Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Files for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Faithlessthewonderboy (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 18 September 2009 (→‎File:Lennon and Chapman.jpg: removed part of my reply that is irrelevant and distracts from the point). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 24 August 26 >

August 25

File:Clevelandpremiere2.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clevelandpremiere2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Neillavender (notify | contribs).
  • This is the second non-free image being used to illustrate Pilot (The Cleveland Show); one is sufficient to identify the image, especially as the article is a 3-sentence stub. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and delete File:ClevelandPremiere1.jpg as well. These are promotional art, not screenshots. I don't think they serve to identify the episode, as there's no evidence that either will appear in the episode. I'd say they both should be removed from the article, and a new picture chosen when the episode actually airs. — PyTom (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image wasn't even discussed in the article, causing it to fail our fair use requirements. I removed it, and tagged it as orphaned. Regardless of that, delete. We don't need two images to convey meaning on an article with two sentences (!). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thought here too; how are we getting screen shots of episodes that haven't aired yet? That violates WP:NFCC #4. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definatly non-free. Fair use rationale is no good. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs)
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:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.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: Keep Stifle (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LemonLemonLemons (notify | contribs).
  • Procedural relisting from this DRV. To briefly summarize, the discussion was closed as being substantively correct, but procedurally wrong (both conclusions based on the initial Files for Deletion discussion and subsequent DRV). In the course of the DRV, however, a more coherent argument was raised regarding how the image met NFCC #8. Namely, that:
"one of the primary things that distinguishes The Mighty Boosh is its visual style. These characters were selected for illustration because they appear frequently in many media and display the most outlandish character design. Without these images the visual aspects cannot adequately described in prose alone. Thus excluding them is detrimental to the reader's understanding of both the specific appearances of these higher-profile characters, as well as the visual style of the Boosh brand overall."

As this is a procedural nomincation, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the rationale given above. This visual style is distinct enough as to be impossible to describe in words. — PyTom (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, it's pretty easy to describe in words, and in fact is described in words in the text of the article. Oops. The image clearly fails WP:NFCC #8, as there is nothing significant about the appearance referenced in secondary media, just the DVD of the show. If it was so significant, I'm sure it would be mentioned in secondary media. Again fails #8 as the character appears really in only 3 episodes, and briefly a fourth out of the entire series. The image clearly fails WP:NFCC #1, as there's an adequate text description in the article already. The image also fails #3b as well, since there's apparently nothing significant to the supporters of this image of Saboo's appearance. the image can be cropped (but isn't) to show only Tony Harrison. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. According to the article, Tony Harrison is "a disembodied pink head topped with a bulbous shape vaguely resembling a phallus, and eight or so tentacle-like appendages sprouting from his neck". Something one doesn't see every day; something which could have been realised in a number of ways, for example from the more 'realistic' or to the more 'pantomime' in its execution. Being so bizarre, both in concept and execution, the image is a useful contrast to the range of bizarreness of the character. The suggestion to crop out Saboo is just stupid doesn't make a lot of sense to me -- WP:NFLISTS specifically tells us to try to find images to show more than one of the characters at once; and again, in trying to give an understanding of the range of character treatments, it adds to understanding to show that some of the bizarre characters are more conventionally human, even if bizarre and flamboyant in other ways. Jheald (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since it seems to be all the rage, I'm going to ignore you comments because they are just stupid. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the rationale above, and per WP:NFLISTS which allows a limited number of images to give a representative idea of what characters in the show look like. Jheald (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, all the other three non-free images in this article fail WP:NFCC#8 more badly than this one, and two at least (the first and last) probably should just be summarily removed. Black Kite 14:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm ok with that. We've already got a group cast image in the lead part of the list. That shows the true significant characters to the series, the ones that appear frequently (as opposed to the ones that have appeared in less than 25% of the series). Of course, try to delete those and you'll get just as much fight over them as this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Recall that this article is not just about the TV series, but The Boosh in all formats. And it's not the group cast photo that demonstrates the unique visual style and the variety of makeup treatments applied to a single actor. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that is a valid argument, then an image of each character would be appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't you think that would be a bit excessive? The characters that have been illustrated have been carefully chosen. See the previous listing and the DRV. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree it would be excessive. I'm saying your above argument could qualify all characters for an image for inclusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being the provider of the rationale given at the top. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per OrangeDog. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fair use rationale is acceptable, no other non-free image of the subject is on the article, so no violation of 3b. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:56, 31 August 2009 (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:Blood-of-Angels.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: Speedy close and delete CSD F7. Image is not fair use at Michelle Belanger and would be otherwise unused. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ebonyskye (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free album cover on artist page, not album page. The album article was deleted previously, through AfD. I understand that FUR can only be claimed on the article about the album, not on band articles.  Chzz  ►  09:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The image informs the Blood of Angels section of the parent article. The section deals with the album, so fulfills Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." SilkTork *YES! 10:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is effectively a discography with a single item, per WP:NFCC - "The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8).". Black Kite 12:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of an 11 album discography by the band Nox Arcana — a band who has charted in the Top 10 on Billboard's Holiday charts. It is also a joint work from Michelle Belanger who is an author and TV personality. The album article was moved into the main article (not deleted) and it was already agreed to keep the album cover and the information about it. Chzz is on a witch hunt, trying to remove all the band's material and has been warned for making too many AfdProds with TW. Ebonyskye (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the album isn't notable enough to have its own article, then the non-free image isn't important enough for us to use. This is what WP:NFC says, and your comment also shows bad faith. Black Kite 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, per the AFD, the article was indeed deleted. The inclusion of the infobox in another related article appears to be an attempt to circumvent that consensus. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article was previously merged see diff, NOT deleted, under orders of admin SilkTork. Article was protected see diffs to keep album cover from being removed. Ebonyskye (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for protection mentions nothing about the inclusion of the image against policy - it talks about random other additions to the article coming from anonymous editors. Again, all this comment serves to do is confuse, rather than inform, the discussion. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:NFC#Images acceptable use of an album cover is allowed for identification of that item with critical commentary, and there is critical commentary in the article, cited in the reviews and interviews, and in general about the subject herself. And if I assume bad faith because Chzz is targeting this album for deletion after it was already debated at length and was agreed to keep, I do apologize. I will try to keep an open mind and focus on other items needing this attention. Ebonyskye (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that there is no critical commentary in the article, only a paragraph basically saying that the album exists. There is no problem with merging the information about the album to the main article, but it doesn't need a non-free image. This is fairly standard practice and has been debated a number of times at WT:NFC and other places, with general consensus that album covers should only be used in articles actually about those albums, unless there is something particularly notable about the cover itself. Black Kite 20:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. How many albums does she have to release before it's "too many" to use on her article? The only logical answer is zero. Exceptions might be made if the album art itself were a particular subject in reliable sources, but that's just not the case here. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the album article was deleted, I fail to see why the image wasn't as well. The AfD closed as delete for lack of notability. We need an album cover on the artist's page for a non-notable album? I don't think so. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The suggestion to include the album information on this entry was made by an admin. The inclusion of the album infobox has been supported by the same admin. The image, being the album cover, is relevant to the album and infobox. Additionally, the image is relevant to the rest of the article as well. The model used in the initial photograph that served as the basis of the album cover is Michelle Belanger. The photo taken by Pendragon Photography, and the original, unaltered version can be found on their web site.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't given any reason other than it's relevant for this image to be included on the page about the artist. Doing so creates an exceptional case. What basis in policy do you have for asserting that a completely non-notable album should therefore have its cover on the artist's page where every other artist with non-notable albums doesn't? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to ask if I feel necessary to remove those images in first place. I suspect I come this from a different perspective than you.
When I encounter something like this in an article, I ask myself: Does keeping it in disrupt the article, the purpose or spirit, misrepresent something, propagate inaccuracy or fallacy, represent vandalism, in some way make the entry illegible or in some way hinder or harm the wiki and the goals and spirit of the wiki? Does removing it make the page better, or clear, more informative or in general strengthen the wiki? If I can answer yes to at least one of those two questions, I look for a policy or guideline to apply to the situation. Otherwise, I leave it alone. Or add something like a request for citation or request for clarification on the talk page.
