Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 May 4

< May 3	May 5 >

May 4[edit]

File:The Doon School Stamp.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this 2010 Indian stamp is copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and fails both WP:NFC#Images #2 because the stamp is being displayed to show the subject of the article in a non stamp article and WP:NFCC #8 because the fact that the stamp was issued is already made by the prose without the necessary use of a non-free stamp image, and there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erica Reef Stamp.PNG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this 2005 Malaysian stamp appears to be copyright for 50 years per commons:Commons:L#Malaysia and fails both WP:NFC#Images #2 because the stamp is being displayed to show the subject of the article in a non stamp article and WP:NFCC #8 because the fact that the stamp was issued is could be made by the prose without the necessary use of a non-free stamp image, and there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. Surely there are some freely licenced satellite or other images available? ww2censor (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Accademia dei Lincei postage stamp.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this 2003 Italian stamp is copyright for 70 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Italy and fails both WP:NFC#Images #2 because the stamp is being displayed to show the subject of the article in a non stamp article and WP:NFCC #8 because the fact that the stamp was issued could be made by prose without the necessary use of a non-free stamp image, and there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Citizen-Kane-stamp-1999.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all post-1978 USPS stamps are copyright per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and fails both WP:NFC#Images #2 because the stamp is being displayed to show the subject of the article in a non stamp article and WP:NFCC #8 because the fact that the stamp was issued is already made by the prose without the necessary use of a non-free stamp image, and there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HenryManciniStamp.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all post-1978 US stamps are copyright per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and fails both WP:NFC#Images #2 because the stamp is being displayed to show work done by the subject of the article in a non-stamp article and WP:NFCC #8 because the fact that the stamp was issued is already made by the prose without the necessary use of a non-free stamp image, and there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gibbs-US-stamp.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 - image fails NFCC#1 - adequately replaced by text without significantly impairing reader's understanding of the topic - Peripitus (Talk) 09:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all post-1978 USPS stamps are copyright per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and fails both WP:NFC#Images #2 because the stamp is being displayed to show the subject of the article in a non-stamp article and WP:NFCC #8 because the fact that the stamp was issued is already made by the prose without the necessary use of a non-free stamp image, and there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is certainly not true that the stamp is being used to illustrate the subject. The article already has other images for portraits of Gibbs and for the thermodynamic diagram shown in the stamp. The intended use of the image is clear from its position in the article and from the accompanying text. The article not only mentions that the stamp was issued, but it also explains the context of that issue and who designed it. Furthermore, it is one of the most visible and notable posthumous honors of Gibbs (and the only one that can be adequately illustrated by an image) and it is proper that it be shown in the section on "Commemoration." The image file is small and carries a proper fair-use rationale. - Eb.hoop (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reader will still understand the article without the use of a non-free image that has no sourced critical commentary about the stamp. Over the years many non-free stamps have been deleted for the same use as this one. ww2censor (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the standard that the article not be understandable without the image is unreasonably stringent and is not necessary to comply with fair-use laws. Also, the stamp issue is more significant for the biographical subject than is usually the case, and this can be easily documented. See, for instance: [1]. - Eb.hoop (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's fair-use policy is indeed much more stringent than most people's understanding of fair-use law, per WP:NFCC. Basically non-free stamps can be used in stamp articles but not in biographies of the subject or other articles unless there is sourced critical commentary about the stamps itself that would justify the use of the non-free image in the article. Sorry but that's the policy. ww2censor (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the policy. It says use is fair only if the "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is not the same as the article not being understandable without the image. I've also expanded the discussion of the stamp in the article and provided several references, see: Josiah_Willard_Gibbs#Commemoration. I trust you will see the importance of the stamp issue itself to the discussion of commemorations of Gibbs. - Eb.hoop (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NFCC#1: replaceable by the text in the section where it is used. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is the practice to remove all stamp images from articles that are not explicitly and entirely about stamps. I don't understand this. I have read the guidelines carefully and I see no reason why this is necessary. It is absurd to interpret WP:NFCC#1 as requiring all copyrighted stamp images to be removed if the stamp can be described in words. Why do we have any fair-use images in Wikipedia at all? Even the philatelic articles could, by that logic, contain only words and links to other websites. The Gibbs stamp is in itself notable and you will see it both described and pictured in many places, both on the Internet and in magazines (see the refs. currently in the article), usually, as here, in connection with Gibbs himself. - Eb.hoop (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the stamp is notable, why is there no Wikipedia article about the stamp? The use of fair use material should be kept as small as possible per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's sufficiently notable, I think, to be mentioned in the appropriate section in the biography of Gibbs. (Incidentally, I was not the one who introduced a discussion of the stamp into that article. And there have been at least two earlier attempts by others to include an image of the stamp). I don't know if the rest of the Wikipedia community would find a article entirely devoted to the stamp sufficiently notable. But the requirement that fair-use images of stamps appear only in explicitly philatelic articles seems arbitrary to me and not justified by any of the existing fair-use guidelines. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable enough to be mention and that is what you have done but it is not necessary to actually see the non-free image. Stamp images do not have to appear only in stamp article but the majority of uses in non-stamp articles fails NFCC. The stamp is certainly not notable enough to warrant its own article, not like any of these notable stamps and while you have added information about the design and artist there is no sourced critical commentary about the image itself, so it still fails WP:NFCC#8. The reader does not have to see the image to understand the prose and not having the non-free image does not mean that reader will fail to understand the prose. ww2censor (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint is that you are de facto imposing the rule that fair-use images of stamps can only be used in philatelic articles, even though that rule is nowhere to be found in the official Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I think that you are failing to see that a stamp can be interesting, in and of itself, for reasons that are not those of a typical stamp collector. Prof. Zoltan Spakovszky, of MIT, has written that he "couldn't take his eyes off the Gibbs stamp"; see [2]. I'm a physicist, and I also find it fascinating and want to see it used in the article about Gibbs. Why is this less valid than the judgment of a philatelist that an image is worth including in an article about stamps? - Eb.hoop (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of non-free stamps in biographic article has been going on for a long time and there have been several discussions on the topic going back at least 6 years per the following:

so you will see that I am not trying to impose any de facto rule. If you really would like, I can provide you with links to deletion nominations of about 250 non-free stamp images that have been deleted for similar uses to this one such as a John Steinbeck's stamp. You may disagree with the implementation of the policy but is the accepted way for years. We just don't view the policy in the same way. ww2censor (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this has indeed been the practice for several years, but I insist that it is de facto, because it is not simply an application of WP:NFCC. You have chosen to interpret the rules under the presumption that a stamp can only be interesting to a stamp collector. But stamps are issued for and used by everyone, including scientists. While clearly there is a danger of using copyrighted stamps too indiscriminately in biographies, I have provided five external references, including one from a very reputable scientific magazine, that discuss the stamp itself and use it as an illustration. Whereas this probably would be insufficient to justify a philatelic article on the stamp, I think it is clearly sufficient (under the rules as they are written) to justify its current use in the biography of Gibbs. - Eb.hoop (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said, or suggested, that only stamp collectors were interested in stamps. Yes, you have added some citations to support details about the stamp and its production but that information is not critical commentary about the stamp itself that would justify the use of the non-free stamp. WP:NFCC#8 is specific about the contextual significance and I believe this image, even with the improved prose and citations still fails, you just happen to disagree. Stamps of most scientists and other notable people are frequently reported in various publications, journals or websites but where is the critical commentary, there is none. Was there something specific about this stamp that makes it notable, such as a design error, debate about the image to be use, or something else that would make it notable other than the fact it was issued and who designed it? ww2censor (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the sources currently in the article, you will find discussions of: 1. How a professor of chemical engineering at Iowa State was approached by the USPS as a consultant for the the design. 2. How he convinced the design team to label Gibbs "thermodynamicist" rather than "chemist." 3. That he provided, for the stamp's background, an illustration taken from the 4th edition of J. C. Maxwell's Theory of Heat, which he obtained from the Berkeley Library. 4. That the stamp contains a microprint with a mathematical formula taken from one of Gibbs's papers. 5. That a professor of aeronautics at MIT was fascinated by the stamp and discovered the microprint on his own. I don't know if any of these things are interesting to a stamp collector. Probably not. But they are all about the stamp itself. - Eb.hoop (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the stamp its own sub-section in the article on Gibbs, and added one more article from a scientific magazine that discusses Prof. Jolls's role in consulting with the USPS over the design. Each of the six references in this subsection both discusses the stamp itself and gives an image of it. You might also notice that Prof. Spakovszky has displayed it very prominently in his course website: [3]. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article section incorporating the stamp image is explicitly and entirely about the Gibbs stamp and other stamps in the American Scientists series. The article section is written in such a way that it could be split from the main article, and with minimal modification would be a perfectly acceptable stub for which there would be no question about the stamp's purpose. With ten minutes work, I can perform the split, add a "main" reference to the stamp article, and make the slight rewording of the lead sentence of the stamp article so that it adheres to standard Wikipedia conventions. I think that would be a little silly, but a lot less silly than deleting the file, given the effort that Eb.hoop has put into meeting the rules. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eb.hoop has done good work and with the additional prose and citations that have been added there is now certainly good information about the stamp's production and issuance. However, there is still no need for a non-free image to be displayed and it still fails WP:NFCC#8 because the reader's understanding will not be significantly diminished without the image. I agree that you could hive off the individual section about the stamp alone but I highly doubt you could make a good notability claim for this individual stamp. With about 10,000 stamps issued annually worldwide it is by no means an individually notable stamp. ww2censor (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I were to title the stub article "Stamps honoring scientists" and included the Gibbs stamp as merely the first of a subsection Willard Gibbs, relying on other editors to fill in more content over time, and then linked to the subsection? People like Einstein or the Curies would have multiple stamps available from Commons. Think of how BeyondThePerf limits its descriptions of the stamps in American Scientists 2011 to exclusively philatelic content. The language in Eb.hoop's subsection is devoted to philatelic content, and is precisely what would be required in a hypothetical "Stamps honoring scientists" article. So why is it not acceptable in a Commemoration section? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a mock-up of what a "Stamps honoring scientists" article might look like: User:Stigmatella_aurantiaca/sandbox/one. I would guess that the great majority of stamps appearing on such a page would be public domain, with only an occasional non-free image requiring specific justification. If such a page as this were to appear, I believe that Eb.hoop's unaltered contribution would meet all requirements for inclusion. So I repeat my question: Why would this use of the stamp image not be acceptable in a Commemoration section? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from that userspace page. Violates WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I'm reading this correctly, it appears you guys are claiming that you are using NFCC, when you are actually using discussions made elsewhere. IF there is consensus on how a policy is applied, that should be available on the policy pages so an uploader can know not to upload sucha an image, rather than deleting them after the fact and creating conflict like this. It's not at all intuitive that an image from a stamp requires discussion of the stamp. For example, it's not as if images from a book require discussion of that book. — trlkly 09:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more or less per Stefan2. Article is amply illustrated with free images, and the information that the subject appeared on a stamp is more than adequately conveyed by the existing text. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DuBois Postage stamp2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all post-1978 USPS stamps are copyright per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and fails both WP:NFC#Images #2 because the stamp is being displayed to show the subject of the article in a non-stamp article and WP:NFCC #8 because the fact that the stamp was issued is already made by the prose without the necessary use of a non-free stamp image, and there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears to be in violation of copyright. Go ahead and delete it: I replaced it in the Du Bois article with another image. --Noleander (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ritwik ghatak stamp.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this 2007 Indian stamp is copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and fails both WP:NFC#Images #2 because the stamp is being displayed to show the subject of the article in a non stamp article and WP:NFCC #8 because the fact that the stamp was issued could easily be made by the prose without the necessary use of a non-free stamp image, and there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only commemorative postage stamp on Ritwik Ghatak. And the relation between Government and Ghatak was not very nice. A/the only national honor he was given was also withdrawn later (though it is unclear, but it created lots of controversy. See this article, So, a commemorative stamp by a Government is of high importance and needed in the document. Only mentioning in text that a stamp was issued will not be equally helpful. --Tito Dutta ^Message 04:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is non-free image and most comply with all 10 NFCC policy guidelines and the reader's understanding that the stamp was issued will not be diminished without the image. The article you link to does not even mention the stamp issued so does not help your case which a reliable sourced critical commentary would help. ww2censor (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Dutta Read the article again. The Padma Shri was never withdrawn. Though it was proposed in the assembly but no action taken. Abgoswami (talk)

