of the plot is allowed. That is the prevailing substance of the law and the perceived spirit of the law to many even though you might have an argument based on the letter of the law. This is the kind of image that 4 out of 5 image reviewers would allow. Your interpretation of NFCC would necessitate that a vast majority. Probably more than 75% of the infobox images at WP:FA be deleted. Even though the letter of the law might back what you are saying, it is not how the substance of the law has evolved and is not the perceived spirit of the law.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "law" here that applies specifically to TV episode screenshots, so there is neither a "spirit" nor a "letter" of it to consider. The only rule we have is NFCC#8 itself. The image must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". This one doesn't. That's all there is to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1: Isn't there suppose to be a tag on the image where it is used so that people other than you and me will know about the issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2: Let me make my point another way. The common application of NFCC#8 is that a picture is worth 1000 words. If you have a picture of an important thematic element is is perceived to be more revealing to a reader than 1000 words about it. Seeing Cosby take the money out of his hands is suppose to be perceived as not only helpful to the understanding of the theme, but the superior explanation of it. That is how WP works at the highest level. That is why all the other NFCC reviewers are letting "image from an important scene that is the subject of critical review depicting the central theme of the plot" pass. I am not pointing you to images that no one has looked at. The reason that I point you to FA is that your peers are diligently evaluating images there. Your peers have consistently applied NFCC with the picture is worth 1000 words philosophy in this regard. In a sense FA is not really an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument because those are images that are being critically reviewed, closely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise offer I have not looked at the WP:FAL. I would be willing to go by a majority opinion at FA for 1. All 2012 episodes, 2. The last 10 FA episode promotions, or 3. the last year of episode promotions. I have not gone throught the logs, but am willing to go by the majority opinion of FA reviewers. Would you be willing to interpret NFCC as your peers do?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to assume you will be reasonable and agree to interpret NFCC as your peers do. I am going to try to see what the recent FAs have been like by evaluating [1].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to have to try going back to the beginning of 2011 to hope for a sample size.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All 3 Both episodes promoted since 1/1/11 have infobox images of an important theme: "Over There (Fringe)", "Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)", "Stark Raving Dad". Why are any either of them different from the infobox image at issue. This is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I am presenting the current prevailing sentiment among image reviewers. We could broaden the sample size by using films, but films always get to use a promotional image (just because).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to jump in here that I vote Keep. Granted, the initial rationale was not good enough, but TonyTheTiger has improved the image and added a very good reason for why the picture is integral to the storyline. Granted, you (Perfect), might claim that it does not help or enlighten, but I would argue to the contrary; the image is a key scene in the episode and one that helps expound upon the virtues of the series.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion.2F2012_April_15.23File:Pilot_.28The_Cosby_Show.29_monopoly_lesson.png the following exchange occured.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(At User talk) You never commented at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_April_15#File:Pilot_.28The_Cosby_Show.29_monopoly_lesson.png on whether you would consider evaluating images like all the other Image reviewers do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(At User talk) Also, you don't seem to have tagged the image correctly, as I noted there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(At User talk) First, I do not have the time to engage in a sustained debate over several days for each, highly repetitive, case of a random non-free image that an uploader chooses to dig in his heels over. I made my point, and you made yours. Second, I simply do not accept that whatever people do at FA reviews has any bearing on the correct application of NFC policy. In my experience, people at FA are no more competent and only marginally more careful than the average user when it comes to judging NFC issues. NFC policy is shaped at WT:NFC and at FFD, and I know what the consensus is there. Your suggestion that we should submit to a "majority decision" of FA reviews of some kind makes no sense to me at all. If a majority of FAs have some non-free image, then every article can have some random one? That's absurd.