You, Chzz, and ESkog come from a perspective of policy and guidelines come first, and to which everything must adhere. My perspective is that policies and guidelines are second, and they are there to give reasons for actions to help strengthen the wiki. You ask, "Why should there be an exception in this case?" I ask "Why should the policy be enforced in this case?"
So, to answer your question, because it otherwise does not harm or damage the page or the wiki by its inclusion. Nor do I see where the page or the wiki will bettered by its removal. My questions are then: How do you think this page or the wiki would be better served with the removal of the image? Or in what ways do you see the images inclusion detrimental to the page or the wiki? And just as you say that I have not given enough reason, I would respond the same to you at this point.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is part of an 11 album discography by the band Nox Arcana — a band who has charted in the Top 10 on Billboard's Holiday charts. It is also a joint work from Michelle Belanger who is an author and TV personality. Per WP:Music#Albums "'In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.'" The notability of both Belanger and Nox Arcana have already been well established. The article was merged only after it was attacked by sockpuppets. Originally the album was a stand alone article, just as all the other Nox Arcana cds are, and was not contested until the SP edit war over Belanger as a person spilled over into an attack on anything else with her name on it (which started before I got involved on this article, but that's what happened.) The admin SilkTork who looked into it suggested merging the album here, so that's why it is displayed on the author's page. Frankly, I would vote to split the article and album page just for the fact it's a joint work by two notable parties who each have a separate entry. ie Nox Arcana is two guys with 11 albums (one of which is this album), Belanger is one woman who performed on several other albums by other bands in addition to Nox Arcana, she's also a number of books and appears on TV quite regularly. In terms of THIS album, Belanger and Nox Arcana collaborated, yet they are not all in the same band. If this were a book cover having joint authors, no one would have issue, so there is no difference in showing an album cover having joint authors. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • You're not responding to the arguments being made here, and really not making much sense from the standpoint of policy. If it were a book cover by two authors, we wouldn't use the image on either author's article. The existence, deletion, and history of the article on the album isn't really relevant to the decision of whether to use the image on some other article. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ebonyskye, I think the place you're looking for is Wikipedia:Deletion review. We're not debating the notability of the album here. The lack of notability was established by the deletion of the album's article via its AfD. With the failure of the article, the image tied to it fails notability too. If you want to change that, get the article undeleted. You're in the wrong place. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are we even debating this? The image being brought here to FfD was a mistake to begin with. This sort of removal is routine. It happens all the time, all over the project. That a few people disagree with it doesn't make it more compliant with policy. Delete the image and be done with it. I've removed the image from the article and tagged the image as orphaned fair use media. The presence of an FfD doesn't make this use legitimate. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammersoft removed the image on Aug 27 prior to end of debate, which would be Sept 4. It was then that I noticed the reason for the Afd was 'orphaned file.' Since the file was NOT orphaned it should not have been tagged for deletion in the first place. Tag removed, dicussion is moot. -- More policy under Album covers category: Display of an album cover must identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text and not be purely decorative. This album cover identifies the subject. It is allowed and neccessary to illustrate the topic. Ebonyskye (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why we should have an album cover for an album whose article was deleted for lack of notability? We don't have to illustrate every section of this encyclopedia, and we certainly don't have to illustrate subjects so non-notable that we deleted the article on it. I submit again that the place you want to plead your case is WP:DRV. You're going to have to establish notability of the subject (the album) first. Then we can include the album cover. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not a free image so there needs to be a good justification for including it in the article. I don't see a good justification, certainly not one conforming to current guidelines in WP:NFC. -- Atama頭 20:44, 28 August 2009 (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:Addams cover.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: Speedy close - if an image being used under a claim of fair use is orphaned, tag it with {{subst:orfud}}. As this image is not orphaned, I am closing this nomination. If you wish for it to be deleted for an unrelated reason, please feel free to re-nominate it. --B (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Addams cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AirRaidPatrol 84 (notify | contribs).