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:Scott.Dixon.stamp.NZ.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this 2009 New Zealand stamp is copyright for at least 50 years per Crown copyright and fails both WP:NFC#Images #2 because the stamp is being displayed to show the subject of the article in a non-stamp article and WP:NFCC #8 because the fact that the stamp was issued is already made by the prose without the necessary use of a non-free stamp image, and there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stthomas cross.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 ⚡ 11:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this 1973 Indian stamp is copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and fails both WP:NFC#Images #2 because the stamp is being displayed to show the subject of the article in a non stamp article and WP:NFCC #8 because the fact that the stamp was issued could easily be made the prose without the necessary use of a non-free stamp image, and there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the nom. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retain: The image of the stamp aids to support the tradition of Saint Thomas Christians that St. THOMAS visited India in AD 52 and he had modelled a cross in India, now known as St Thomas Cross. This cross is the symbol of STCs. Many fringe views are being attempted to be included in the article: STC. The govt released stamp will underscore that this tradition is the most accepted one. Since the stamp was released by govt of India, it's fair use could not attract any legal issues, according to Indian Laws. This image is of iconic status and historical importance, and many other articles, outside wikipedia, use this image under fair use policy.---Ashley Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.5.87 (talk) 2012-05-05T05:51:42

Fair-use law and Wikipedia fair-use policy are entirely different matters and while the image may be used under fair-use law in other websites, here it fails our WP:NFCC fair-use policy which is far stricter than fair-use law. You can easily state the views of the importance of the cross in prose without needing to use a non-free image, provided you add supporting citations. ww2censor (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Law and WP:Fair-use policy are not entirely different aspects as you opined, but the latter is a dependent of former. You could clarify it @ WP:NFCC#Rationale. Further, there is a scarcity of on-line sources for proper citation in this regard, especially in the English Media. Hence, the quality of the article will be deteriorated by removing this image. --AshLey ^Msg 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While fair-use law and Wikipedia non-free policy are related their application is different because of our much stricter policy. For the very reason you state there is a scarcity of on-line sources for proper citation is a reason you cannot use the image because you cannot justify its use with sourced citations that could verify any critical commentary prose that might be added. The article has not commentary at all; in fact the only prose about the stamp is in the caption of the image. ww2censor (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, while you say Policy is stricter than Law, since, as per the definition of both terms, laws will be stricter than concerned policies. However, the coverage of policies will be wider, compared to that of laws, in order to ensure some discretion in the application of policies. Our purpose is to improve the quality of the article without legal implications of non-free image. Here we are unable to substitute it with a free image, since the article needs an authorized image to support the claim that Saint Thomas Cross belongs Saint Thomas tradition, not to Manichaeism. Hence it's not replaceable as you suggested with WP:NFCC #8 . Moreover, it's an icon and we can't simply take it within the policy restrictions of WP:NFC#Images #2. WP:NFC#Images already clarifies it by saying that the list is not exclusive. --AshLey ^Msg 08:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to split hairs with you over the more restrictive Wikipedia non-free policy compared to legal fair-use. You claim "the article needs an authorized image to support the claim that Saint Thomas Cross belongs Saint Thomas tradition" and that is the reason you want to use a non-free image. Well surely any freely licenced image of the Saint Thomas Cross will support that claim, so the stamp image is replaceable and without any commentary about the stamp there is not the slightest attempt being made to further the claim you make. While WP:NFC#Images does say it is not exclusive, it specifically mentions stamps. Find another image and use that. ww2censor (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not any image of Saint Thomas Cross, that won't do the purpose. That image could be ascribed Manichaeism or any other fringe view by it's proponents. "Authorized" means the image should be marked as "Saint Thomas Cross" in itself by some Govt Dept or Scientific body. If you could get it, I'm happy to replace it. --AshLey ^Msg 14:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nordiques proposed.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Obsolete - The file based on an educated guess from a black and white original has been replaced by a more accurate image using the proper colors for the proposed jerseys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nordiques_proposed_-_accurate_colours.jpg[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:Cute in Bangkok 02.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:NOTHOST Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cute in Bangkok 03.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:NOTHOST Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cute in Bangkok.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:NOTHOST Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cute in Singapore 02.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:NOTHOST Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Singapore Cute.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:NOTHOST Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cute in Singapore 03.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:NOTHOST Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vietnam Hanoi Cute 01.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:NOTHOST Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vietnam Hanoi Cute.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:NOTHOST Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vietnam Hanoi Cute 02.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:NOTHOST Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vietnam Hanoi Cute 03.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:NOTHOST Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cute in Singapore 01.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, WP:NOTHOST Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cute little puppies.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless, useless. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cute Pepsy.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality photo of generic dog Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cute Ram.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juan Carlos I fortable.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, unverifiable source Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost certainly a professional publicity photograph of some sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CUTE.PNG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cutesleepybaby.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

currently marked as copyrighted on flickr, and licensing status was never verified by independent review Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cutesweet83 art.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, probably copyvio as a derivative work (likely based on copyrighted photo) Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cutesweet83 flyff.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cutesweet83.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beauty and The Beast 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

apparent publicity photo (along with uploader's other files) - no evidence of permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the uploader is essentially a single-purpose account editing about this theatre company. That of course usually rings some alarm bells in terms of promotional editing, but it's also usually a good sign in terms of image rights. Has he ever been asked to send in an OTRS confirmation for any of his uploads? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beauty and The Beast 3Belle.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

apparent publicity photo (along with uploader's other files) - no evidence of permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beauty and The Beast 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