(At User talk) As for tagging, I use Twinkle for nominating images for deletion, as do most other people who do this job with some regularity, and Twinkle is supposed to do whatever tagging is necessary. Given the high volume of bad images that have to be nominated every day, and the tedious and mechanical nature of manual notifications, I personally refuse to do any tagging beyond what is automated. If you want more notifications in other places, please ask some bot programmer to help. What I do has been the common practice at FFD for years, and if there are still some normative texts anywhere around that suggest there is an obligation to do more, those texts have been out of touch with reality for a long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More info: Since only two Television episodes ("Over There (Fringe)" and "Stark Raving Dad") have been promoted since 1-1-2011, I have gone back to 9-1-2009 to get a better feel for image reviewers opinions of infobox FU imagess in TV episodes. The sample is much bigger. Every TV episode prometed since 9-1-2009 currently has an infobox FU image. Here is the list:
Promoted 2009-11-08 "All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)"
File:Azazeldead.jpg AnOddName (talk · contribs)
This brings back some memories. It's been almost three years...it looks like the kind of FUR I'd write if I wanted to write one back then (I haven't reviewed any FAC aspect in a long while), and that's because I remember writing one like that for Ophois way back when (I think for another Supernatural article) and others like it for other FACs. It was a great improvement in my view to some FURs that I had seen, which frankly didn't even try to comply with rules, so I think he reused the general style and text there (I didn't write that FUR). I guess I took the Purpose of Use he wrote in good faith as a big factor for keeping the image (different standards for "importance" for the many different subjects in Wikipedia, and all that), and prayed the rest would be enough to pass muster; if that's not enough to pass it now then I won't defend it more than I already did at the time.
In short, meh; if I were checking that FUR in a FAC today (and I do too many other things now to want to) I'd stay neutral on the image and leave what happens up to other users. —an odd name 00:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted 2010-08-25 "The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)"
File:Buffy5x16.jpg Ryan Norton (talk · contribs)
Promoted 2009-09-27 "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe"
No infobox image when passed
Promoted 2010-06-16 "Fresh Blood (Supernatural)"
No infobox image when passed
Promoted 2010-10-20 "No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)"
File:Norest.JPG David Fuchs (talk · contribs) image review at prior review
Promoted 2010-07-16 "Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)" (intertitle)
File:OnceMoreWithFeeling.jpg Not sure if official review was Scartol (talk · contribs) or WillowW (talk · contribs)
Promoted 2011-07-19 "Over There (Fringe)"
File:Fringe Olivias Fight.png Sven Manguard (talk · contribs)
Promoted 2010-03-08 "Pilot (Parks and Recreation)"
File:Pilot parks and recreation.jpg SuperFlash101 (talk · contribs)
Promoted 2010-07-27 "Pilot (Supernatural)"
File:Pilotinfobox.JPG David Fuchs (talk · contribs)
Promoted 2010-07-27 "Road to the Multiverse"
File:Road to the Multiverse - Family Guy promo.png Magicpiano (talk · contribs)
Promoted 2010-01-25 "A Rugrats Chanukah"
File:Rugrats Chanukah.jpg Jappalang (talk · contribs)
Promoted 2011-02-08 "Stark Raving Dad"
File:Stark Raving Dad.PNG Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)
Promoted 2009-09-15 "Starvin' Marvin (South Park)"
File:Ep 109 starvinmarvin.gif Stifle (talk · contribs)
Promoted 2010-01-25 "Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street)"
File:Homicide life on the street subway.jpg Sceptre (talk · contribs)
Promoted 2009-11-29 "Weight Gain 4000"
File:South park weight gain 4000.jpg Wadewitz (talk · contribs)
Promoted 2010-02-16 "What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural)"
File:Whatisxmas.jpg Don't see image review

I will be contacting the image reviewers from this sample to understand why the last 16 TV episodes that were promoted were allowed a FU suggesting that WP:NFCC may be interpreted differently than Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) suggests. Note that this is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that realizes that stuff may be out there that has not been noticed. In each of these cases an image reviewer looked closely at the image and said it adheres to WP:NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that I have added the detail above on the last 16 TV episode reviews. I conceed that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to three of them that were not scrutinized during the FA process. The rest represent careful consideration of the WP:NFCC policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 17 April 2012 (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:Willpowerwilliam.jpg

[edit]
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⚡ 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willpowerwilliam.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WhatTheWorldNeedsNow (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Cover is confirmed as fake. — Statυs (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2012 (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:Merlin cooper.jpg

[edit]
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⚡ 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Merlin cooper.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by merlincooper (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan. Added this file years ago and don't use it and would like it deleted. Merlin (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2012 (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:ROBOTmaker logo.gif

[edit]
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 as orphaned. — ξxplicit 03:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ROBOTmaker logo.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rekamtobor (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Animated gif of a walking robot, claimed to be the "logo" of a robotics company. An animated logo appears to me to be almost a contradiction in terms – isn't a logo, by definition, something you use in print and other stative media? Can't find this animation anywhere on the company webpage; the homepage uses a non-animated version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 15 April 2012 (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:Jack and Ivy.JPG

[edit]
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⚡ 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jack and Ivy.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bonhilda (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned File, Unencyclopaedic, no use to keep  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:07, 15 April 2012 (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:Jack Francis.jpg

[edit]
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⚡ 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jack Francis.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cheese360 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned File, Unencyclopaedic, no use to keep  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:14, 15 April 2012 (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:Jack-russel.patch-snow.jpg

[edit]
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⚡ 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jack-russel.patch-snow.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mkjones (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned File, Unencyclopaedic, no use to keep  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:27, 15 April 2012 (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:AbaWanga Banner.jpg

[edit]
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⚡ 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:AbaWanga Banner.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NetiaShiundu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image consisting merely of a string of letters containing some URL. Useless as a media file, also orphaned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:10, 15 April 2012 (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:HMS Sheffield Type 42 destroyer 5 8 1982.JPG

[edit]
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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Sheffield Type 42 destroyer 5 8 1982.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tremaster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

non-free media... the author extracted it from the royal navy catalogue Tremaster (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_April_15&oldid=1146490180"