  • No wiki article linking to this image... Freshymail--the-knowledge-defender 09:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - This file is now in use at The Addams Family (video game) AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2009 (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:TalesWithMisonoBestCDOnlyMisono.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TalesWithMisonoBestCDOnlyMisono.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Benniebop1991 (notify | contribs).
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:PokerFaceRereleaseAyumiHamasaki.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 Sherool (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PokerFaceRereleaseAyumiHamasaki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Benniebop1991 (notify | contribs).
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:Suleiman Mousa 1946.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep per WP:AGF on copyright as image is now being used. -Nv8200p talk 19:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suleiman Mousa 1946.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ymousa (notify | contribs).
  • no wiki article links to this image Freshymail-user:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender 12:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's CC-BY-SA and it might be used at some point (I don't know). There doesn't seem to be much need to delete it. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It is tagged as a CC image. CC images don't necessarily need to be currently used in an article to avoid being deleted. I might take the file to WP:PUF though. I have asked the uploader where he/she got the photo from.--Rockfang (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Commons, assuming the licensing checks out. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to Commons, no reason to delete a potentially useful image. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, uploader self-identifies as a student and teenager on his userpage, this image is supposedly taken in 1946, 63 years ago. Absolutely no plausible reason to believe he took it himself (scanned it from somewhere maybe, but not created it), this also makes the license highly dubious. Maybe it's PD due to age, maybe not, without a real source/author we can't say and it should be deleted. I see Rockfang have already asked him to clarify this, might as well keep this open a bit longer (or re-list) and if he doesn't provide the necessary information just delete it here rater than take it for a new round at WP:PUI. --Sherool (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:PUI is more for determining the proper license for an image. Not necessarily a keep/delete discussion. So possibly taking this file there at some point could actually be useful.--Rockfang (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just deleted this image as a clear copyvio, but have restored it at Rockfang's request, as it may turn out to be PD. This image should be deleted unless it can postively be determined to be PD (it doesn't matter that this is FfD and not PUI- a copyvio is a copyvio, and deleting images as copyvios is well within the remit of FfD). J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He has responded. An admin can close this as they see fit.--Rockfang (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The copyright holder is the photographer, and nothing here suggests that the uploader has permission to upload this. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see the uploader claim to be the grandchild of the subject and that he inherited the copyright to the images. I suggested that he contact the OTRS permissions team since he may need to produce some private information to prove that claim rater than post it on his talk page. Guess we can wait and see for a while, but might as well also delete this since it's not used anyway and if the permission clecks out we can undelete or he can re-upload to Commons. --Sherool (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Siddappaji1.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siddappaji1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Premangi (notify | contribs).
  • Not used, tagged as PD-self, but clearly scanned from some printed source or other and then edited (poorly) to remove the background. Sherool (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not self-made, license is inaccurate. No fair use rationale, and uploader did nto reply to notice. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:02, 31 August 2009 (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:Lennon and Chapman.jpg

File:Lennon and Chapman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andreasegde (notify | contribs).
