Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 12 September 14 >

September 13[edit]

File:Pitofdespair-Harlow.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep but remove from Harry Harlow and Animal testing on non-human primates. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pitofdespair-Harlow.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs).
  • File violates WP:NFCC#1 by being an object which reasonably could still exist to be photographed or which could exist in government files as a free image. File violates WP:NFCC#2 as it is sourced to a copyright violating website and infringes the financial interests of the Steven Suomi. File violates WP:NFCC#4 as there is no proof of publication by non-copyright violating entities. File violates WP:NFCC#8 as its use in Harry Harlow and Animal testing on non-human primates is not in a significant context. File violates WP:NFCC#10c by not containing valid backlinks to all the articles for which fairuse rationale is expounded on. MBisanz talk 01:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an image of a notorious device used by psychologist Harry Harlow in the 1970s to keep infant monkeys in total isolation for weeks (no human or other contact, no light, possibly no sound, nowhere comfortable to lie down) to see what effect it would have on them. He called the device the "pit of despair." It is held up within and outside the scientific community as an example of animal research gone wrong, including by the researchers who took part in it, one of whom said Harlow, "kept this going to the point where it was clear to many people ... that anybody with respect for life or people would find this offensive." I have not been able to find any published researcher who defends it. I have tried to find an image of it that could be freely licenced, but have not been able to. It is an iconic image of historical importance within this field. Its owner is long dead, it is low resolution, and it has no financial value. It is being used in articles, or sections of articles, about the experiment. MBisanz, you say above that our use violates the copyright of Steven Suomi, but he was just one of Harlow's PhD students. He didn't own the device or any of the research. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From your upload it says "PhD thesis of Steven Suomi", so unless he is sourcing the image to someone else (in which case they would hold the copyright), he owns the copyright to the image. It does not matter about who owned the device or research, since it is the creator of the photograph that matters. Also, policy makes no distinction between current financial value, otherwise we would have no problem with NC based images since our use would be non-commercial. Finally, the moral objectionability of the images is also not relevant if we cannot find the actual source they were extracted from or prove no free images existed (which is highly unlikely in this case). In any event, I have found Dr. Suomi's email and asked him to confirm if the image was in his thesis and who owns the original image. MBisanz talk 16:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we are allowed to claim fair use when the image is of historical importance (which is where the moral issue comes in, because that is why the experiment became famous), and all the more so when it has no monetary value that our use of it would affect. Your argument was that its use violated someone's financial interests, but I don't see how that can be the case. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with MBisanz. Issues about the merits or demerits of the subject matter are irrelevant to copyright and fair use issues, and MBisanz is analyzing those issues correctly. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (notice this SV, add me to your cabal, pleeeease!), without commenting on the actual nominator it seems like the kind of image which "could" attract bad-faith nominations; it certainly meets all the Fair Use criteria I've seen - it is of low resolution, of an experiment which ended 35 years ago and thus nothing can be reproduced, represents no commercial loss, of historical value. So why single this image out for deletion? Per the latter attempts to delete it based on "File violates WP:NFCC#8 as its use in Harry Harlow and Animal testing on non-human primates is not in a significant context. File violates WP:NFCC#10c by not containing valid backlinks to all the articles for which fairuse rationale is expounded on", this is either bad faith, or ignorance of policy. We do not delete files because they are used inproperly, just imagine how often we would delete File:Penis .jpg if that were true. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but we do delete non-free files if none of their usages are legitimate. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Luckily, nobody ever claimed none of its uses were legitimate, they claimed that some of their uses were not legitimate. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we cannot verify previous publication (and, if at all possible, some author/copyright information) then I think this is going to need to be deleted. I do feel that the file meets NFCC#8 in the main article (possibly not in the others, I haven't looked) but are we certain that they no longer exist? Could a free image not be created? Alternatively, would a free diagram not be more useful than this photo? I think the main concern is replaceability. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have just received an email from Dr. Suomi in which he states that his thesis had no pictures and that the alleged source of this image is incorrect. He has given me further contact information to a person who might know who owns the image, but this appears to clearly fail NFCC as lacking a source. MBisanz talk 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added citations to the image page for what I believe are the two most likely papers this originated in, given the placement of the image on the source I took it from, and I've written to the website to ask if they know which one it was. