Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 3

< June 2	June 4 >

June 3[edit]

File:CrabeaterSealSkullSchematic.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, obsoleted by File:Lobodon carcinophaga teeth.svg. Kelly ^hi! 00:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dinitrodiphenicacid.gif[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned chem image. Kelly ^hi! 00:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons 65.94.47.217 (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a chemical formula. Chances are very, very high that this is orphaned because there is an SVG of this. Also, non-animated .gif images are evil. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to File:Atropisomer.svg. Even worse, you can't see the aromaticy of the bottom ring in this image due to the bolding, so it is incorrect as well. Yoenit (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's rarely a need to keep orphaned chemical structures. They can be re-created (and in a better format) in minutes, if ever required. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PICT5117.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; Unknown building; Not even in Adam's gallery, so unidentifiable, and therefore unusable. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1] it's "Eildon Mansion, Grey St, St Kilda", i.e. something on Grey Street, Melbourne. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to much better photograph File:Eildon Mansion, Grey Street, Melbourne - 2.jpeg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How did I not recognize that, I've was moving Grey Street stuff for over two hours... Sven Manguard Wha? 18:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PICT5166.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality image, used only by two throwaway accounts as a userpage photo. Not encyclopedic. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Madhavi childhood days.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is no justification for using a second non-free image in Madhavi (actress) to identify the subject. The image add nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic, so fails both WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use. ww2censor (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May/May not be Deleted I uploaded the image to show the early life picture of the actress. The one at the infobox was taken in a film released in 1981 and this image was taken much before that. Also please let me know that whether the image has to be uploaded under a different license. Thanks! --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 09:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is copyright, having been taken circa 1972 and Indian copyright last for 60 years, so it is non free and as such requires that it comply with all 10 non-free content policy criteria. It fails at least two of those, also has no author, so there is no different licence that can apply. Do not upload another version as that too will fail for the same reasons, unless you get permission from the copyright holder to release it under a free licence. Beside which the image adds nothing to the article other than showing the subject at an early age. That is no a justification that passes NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this BLP article is no more in need of a separate non-free image for each phase of the subject's life than any of our ten thousands of other BLP articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Picturesucksjnr.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Miley cyrus so undercover.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional screenshot of an actor in a film that's purportedly only to be released in 1012. No reason why we'd need an image of it here. Not the object of any discussion in article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused non-free image. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pictures 006.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality image of a sign, and little else. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pictures 011.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality image of a sign, and little else. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pictures 009.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality user photo. User has almost no contributions other than this and the above listed uploads, and has been inactive for a long period of time. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pictures1 001.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of image is copyrighted brand art. Image is too low in quality to be used, and File:Velveeta Cheese.JPG shows the actual product, rather than the box, which is more useful and not copyrighted. Orphaned. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pictures 049.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality user photo from user who has made very few edits, none of them within the last few years. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pictures 1 001 (2).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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline CSD G11 image. Orphaned; Promotional photo of non-notable artist, which is the uploader's only contribution to Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pictures 045 sml.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an identical image on commons, File:ZOEgirl.png, however that image is in a different file format, so CSD F8 does not apply. The commons image is the one used in the article. I'm not saying IAR delete, but this is a waste of time, so IAR delete is an option... Sven Manguard Wha? 08:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody cares enough about the article, it might be better to move the .jpg and get the .png deleted instead; .jpg is the preferred format for photographs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why? .png are much higher quality most of the time. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dunno. It's what WP:IUP#FORMAT says. I've seen .png photographs having display problems, but I think that was with very high resolution photographs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - .png files resize better, and since most images are resized for articles, I tend to like .png file format. That being said, when you don't have to resize ever, .jpg has merits. Either way, it's fine as it is. Any more of this and I might go on the "MOS gets in the way" rant. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the image is orphan, and at least I don't know where it belongs to. mabdul 17:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pictures 1 007.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, borderline low quality image of a dog. Better images of the breed exist. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Puli clipped coat.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: not deleted --B (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, borderline low quality image of a dog. Better images of the breed exist. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not orphaned, it is used in Puli. Yoenit (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn per Yoenit. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:Pictures 1 008.jpg to File:Puli clipped coat.jpg by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) at 20:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GOT you win or you die.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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Apparently random scene, not the subject of commentary, not embedded in analytical discussion, purely decorative. Also nonsensical FUR, evidently blindly copied from somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being extended now with critical commentary of the scene, and I've explained a little bit more in the caption text the reason for incluiding it there. IMO, with those additions, it meets the criteria for inclusion and my vote is keep.