  • This non-free images contains no information that isn't already given with free text alone in the article's it is used in. Also, the copyright holder is not specified. Damiens.rf 13:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This image was demonstrably taken by Paul Goresh (photographer and Lennon fan) - as duly described and documented in article "Death of John Lennon", therefore Paul Goresh is obvious copyright holder. This image is reasonably unique and significant because it is only known picture where both John Lennon (victim) and Mark Chapman (assassin) are depicted together, as enunciated by investigators of the murder. Therefore the reasons for deletion are sufficiently refutated.--Bluewind (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK for the copyright holder, but being "unique" is not enough for using a non-free image. Please familiarize with our criteria. --Damiens.rf 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an important photo. It really doesn't require an explanation. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as unique historic image, but it doesn't need to be in both articles (which partially duplicate each other), and also needs to be actually referenced in the article in which it is kept. Black Kite 18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for same reason given by Black Kite (historic significance). Ebonyskye (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the photo itself historically significant or is it only the event it depicts that is significant? The former is acceptable; the latter is not. If this is a widely used photo that anyone writing an article about Chapman would use this photo, similar to the way anyone writing an article about the Kent State Shootings would use that iconic photo, then it's acceptable to use. But if it's just a photo that happens to show the two of them together that "some guy" took and happened to post on their website at some point, it wasn't used as a part of the court case, wasn't widely referenced in print articles about the incident, etc, then no, it doesn't meet our fair use policy. --B (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photo is quite a famous one and was used in multiple media at the time. Stick "Paul Goresh photos" into Google to see the amount of coverage. I think this passes WP:NFCC to be honest, subject to the one article caveat. Black Kite 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems like it would be more than reasonable to use this photo under our criteria then. --B (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being "widely used by the media" is not enough if our article is not really discussion the image and it's importance/impact. What's the real relevant graphic information this file is transmitting? That the media used it to decorate it articles it doesn't follow we should do the same. --Damiens.rf 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a unique historical image of a murder victim with his killer. The image itself has been mentioned in numerous books on the subject, since it depicts Lennon acting amicably towards the man who would later kill him. Both the image and the event it portrays are notable and this image should almost certainly be kept. Dendodge T\C 20:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's true that "The image itself has been mentioned in numerous books" and our article also mentions the image itself (in passages sourced to some of these books), then the image should be kept and I will happily withdraw the nomination. That the "event it portrays is notable" has no relevance. --Damiens.rf 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; seeing this image adds in no way to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of historical value, but image fails on number 7, it needs to be removed from one of the two articles. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Number 7 says one article minimum, not maximum. That means you can't just upload random non-free images to Wikipedia. You have to actually use them in an article. It's OK if it's in two or more. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing two people together does not increase understanding. Unless there are sources clearly demonstrating the significance of the image itself, it should be deleted. ÷seresin 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying and expanding my comments. One of the criteria for valid use of an FU image is that its absence must be detrimental to the understanding of the subject. Applying that to this situation: the image consists of Lenin's profile and a sliver of Chapman's face. Not being able to see this does not reduce understanding of Lenin's death or Chapman. Writing that the two were in physical proximity at one point imparts the same information as showing this image. Assertions that the image is necessary for understanding are spurious.
The only other argument put forth here of any potential validity is that it is an historic image (though I note that nowhere does our NFCC mention historic significance being relevant). Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is an historic image. Guerrillero Heroico is an historic image. This one? Despite claims to the contrary, I see no actual sources noting that this image itself is historic. Without any, claims of import should be given no credence. ÷seresin 23:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above comments. It documents a unique and important event that cannot be duplicated with a non-free image. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a historically unique document that is crucial to the article. The opening argument that it does not contribute anything that isn't already in the text is pointless - images and words are obviously not the same or give the same kind of information.--Northandsouth (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the only picture of the two men together in existence. It illustrates the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.197.152 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If any photo is worthy of keeping it is this one. As appalling as it is; showing the killer and the victim. --andreasegde (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand why you would not keep it. The image depicts the person the article is about standing next to the reason there is an article about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.185.139 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, historically significant photo, not only the event, but the photo itself. Dreadstar ☥ 04:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which Wikipedia article discuss this historicallysignificant photo and its historically importance? I would agree that showing this image would be not only acceptable but also desirable in such article. But, do we have such article right now?