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it can't be the J Comp Physiol Psychol article as I just pulled up the PDF of it and the image isn't anywhere in the entire article. Still trying to track down the other one. MBisanz talk 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's viable fair use in Harry Harlow irrespective of anything else. As of now, the image has no proper source, and that's a delete regardless. Let me know if you find a proper source and I'll look at revisiting that. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just updating my research into pinning down the copyright holder. An early publication of the image was in Martin L. Stephens. Maternal Deprivation Experiments in Psycholgy: A Critique of Animal Models. The American Anti-Vivisection Society, The National Anti-Vivisection Society, and New England Anti-Vivisection. 1986, p.48. I've written to them to ask whether that was its first publication. Also, just a point about Suomi's PhD not containing any images, as MBisanz wrote above, someone has sent me a copy of Suomi's PhD, and it does indeed have at least one image in it -- an image of a baby monkey huddled at the bottom of the "pit of despair" device. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've been sent the original publication, which I've added to the image page. It was Harlow, H.F. 1974. "Induction and alleviation of depressive states in monkeys," pp. 197-208 in Ethology and psychiatry (N. F. White, ed). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem that the copyright holder, then, would be the University of Toronto Press. I would expect that Dr. Suomi knows what is or is not in his own thesis, so perhaps there is a copy that is being circulated that had images added to it subsequently, without Dr. Suomi's knowledge. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a bizarre idea. The image of the baby monkey curled into a foetal position at the bottom of the metal box is clearly there, with a figure number. Perhaps he forgot about it. And I doubt that academics hand copyright of their original experiment results over. But regardless, the point with fair use is simply to know who the copyright holder/first publisher is, and now we do. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just noting that Dr. Suomi apparently said in an e-mail that the figure was not in his thesis. That's what he reportedly said. And I can say from personal experience that the way scientific publications work, the authors always assign copyright rights to the publisher. Unless you are a government employee or some other special exception, you always have to sign a copyright assignment to the publisher of an academic journal, while retaining intellectual rights, or they won't publish the study. That usually happens with the first report of the finding, in a peer-reviewed journal, before anything like a book is contemplated. Just fyi. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To further settle this I sent in and had filed the email from Dr. Suomi to OTRS at [1] and found a copy of the Ethology and psychiatry publication in an archives in Maryland that should arrive later this week, at which point I can then scan it in and email it to OTRS for further confirmation. MBisanz talk 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Immediately! Regardless of who owns the copyright, displaying the image is inflammatory, and absolutely absurd in the context of this page. Wikipedia, as a responsible organization, should delete this photo immediately! I find it ridiculous that a page intended to inform people about Harlow's and Suomi's contributions to science displays only one image, placed there by people who can't get over a set of experiments -- that actually did do a lot for science and our understanding of what is humane when it comes to the treatment of animals -- that happened over 30 years ago. Again, Wikipedia, as a responsible organization, should remove this image immediately! This is not freedom of speech. Rather, it is just slanderous and inflammatory! (Really: Consult some experts; see what they say) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeraldASchultz (talk • contribs) 19:45, 18 September 2009
  • NFCC1—this is a legitimate and eminently compelling argument for deletion if any of the devices still exist. If they do not, however, the criterion is met (I don't see any reason to assume it exists anywhere as US Federal Government PD). NFCC2—I disagree that this infringes on the financial interests of Suomi. NFCC4—the criterion does not require it be published by non-copyright violating entities, only that is it published elsewhere. (If MBisanz's characterization is in line with current practice, the policy should be modified.) NFCC8—agree that it is not valid in articles that aren't Pit of despair. But that doesn't mean we delete the file, just that we remove it from those pages. NFCC10—see preceeding. An issue that was not addressed in the nomination is NFCC8, but with regard to Pit of despair. It took me few minutes to figure out what the devices actually looked like, because the article refers to the bottom as both rounded as pointed (the image agreeing with the latter, but the former characterization is found in the lede), and obviously both cannot be true. The above issues notwithstanding, I am going to say that while an image is necessary, a free-licensed diagram would be as informative, and so this image fails NFCC8 all around. ÷seresin 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although seresin clearly understands the applicable policy better than I do, I do wish to point out one issue. With respect to NFCC2, it is not clear that Suomi is, in fact, the copyright holder, and there may be a commercial publisher with a financial interest (Univ. Toronto Press). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 21 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:Elizabeth Eden.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elizabeth Eden.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Karppinen (notify | contribs).
