Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 June 13

< June 12	June 14 >

June 13

File:Smoot.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 - The is insufficient proof that there is the required permission for this file (CSD#F11) - Peripitus (Talk) 02:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its from a comicbook which does not have an article. The comic does get mentioned in books about comics and comic review sites. "The art of the comic book: an aesthetic history By Robert C. Harvey"[1] The Strange World of Snappy Sammy Smoot: An Interview with Skip Williamson. The guy who uploaded it is apparently the creator, so no copyright problems. Google book search for this character shows [2] it mentioned in many books reviewing comics and culture of that time. An article could be created for this character if anyone wanted to bother searching for information to fill it. Dream Focus 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—claims permission. No evidence. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the thing to do, when in doubt, is to get the owner of the image to email Wikipedia and confirm their identity. Dream Focus 00:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made an article for Snappy Sammy Smoot. This character is quite encyclopedic, getting coverage in many magazines and books. The image is used there. Dream Focus 01:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#F11 anyone? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (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:Smokey Joe's Cafe 12006.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2010 (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:Modified Ephraim Nissan.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 Phantomsteve (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—likely copyright violation and has no purpose. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 10:05, 13 June 2010 (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:Rockwills Building.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:20, 13 June 2010 (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:293589570.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:21, 13 June 2010 (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:294-3.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:21, 13 June 2010 (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:3-3-4.svg

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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:21, 13 June 2010 (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:30 0066.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:22, 13 June 2010 (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:30112005003.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:22, 13 June 2010 (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:CeBIT 3658.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:22, 13 June 2010 (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:Compact Solar Energy Flow Diagram.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 13 June 2010 (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:Crockpot still.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 - based on the information given this is a derivative work and the free licence is incorrect. The image is non-free, orphaned and there appears no home - Peripitus (Talk) 03:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Can be svg'ed, will post request at graphics lab, after this, original file can be deleted

KVDP (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this appropriate, though? This is a hand-drawn reproduction of the image on this page, which doesn't appear to be licensed for replication. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:04, 17 June 2010 (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:Denmark.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 ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 13 June 2010 (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:Ecosocflag.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 ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 13 June 2010 (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:Fcvssquad.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 ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:24, 13 June 2010 (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:Frederick Wilhelm II.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a Commons candidate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They currently ~~only~~ have the same picture as commons:File:Friedrich-Wilhelm-II-von-Preußen.jpg at much lower resolution. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (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:Gorules ko.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 ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:24, 13 June 2010 (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:Leaving Trafalgar square.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 ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:25, 13 June 2010 (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:Red Bean Shape.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons It might have some use as an icon, or basis for such. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2010 (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:UNAffected logotip white.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 ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:US 9 (Guide Sign).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 ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:26, 13 June 2010 (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:Union Flag Component Flags.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 ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:26, 13 June 2010 (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:Union Flag Component Flags2.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 ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:26, 13 June 2010 (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:Wcdonalds.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 ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:26, 13 June 2010 (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:Burtonandselick.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 ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a sufficient fair-use for this image. It looks like it's only be used here for decoration. There really isn't a discussion involving the image beyond the fact that Selick and Burton worked together. The fact that it involves two living individuals is also a concern. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8 per nom. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2010 (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:Power of Attorney.pdf

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 Jamesofur (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is original research. John C. Moore has a long history of interacting with the Houston R. McCoy article in ways that have been problematic. This appears to me to be closely related to that.

I would have proposed for CsD, as I believe this file may be a privacy violation, but I was unsure exactly which criteria to use. Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:DOB. I know that section is talking about articles, but I think it could possibly be applicable to images as well.--Rockfang (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not original research, it is Verifiability, mentioned in articles about McCoy and his issues with PTSD and other issues, and one of your core policies Mr. Wales. You are not specific on your problematic assertion, but it is of no moment, unless you are suggesting a grudge of some sort, which I assure you, whoever contacted you directly about this issue, appears to have. The file was uploaded, used with other verifying files and contributes to your motto The Sum Of All Human Knowledge, not Some of Human Knowledge. The only issue that has risen, that may give the appearance of a privacy issue, is the addresses, which can be redacted. If that is the case, I can also assure you that all addresses have changed, as the document address for Mr. McCoy is near Waco, Texas, and, as McCoy's article states, he is living in West Texas now. The document can also be obtained from the agency who issued the document, per anyone's request. This should also qualify as a response to Rockfang as well. If you want the addresses redacted, please advise and it will be done. Thank you! (this is a repeat of the comment on TWCC and applies as well) 16:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Victor9876 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per above. Victor9876 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE The file has been redacted. Victor9876 (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have struck my deletion suggestion. If any part of this file is kept, I suggest at least deleting the first version because it appears to have a personal address in it.--Rockfang (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - I agree, but can not find a deletion method for the original files. Can anyone help here? Thanks! Victor9876 (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think there is a specific process to delete just the first version, but I think it may within their "power" to close a deletion discussion where the result is to only delete one version. I could be wrong though.--Rockfang (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz stepped in at this point, knowing about revision deletion, and asked Jamesofur to help... Chzz ► 03:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the privacy issues I have deleted the versions of the pdf with the personal addresses showing. The redacted version still appears. James (T C) 02:47, 14 June 2010 (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:TWCC Award.pdf