    The headcount shows this image is popular (among editors), and recent mood on FFD closings tells me popular request is enough reason to keep any non-free image, regardless of its possible or actual use. --Damiens.rf 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image shows the killer "scoping out" his victim. In addition to historical significance, the face of the killer before the kill is important for analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamandave (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep How many instances are there in which an assassin is photographed with his eventual victim? Obviously high encyclopedic value. faithless (speak) 21:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Why does seeing two men together improve your understanding? What don't you understand before that seeing the image makes clear? ÷seresin 04:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That question (How does seeing an image of the subject increase your understanding of it?) could be asked of any image on Wikipedia. Is your point that there are other pictures of Chapman which illustrate him well enough? If that is what you're really asking (I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it's the only legitimate criticism that I can imagine you might have), my reply would be that the context of an image makes a big difference when illustrating a subject. For example, which would be more informative and a better representation of the subject's notability, a hastily captured picture of Douglas MacArthur taken in some random locale, or an image of MacArthur fulfilling his promise to return to the Philippines? How about an image of Thích Quảng Đức either shopping in his local market or commiting self-immolation in protest of the Vietnam War? Similarly, an assassin pictured with his victim is much more illuminating as to the nature of the subject's notability than just about any other image could be. In the case of Đức, he is notable for one reason - he burned himself to death. The best way to illustrate him, therefore, is by showing him in the act of what makes him notable. Chapman, similarly, is notable for only one reason - he killed John Lennon. While we don't have an image of Chapman pulling the trigger, we do have something that comes awfully close, and is therefore more illustrative than any other image we have as to why the man is notable. (Sorry if I rambled, it's 4.38 in the morning.) Best, faithless (speak) 08:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

System Restore screenshots

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: - Deleted all but one ( I chose the one in the article's infobox). Note that one image (File:System restore win me.PNG) was shoehorned into Windows Me during this debate as a way of preserving it but as that article was already replete with non-free images, the rationale for use was unimpressive, and we have non-free images when we have a good reason rather than hunt for a place to stick them, I have boldly deleted it. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Systemrestore.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ishida639 (notify | contribs).
File:System restore win me.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mathwiz593 (notify | contribs).
File:Windows XP System Restore.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Warren (notify | contribs).
File:Vista System Restore.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stephenchou0722 (notify | contribs).
  • System Restore contains four screenshots of the screen for selecting a restore point - two from Vista, one from XP, and one from ME. It needs at most one and even that is questionable - I'm not sure that seeing a screenshot either helps the reader identify what software this article is about or helps the reader understand the content. B (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I agree that there are too many screenshots in this article, but I disagree that they should all be deleted. I have made some changes to the images' use to better reflect how it's done elsewhere in Wikipedia's Windows articles:
  1. File:Systemrestore.png should certainly be deleted, as we don't need two screenshots showing the same OS version -- I have removed it from the article.
  2. I have moved the File:System restore win me.PNG image from the System Restore article to the Windows Me article, as it is of historical interest, and was one of Windows Me's most prominent and most advertised features. As such, it should not be deleted.
  3. The Windows XP and Windows Vista variants demonstrate significantly different user interfaces. As is the case with many other Windows articles that cover a technology that's been around for a number of years (e.g. Windows Explorer, Windows Update), we tend to keep multiple screenshots to demonstrate how the user interface has changed over time. Neither of these should be deleted.
Warren -talk- 21:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but one; the others fail WP:NFCC#3a. I don't especially mind which one to keep. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't pick one to delete, based on some insight into the article's subject, then your comments are of no help to the decision-making process. Warren -talk- 02:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same with you -- if you can't pick one to delete, based on some insight into the article's subject, then your comments are of no help to the decision-making process. Warren -talk- 02:06, 8 September 2009 (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.

Manchester Metrolink proposals

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: Deleted by User:Seresin. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manchester LRT 1984 proposals map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikidwitch (notify | contribs).
File:Manchester LRT 1987 proposals map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikidwitch (notify | contribs).

Originally tagged as replaceable. Argument falls along the following lines:

  1. The images are presumably from some reports of some kind, which can be cited.
  2. The images follow the style of the Tube map. That, as the originator of the style, is iconic. These, as subsequent uses, are not. Therefore, they are not unique.
  3. We have a representation of the current network, and several images depicting various proposed [[:File:Metrolink phase south manchester line.png|extensions}}, along with a diagram. Therefore, we have users with the skills to turn the described proposals into diagrams.