--RR (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The text now says, in the "production" section, that "the confrontation between Eddard and Cersei taking place in the Red Keep's gardens (identified as a godswood in the novels)" was filmed in a certain location, and the image caption says that "The iconic scene from which the title of both the series and the episode stem" was filmed in that location. Trouble is: I cannot relate the expression "the confrontation between Eddard and Cersei" to anything in the plot summary – the names "Eddard" and "Cersei" never occur near to each other in any recognizable way. I have no idea what the "Red Keep" is, nor what a "godswood" is; neither expression is used anywhere else in the article. I have no idea why and in what way the scene is "iconic" – what does that even mean? (It looks a bit like a Wikipedia-internal anti-deletion argument that mistakenly made its way into the article.) I also have no idea why and in what way the episode and the series got its titles from this scene. In short, there is some commentary, but it's entirely useless to me. By the way, if the purpose of the image is simply to show what location was used for the film, wouldn't a free image of that cloister be an adequate replacement? After all, the cloister in the film and the cloister in reality look pretty much the same, and it's easy to imagine what two people talking in it look like, once you know what the place looks like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to cover your points: (1) The scene is described in the first line of the plot section of King's Landing. (2) Perhaps the article is a little too in-world, but I'm afraid you can't describe the changes without referring to in-world concepts (in any case, a godswood is a sacred wood while in the series it just happens in a standard garden of the fortress they're in). (3) New additions to the article include a reference to the quote in question (lead section, 3rd paragraph) an critical analsis of the confrontation (critical response, 3rd paragraph). (4) the scene has been called iconic (or similar descriptions such as climatic,etc.) by critics (see references). (5) The "location argument" is just a complement, not a justification per se. IMO it's the reason why this frame is more useful than a close up of the two characters in the same scene.--RR (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's the only (nonfree) image in this article, although I don't know the show to be able to say something about the descriptiveness. mabdul 17:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GOT Golden Crown.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, used in infobox. Low quality (contents are hardly discernible). Not needed for understanding the article, and not actually even helpful due to low quality. Note that the scene from which this frame was taken is the object of some legitimate critical commentary (some critics noted the quality of the acting of some characters in it); however, nothing in what little visual detail the frame offers can actually help me understand what is said in the discussion. Whatever the positive quality found of the acting may have been, I can't see anything about it in the still frame. I presumably wouldn't see more of it if the image was brighter and larger either. Fails NFCC#8, purely decorative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image quality is poor, and this isn't the climax of the scene. DragonflyDC (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the caption for another that, IMO, may better reflect the situation. If you agree, we can delete this one.--RR (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: image is now orphaned. ww2censor (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arcadians in-game screenshot (BBC Micro).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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is used under a fair-use rationale but does not "contribute greatly to an understanding of the subject"; file is used in a gallery section. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pakistan-CJ.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image showing an important event that can be fairly understood without the aid of this image. While the event is important and worth noting, the image is not. To be fair, there's a current dispute about either or not we should all non-free images in such cases where they show the historic event discussed in the article. damiens.rf 16:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One article is easy replaceable/remove without any consequences since there is no meaning for the article, the other one has already enough showing him. mabdul 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DoD Certificate.jpeg[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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned image of a diploma, only ever used in the non-notable entry Murray Stewart Wilson, no usability elsewhere. Hairhorn (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm seeing is a black box. Am I missing something? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, try the full version. Hairhorn (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's... a bigger black box? Sven Manguard Wha? 17:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coat of arms of adr01.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR. If user-created as stated, I can't really see any encyclopedic use for it. If not user-created, it is probably an orphaned non-free image. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wikia 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: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by svg version. Orphan. damiens.rf 16:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The SVG version doesn't match the file being proposed for deletion. I don't know where that SVG has come from as the linked source file doesn't match it either. I believe the non-official SVG editions should be deleted and this one should be kept but reverted to this version with the fair use rationale. Angela . 04:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The {{PD-textlogo}} tag appears to be correct for all I can see. Why would we return to tagging it as non-free? But if we are talking about which version is actually correct, neither of the two versions matches Wikia's definition exactly. I've updated the File:Wikia Logo.svg version now to get the colour right ("Wikia Primary Blue: #00396d"). Delete the .png. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AVA LUCAS IN 2007.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, was uploader's only contribution, no evidence of notability of person pictured, so unencyclopedic. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:19n Pict0045.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, very low quality image (JPEG compression issues). Newport, Shropshire has much better pictures of the town, including High Street. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MeInOnTheAction2.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, appears to be a personal photo due to the description, so no encyclopedic use. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Me In On The Action 2.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, appears to be a personal photo due to the description, so no encyclopedic use. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pictures 208.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality image of the interior of a Honda Odyssey. Does not show anything important or distinctive. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pictures 215.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediocre quality and overlit image of a 2008 Eclipse GT, article on the Eclipse already has plenty of better images. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pictures 247.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality image of an unidentified street. Orphaned. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brian McAfee Beach Friday.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic. Personal photo of some highschool kids. Was to be used in an A7-speedied article about an 18-year-old guy who plays for his highschool baseball team. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WorkPicJPG.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, part of a deleted hoax article Princess Shila Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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