apparent publicity photo (along with uploader's other files) - no evidence of permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beauty And The Beast1.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

apparent publicity photo (along with uploader's other files) - no evidence of permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Apodaca-motin-cereso.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free commercial press photograph of a stand-off between demonstrators and riot police. One of two similar pictures used in the same article, Apodaca prison riot (cf. next nomination for the other). Probably fails NFCC#2 (commercial use) and certainly NFCC#8: no particular visual detail of this photograph is the object of commentary in the article or necessary to make the discussion of this confrontation understood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a newbie in this. Should I explain on the picture why the two images I uploaded are object of commentary and dicussion? ComputerJA (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, explaining "why" won't really help as long as they really aren't the object of commentary and discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Apodaca-SEMEFO.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free commercial press photograph of a confrontation between demonstrators and riot police. Same situation as the item above. Fails NFCC#2 (commercial), NFCC#8 (as the above), and NFCC#3 (two similar items illustrating much the same situation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chuck mangione character.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free and not discussed critically--simply shows that he was on the show. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:(2010) Not Strong Enough -EP- 3x3.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a in Not Strong Enough (Apocalyptica song). Not used elsewhere. Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:9K330 Tor Air Defence System.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is a scaled down copy of this free file on Commons. Besides, the source information on the version on en:wiki has insufficient and incorrect source information. I request the deletion of this image on en:wiki and the replacement of it with the Commons-file High Contrast (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This file is no longer in use here, on en:wiki. --High Contrast (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Twilightzone-alittlepeaceandquiet.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image does not meet NFCC #8, it offers nothing to the understanding of the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Twilightzone-shatterday.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image does not meet NFCC #8, it offers nothing to the understanding of the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Little Boy Lost.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this image meets the criteria set by NFCC #8 Sven Manguard Wha? 20:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nightcrawlers (The Twilight Zone).jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image does not add to the understanding of the article, thus failing NFCC #8 Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vilas.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded: largely duplicates File:Vilas2.jpg. Insufficiently sourced: no way to tell if it is free or not. Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ChangeSample.ogg[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 Explicit has the correct analysis of the situation. Anomie ⚔ 16:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3b. This sample exceeds 10% of the length of the original song. (Sample length = 30 seconds, Song length = 230 seconds) Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 21:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not for nominator's reasoning, though. That issue can be resolved by tagging the file with {{Non-free reduce}}. Delete for lacking critical commentary, thus violating the point eight of WP:NFCC. — ξ ^xplicit 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Federico.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Federico Berghmans was deleted as PROD so maybe this also should be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: image is dependent on a deleted article. ww2censor (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Profile.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. File on Commons tagged for renaming instead. — ξ ^xplicit 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't upload files with this title" but there is an image with this name on Commons which is shadowed by the notice. Bad name, I know. Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The commons image is a thinly veiled self-promotional bit for David Parrish who doesn't have an article here - any other use for it? If not, keep the 'bad image name' to prevent another overwrite here. Skier Dude (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sort.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, useless, better represented as text, shadows Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kimberly.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Unidentified person. Shadows Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Exterior.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2006-01-06T09:48:25 version: Unidentified building. Unused, country unidentified so can't be moved to Commons because FOP status can't be determined. 2006-11-07T16:06:05 version: no source and no licence. 2009-08-05T02:55:36 version: no source and no licence. Current version: no source and no licence and not listed in the file history (!). Besides, shadows Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:50px-HAF-Finflash-Noncombat.svg.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low resolution image. Cloudbound (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:628px-Western and Eastern Roman Empires 476AD(4).PNG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. Little foreseeable use. Cloudbound (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:9 8 BAT 1 OP SPEC ECUSON.sized.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low quality insignia. Cloudbound (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abdolkarim Soroush.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low resolution photo. Cloudbound (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abdul Qayyum Shaikh.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user photo. Cloudbound (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:E De Los Santos Street.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. Insufficient evidence to conclude that this image is a copyright violation. — ξ ^xplicit 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio: found exact copy on Panoramio with copyright notice (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/40850236?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was uploaded to Panoramio more than a year after it was uploaded to Wikipedia. It is more likely that it is a copyvio on Panoramio instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Manahan Building.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. Insufficient evidence to conclude that this image is a copyright violation. — ξ ^xplicit 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exact same camera, date, and time as File:E De Los Santos Street.jpg, which is a copyvio, so this must be a copyvio too. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced that File:E De Los Santos Street.jpg is a copyvio. See my comment in the section above. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MADtvBunifa01b.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree, not discussed critically. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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