  4. We have comparative diagrams showing changes through history, under free licences, created by our users. There is no shortage of evidence that our users have the knowledge and expertise to create such maps. File:Railway_lines_in_Staffordshire.svg File:Onenetwork.svg File:Scotland rail map.png File:NI_Network_Enhancement.PNG File:London_Underground_full_map.svg File:London_Underground_full_map_complete.svg File:Detailed route map large3.svgFile:Merseyrailnetworkmap.svg File:Northern_Heights_Map_Mockup.png.
  5. It's important that NFC clearly identifies what it represents. I can't read any of the captions on these maps other than the whopping great ones at the top. As such, it fails to illustrate the subject adequately, since users unfamiliar with railways in the Manchester area won't know that the bit on the right is the line to Hadfield, or that the loop at the top-right is for Oldham and Rochdale.

In summary, it should be obvious to all concerned that replacements "could reasonably be created". There is no detail in the original maps that is proprietary. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails on WP:F#Policy 1 and 3a and 3b. A free version could be made faily easily by someone with MSPaint, and a free image of a map is already part of the article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:11, 31 August 2009 (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:Dsotm20.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dsotm20.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moe Epsilon (notify | contribs).
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:Farnborough College of Technology logo.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: speedily deleted by B (talk · contribs) at author's request (non-admin closure). — Σxplicit 19:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Farnborough College of Technology logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CountdownCrispy (notify | contribs).
  • I'm not sure that this classifies for a speedy deletion, so I'm listing here an overly high resolution version of an image now superseded by a PNG version - I realised my error shortly after uploading. CountdownCrispy talk contributions 15:52, 25 August 2009 (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:Standish Graphic.JPG

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete -Nv8200p talk 19:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Standish Graphic.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Speakgood (notify | contribs).
  • No longer used, was presumably used in Sapient (company) ‎ at some point, but looks like it was removed along with a lot of the article content at some point, presumably in an attempt to make it more neutral. Sherool (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or move to commons. Image has unresticted use, no reason to delete it really, it could still be used somewhere. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DElete - without information on the meaning, collection method and provenance of the information depicted it is not going to be used anywhere - Peripitus (Talk) 05:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Suzan Pitter in 2007.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suzan Pitter in 2007.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pietters (notify | contribs).
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:Teldave.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teldave.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Terryanddave (notify | contribs).
  • Not used, looks like the uploader intended to tag it as PD-self, wich seem unlikely since it's aparently a film poster. Sherool (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2009 (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:Title-banner.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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Title-banner.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pavlunka (notify | contribs).
  • Not sure if this is supposed to be a company logo or just a userpage banner, but in any case it's not properly tagged and not used. Sherool (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (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:ARPAT specimen.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 - image is replaceable with a free alternative. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ARPAT specimen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zaher1988 (notify | contribs).
  • Photo of camouflage from some website. It should be a pretty simple matter to create a free version - find someone in the US army and take a photo of their uniform. B (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fair use rationale is acceptable. I don't think a non-free image would be 'easy' to obtain. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How hard is it to find a US serviceman in uniform, or, in the alternative, get any of the who-knows-how-many servicemen who contribute to Wikipedia to take a close-up photo of their uniform? --B (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with B that getting a free image is not prohibitively difficult, and so this image fails our NFC policy. ÷seresin 20:39, 2 September 2009 (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:14thsquadronlaf.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:14thsquadronlaf.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zaher1988 (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free logo used only as an icon in Lebanese Air Force - it is not essential to the user's understanding, nor even particularly useful. B (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2009 (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:Kabbadge.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kabbadge.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zaher1988 (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free logo used only as an icon in Lebanese Air Force. It is not essential to the user's understanding. B (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2009 (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:Babbadge.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Babbadge.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zaher1988 (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image used as an icon in Lebanese Air Force. Its use is indisputably inappropriate there. It is also used in the infobox of Beirut Air Base. I am uncertain why a non-free badge is needed there as opposed to a photo of the base or some such thing. Though most US bases have free (public domain) logos, most of the foreign ones I see just use photos, eg Celle Air Base, Farkhor Air Base. B (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2009 (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:Lebnavysealscotonou.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lebnavysealscotonou.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zaher1988 (notify | contribs).