  • Source information is too unreliable. It's just a link to a file hosted on a blog. We have no information on the copyright holder and can't really be sure this image actually shows who we think it shows. Damiens.rf 06:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is another version of this same photograph here, so at least it likely shows the correct subject. Decstop (talk) 19:23, 13 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:800px-US 395 (NV) map.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:800px-US 395 (NV) map.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kluft (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned & Obsolete - This appears to be a map of Nevada State Route 447 (despite the filename) that is incomplete. The file is not in use, and a more complete SVG version (image:NV-447 map.svg) has since been uploaded at Commons. --LJ (talk) 06:23, 13 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:Queenmary-ship.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: kept with license as updated. Skier Dude (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Queenmary-ship.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ed g2s (notify | contribs).

*Delete No license. Speedy deletion was denied.--Rockfang (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Before deleting it, why not hunt down the licensing information? This image is in the National Archives. Kingturtle (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Think I've fixed the licensing issue.--Rockfang (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rockfang's {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} tag is correct, as confirmed by the information in the National Archives record which I located. Added an NARA tag backlinking to the image in the archives database. Maralia (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nice work!! Kingturtle (talk) 14:21, 15 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:Attasflightrecord.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep Changed tag to PD-ineligible. No original authorship. -Nv8200p talk 21:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Attasflightrecord.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).
  • Possibly violates the non-free policy. However could be ineligible for copyright. I've declined the speedy and brought here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, How does it possibly violate the non-free policy? It is low resolution, no free alternative exists, it is of historic importance, and represents no commercial loss... Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the image is pointless but those editing the article disagree. I think that this image is not copyrighted as I can't see how there is any creative input in the original at all - Peripitus (Talk) 05:18, 21 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:Wu Yi official.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Listed on WP:PUF, I'm pretty sure you are correct, but I was putting together a mass nomination of a lot of these when I saw this was listed here so for the sake of consistency I'm closing this and including this in that nomination instead. --Sherool (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wu Yi official.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ASDFGH (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:Disputed Content Tag.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Disputed Content Tag.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Compression09King (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:UCLA Bruins Logo.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy close as wrong forum after a day's run, not a single person is suggesting delete, even the nominator. It is blatantly obvious that we will retain the image for use on at least some articles. The argument about which articles has already been hotly debated at other forums, and this forum is not the proper forum to be debating that now. The points on whether it is copyrightable or not are not appropriate for FfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BQZip01 (notify | contribs).