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 Jamesofur (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is original research. John C. Moore has a long history of interacting with the Houston R. McCoy article in ways that have been problematic. This appears to me to be closely related to that.

I would have proposed for CsD, as I believe this file may be a privacy violation, but I was unsure exactly which criteria to use. Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not original research, it is Verifiability, mentioned in articles about McCoy and his issues with PTSD and other issues, and one of your core policies Mr. Wales. You are not specific on your problematic assertion, but it is of no moment, unless you are suggesting a grudge of some sort, which I assure you, whoever contacted you directly about this issue, appears to have. The file was uploaded, used with other verifying files and contributes to your motto The Sum Of All Human Knowledge, not Some of Human Knowledge. The only issue that has risen, that may give the appearance of a privacy issue, is the addresses, which can be redacted. If that is the case, I can also assure you that all addresses have changed, as the document address for Mr. McCoy is near Waco, Texas, and, as McCoy's article states, he is living in West Texas now. The document can also be obtained from the agency who issued the document, per anyone's request. This should also qualify as a response to Rockfang as well. If you want the addresses redacted, please advise and it will be done. Thank you! Victor9876 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per Above. Victor9876 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE The file has been redacted. Victor9876 (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note Based on the personal info I have deleted the version that was not redacted (the blacked out version still remains). James (T C) 03:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.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 - The consensus, whether taking just this debate or combing the two, is not in favour of the image passing NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 03:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a grainy and unclear image which shows a moment (by no means "the climactic moment" as the FUR claims) in the episode, which is not subject to significant critical commentary in the article, just a single sentence. The FUR also claims that it serves to illustrate a Weeping Angel, the episode's main antagonist. Because of its grainy nature, and the fact that the Angel depicted is atypical and translucent, it clearly does not do this effectively either. For that reason, I suggest that it fails NFCC 8, because its removal would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article subject. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 08:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that the image fails the WikiProject Doctor Who-specific manual of style, which clearly states: Non-free screenshots should not solely rely on a plot point to justify their use, e.g. "This image portrays an important plot point". While the image may rely on the plot to justify its use, it must also rely on other sections of the article; for example, a key part of the production of the episode, or an aspect of the episode which is notable among television critics. Such a situation applies to this image, in my opinion. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 08:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am indifferent whether or not this image gets deleted, but here are some background links for anyone interested: FfD starting April 26, 2010, DRV starting May 11, 2010.--Rockfang (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does rather appear that TreasuryTag had already been denied this deletion BRIANTIST (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does rather appear that you can't read the note at the top of the DRV page, but you still have time to learn. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 09:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really can't see what value this image adds to justify inclusion as NFC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have to do this again? Episode articles have a picture in their infobox in the top right corner. The image is of an angel, and the name of the episode is Time of the Angels. It seems appropriate to me. If you find an image that works better for this, then upload it and discuss it where appropriate. The image does not violated any copyright law, and is being used in an article, therefore you have no valid reason to delete it. And if you disagree with the text describing the picture, then argue to delete and replace that text, not the image itself. Dream Focus 09:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So much wrong with that...!
- We have to do this again? WP:NOTAGAIN problems here.
- Episode articles have a picture in their infobox in the top right corner. Only if a suitable image exists; it is not a requirement.
- The image is of an angel, and the name of the episode is Time of the Angels. It seems appropriate to me. (Have you actually watched the episode?) That's not a valid reason for inclusion, as per the WP:NFCC. There was an episode titled "The Long Game" – shall we put an image of a Monopoly board in there? Be serious...
- If you find an image that works better for this, then upload it. Not a valid reason for including this image.
- The image does not violated [sic] any copyright law. Well, that's largely for you to prove, and you haven't done so well at that...
- [It] is being used in an article, therefore you have no valid reason to delete it. Clearly incorrect.
So, I think that just about covers everything? ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 09:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to have the same discussion again, when so many of us raised valid points last time around. You don't put a picture of a Monopoly board in an episode, unless it is a screenshot of them playing the game for some reason, and had a valid reason for being there. The angels are what this episode was all about, so a picture of one, is appropriate. And no, I don't have to prove to you that it doesn't violate copyright law, since if you don't know what the United States "fair usage" law says, you can just look it up yourself. Dream Focus 10:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to have the same discussion again. So wrong – and incidentally, you can't just say "it doesn't violate copyright law," without substantiating that statement. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 10:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not violate copyright laws. See Fair use for more information. Dream Focus 10:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to engage with you further on this point, but you may wish to read Wikipedia's policy on using content ostensibly under "fair use" – ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 10:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a Wikipedia rule. It has nothing to do with US copyright law. Two different things. It does not violate US copyright law, as I have said. Dream Focus 10:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, so you were just making a completely irrelevant point about US copyright law, which has nothing to do with this deletion discussion because WP:NFC is the standard here? ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 10:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per last time around. The purpose of the image as described in the rationale is actually better described by the text which describes the emergence of the angel, thus fails NFCC#8. The other part of the purpose also fails to indicate how NFCC#8 would pass. NFCC#8 requires that omission would be detrimental to the understanding, this also seems to not be the case the precise form/view of the Angel doesn't alter the understanding of the episode, indeed the producers could have depicted the angels in many ways, the article would still hold regardless. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as before, removal would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. I do wonder if WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED applies here, though. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might surprise people as I'm an inclusionist Doctor Who fan, but I honestly can't see what this adds to the article. It's poor quality, doesn't really show the Angel or a major plot point effectively, and as such appears to fail NFCC#8. I would however support its replacement by a better quality image of an Angel if one is available. The argument that an image of an Angel is helpful to the reader would be a valid one if the image was any good, but this one isn't. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep (generic)~~Delete, but Upload something else - Honestly, of all the possible shots of angels in that episode, why was this POS uploaded? I see nothing wrong with an episode article having one image for the infobox, just as many other episode pages do, but we need a better one here. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not 100% clear what you mean—is one to assume from your edit summary that you are in favour of this image's deletion if no suitable alternative is found? ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, woulda made more sense to say 'delete but get a new one' so I changed that. I would like to see an image for the infobox, yes. But apart from that, this one should be deleted, as it is a poor depiction. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Image is not of sufficient quality to claim its use on Wikipedia is necessary (or even valuable) for any particular purpose. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep for now I agree the image is poor and I'd be happier with another one, but it does aid the reader's understanding and otherwise seems reasonable as a single image illustrating the episode. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2010 (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:Timeline WW2 Pacific Theatre.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 19:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 19:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 10:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is oldest timeline generated with EasyTimeline (and its reason of being). It is a showcase of how one can add massive amount of time line data in one diagram. I will link to it from my userpage. Erik Zachte (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment someone has a very weird idea of what low quality means. This is a multi megapixel image. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has a very weird idea of what multi megapixel means. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2010 (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:Equalizepromo.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused promotional material. —Bkell (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2010 (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:Warnock,HRR,2004,3.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, not much context for encyclopedic use, watermarked twice, likely copyright violation. —Bkell (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2010 (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:Warnock,HRR,2004,1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, not much context for encyclopedic use, watermarked twice, likely copyright violation. —Bkell (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2010 (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:Warnock,HRR,2004,2.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, not much context for encyclopedic use, watermarked twice, likely copyright violation. —Bkell (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2010 (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:Warnock,Natchamps,2004,1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, low quality, not much context for encyclopedic use, watermarked, likely copyright violation. —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (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:Warnock,scullershear,2004,1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, not much context for encyclopedic use, huge obnoxious watermarks, likely copyright violation. —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (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:Warnock,Scottishchamps,2005.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, low quality, not much context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (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:Warnock,met,2005,1.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, mostly transparent image of a copyright symbol. Perhaps the uploader attempted to save a copyrighted photo from a Web page and ended up just saving the copyright watermark that was overlaid on top of the photo? —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is virtually useless because of its colours or lack thereof. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2010 (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:Warnock,8shead,2002,1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, low quality, not much context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (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:Warnock,8shead,2005,1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, not much context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (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:Warnock,8shead,2006,2.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 ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, not much context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (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:Warnock,Glasgow,2006,1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, not much context for encyclopedic use, watermarked, likely copyright violation. —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (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:Warnock,Natchamps,2006,1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, not much context for encyclopedic use, watermarked, likely copyright violation. —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (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.