  • Decorative fair use photo, adds nothing to the article B (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2009 (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.

Lebanese Armed Forces images

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: Most images deleted. Some removed from articles where they fails WP:NFCC Rettetast (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a large number of images used decoratively in Lebanese Armed Forces. I have divided them up by how they are used - used only in Lebanese Armed Forces, used in Lebanese Armed Forces and as icons in another article, or used in Lebanese Armed Forces and substantively in another article. The former two are pretty much pro forma nominations as there is no serious chance we're going to keep them. The latter needs to be considered. --B (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice little nest you've uncovered. Not a surprising use. I've seen this many times before. Thankfully, the frequency of this sort of use is going down, but you still see it from time to time. Uses like what we see at Lebanese_Armed_Forces#Branches are just flat wrong, along with List of political parties in Lebanon. Lots of overuse there. When I have time, I'll gut these uses and most of these will be orphaned. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Used only in Lebanese Armed Forces
File:Lafheadquarters.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zaher1988 (notify | contribs).
File:Beirut tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Bekaa tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Mount-lebanon tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:North tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:1stbrigade tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:2ndbrigade tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:3rdbrigade tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:5thbrigade tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:6thbrigade tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:7thbrigade tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:8thbrigade tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:9thbrigade tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:10thbrigade tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:11thbrigade tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:12thbrigade tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:1startillery tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:2ndartillery tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Leb1interventionforce.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Special2 tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Special3 tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Special4 tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Special5 tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Guard tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Medical tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Support tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Logistics tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Militarypolice tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Works tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
Used in Lebanese Armed Forces and as an infobox logo in Mohammad Zgheib military base
File:South tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
Used as icons in Lebanese Armed Forces and elsewhere
File:Lebairborne.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Lebmoukafaha.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
  • These images are used only as icons, albeit in multiple articles. --B (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lebrangers.png and Lebnavysealsbadge.png
File:Lebrangers.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Lebnavysealsbadge.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zaher1988 (notify | contribs).
  • Lebrangers.png and Lebnavysealsbadge.png are used is the infobox of one article and as decorative icons on two articles. They should at least be removed from its two decorative uses and a strong reason considered why they need to be elsewhere. I'm not strongly opposed to keeping them, but they at least need to be listed here so that there's no question in anyone's mind that wikilawyering to put them back in Lebanese Armed Forces is not acceptable.--B (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images used as an "emblem"
File:Lebanese navy logo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (notify | contribs).
File:Staffandcommand tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Sports tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Ski tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
File:Instruction tn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
  • These images are used decoratively as icons on Lebanese Armed Forces and in the infobox as the "emblem" in other articles. They should at least be removed from Lebanese Armed Forces and considered for removal from the other article. I'm not strongly opposed to keeping them, but they at least need to be listed here so that there's no question in anyone's mind that wikilawyering to put them back in Lebanese Armed Forces is not acceptable. --B (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added this for the Navy article. Zaher1988 (talk · contribs) added it to the Armed Forces article, and I've had trouble with him before. I see no reason why this should be in the Armed Forces one too, that's not free use. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2009 (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:Bsboprah.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: Speedy deleted as a copyvio. Black Kite 16:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bsboprah.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 50cent4 (notify | contribs).
  • This is a tv screenshot downloaded from the web and not a self-made image. It can't be used as non-free content since it provides no useful information. Damiens.rf 22:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree, and the user is uploading a lot of blatant copyright infringements. This should be tagged, if anyone can find a source. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2009 (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:Bsbgrammy02.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: Speedy deleted as a copyvio. Black Kite 16:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bsbgrammy02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 50cent4 (notify | contribs).
  • This is a tv screenshot downloaded from the web and not a self-made image. It can't be used as non-free content since it provides no useful information. Damiens.rf 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant copyright infringement. Should be speedily deleted. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2009 (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/2009_August_25&oldid=314685178"