This one is a bit of an odd request for deletion as I do not expect it to succeed and, in fact I am arguing for it to be kept, but this seems to be the best place for it to receive appropriate wider feedback. — BQZip01 — talk 15:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This image should be kept as it is an uncopyrightable image. It is made of letters of two different typefaces. A typeface is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as follows:

    "...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles, whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters."[1]

  • As this logo only consists of typefaces and individual words, it is not eligible for copyright because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain. See WP:PD#Fonts or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information. Please note that there are non-copyright restrictions protecting this image as it is a trademarked logo; and are annotated under Wikipedia: General Disclaimer#Trademarks
  • Furthermore, consider the following images:
Typeface logos
IBM logo
Coca-Cola logo
  • Despite the obvious artistic input, these logos are still "set[s] of letters...whose forms are related by repeating design elements...intended to be embodied in articles, whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters". Indeed, they are typefaces and thus ineligible for copyright. "Mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not eligible for copyright protection. It should also be noted that the "a" in "Ucla" is very similar to the first "C" in the above "Coca Cola" logo. See User:Elcobbola/Copyright for more information (and the source for a vast majority of this information). — BQZip01 — talk 15:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had this before, I think. The Coca-Cola logo is copyrightable; it's PD because it was first published in the USA before 1923. The other logos are just text in a font. The UCLA Bruins logo, on the other hand, has a deliberate choice of colours, a graphic distortion of the font, a stylized script, and so on, and most certainly is copyrightable. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointless nomination and blatantly the wrong forum. Speedy keep and close this nomination. It's the logo of a university's sports teams. We're not going to not host it here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been nominated for speedy deletion. I removed the tag and felt it was appropriate to post it here as a follow-on to the removed WP:CSD nom to be fair to what I feel was a bad CSD nomination. Seeking a wider audience isn't inappropriate and certainly isn't pointy. — BQZip01 — talk 02:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not nominated for speedy deletion but rather for speedy removal from some of the articles where it was used with invalid non-free use rationales. {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} is used for both. This dif shows the nomination; the text of the edit makes it clear that deletion was not intended. Apparently the speedy-deletion notion resulted from the edit summary auto-generated by Twinkle. That misunderstanding, however, does not in any way excuse this pointy nomination. —teb728 t c 04:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally marked it with a tag saying "this image will be deleted or removed from some uses in one week", and I was leaning towards the latter. Keep, but remove from all articles other than UCLA Bruins, UCLA Bruins football, UCLA Bruins men's basketball, and UCLA Bruins women's volleyball as failing WP:NFCC#8. Using the team logo to decorate the many articles about various seasons' versions of the teams isn't a viable fair use under our criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "this image will be deleted..." Which is why I placed it here as it seemed the most appropriate. I simply wanted to allow for a full discussion as the image wasn't eligible for speedy deletion under any criteria. Let's just see where the discussion leads and we can always move it somewhere else later. — BQZip01 — talk 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like others, I consider this non-controversial. The image is not copyrightable. Moreover, UCLA has not registered the copyrighted the image for copyright, nor is there any non-registration claim of copyright that I am aware of. All notices use the cicle-r and not the circle-c. Whomever tagged the image with the {{Non-free logo}} tag seems not to have had a basis for it. The {{PD-textlogo}} clearly applies. BillTunell (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For decades now, there is no requirement that anything be registered in the United States to enjoy copyright protection, nor is there a requirement that anything be labeled as copyrighted in order to enjoy copyright protections. Copyright on things created now extend until deliberately released, or by other means (such as age). As to whether or not this is copyrightable, this is not the venue for that discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 14 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:WesternGreySquirrels.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by R'n'B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WesternGreySquirrels.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Apolloae (notify | contribs).
  • Obsolete classification, needs to be renamed as to avoid confusion. Apolloae (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Err...can't you just nominate as WP:G6 or G7 and then just re-upload it? O_O Cheers, I'mperator 00:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia newbie here, can you elaborate? :Apolloae (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, sorry. Tag the page as {{Db-g7}} (which will result in its deletion), and then upload it again under the correct name. :) Cheers, I'mperator 13:04, 15 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:USPresSeal.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:USPresSeal.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Berkut (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:He Is Cool.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:He Is Cool.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Crownstalker (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned, blurry image, no encyc. value Skier Dude (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tagged as speedy delete for no license.--Rockfang (talk) 05:43, 14 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:Nme1.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nme1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Logan1138 (notify | contribs).
  • The fact they appeared on the cover of the magazine is important, what the cover looked like is not. This image is adding little to the article and does not meet our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 13 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:Richard Thompson Halifax.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Thompson Halifax.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mao59 (notify | contribs).
  • Out of focus image, orphaned file. No encyclopedic use. — Σxplicit 22:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MYSPACE 2: "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia." Cheers, I'mperator 00:48, 15 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:Quotes9374.PNG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quotes9374.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alex Douglas (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — Σxplicit 23:56, 13 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.
  1. ^ U.S. Code Congr. & Admn. News, 94th Congress, 2d Sess. (1976) at 5668
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_September_13&oldid=1138516763"