Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 11 May 13 >

May 12[edit]

280px-X-Men Chronicles 2 jean.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:280px-X-Men Chronicles 2 jean.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Christiem (notify | contribs).
  • Image copped from a wikia. No information for original sourcing provided no licensing tag. This seems to be a long standing problem with the uploader. They seem to prefer to disrutively have others upgrade the images. J Greb (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also likely a copyvio. — BQZip01 — talk 03:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Jean G Mutant X.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean G Mutant X.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Christiem (notify | contribs).
  • Image copped from a wikia. No information for original sourcing provided no licensing tag. This seems to be a long standing problem with the uploader. They seem to prefer to disrutively have others upgrade the images. J Greb (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete likely copyvio. — BQZip01 — talk 03:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Shadow-X MarvelGirl.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shadow-X MarvelGirl.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Christiem (notify | contribs).
  • Image copped from a wikia. No information for original sourcing provided no licensing tag. This seems to be a long standing problem with the uploader. They seem to prefer to disrutively have others upgrade the images. J Greb (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also a likely copyvio. — BQZip01 — talk 03:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Moochka Sleeping.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moochka Sleeping.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zivlok (notify | contribs).
  • User has blanked, implying that image can be deleted. It is not used in any articles. 2help (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zivlok (talk • contribs) 03:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

ArmyNavyLax2009.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Kept, free, and nominator withdrew objections

File:ArmyNavyLax2009.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Strikehold (notify | contribs).
  • Taken from West Point Athletics website with copyright notice at bottom of page. It's a commercial, not government or military, site and there is no indication that the pictures are in the public domain. Yarnalgo talk to me 04:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The domain name is commercial, but that has no bearing on whether the content belongs to the government (just as West Point's main website is an .edu domain, but it is part of the Army). The photo in question is credited to the Army Athletic Association (and bears a "courtesy of", but no copyright disclaimer), which falls under the athletics department of the United States Military Academy, which is in turn part of the Department of the Army. Strikehold (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep You are correct, because of attribution it is in public domain. --Yarnalgo talk to me 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Jody150 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 - fails NFCC#10a - it is clearly possible to identify the copyrightholder but this is not currently noted here. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jody150 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jeffpw (notify | contribs).
  • Copyright holder completely unknown (imageshack is just an image hosting service). Unless figured out, this image can't be kept. Damiens.rf 06:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep simply needs an appropriate fair use rationale. Plenty of organizations have used this image, so take your pick on the source.
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.

Coyote in yard 003.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coyote in yard 003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jeffpw (notify | contribs).
  • Bad quality and orphaned picture of a coyote (I wouldn't have noticed the animal without the description and I's still not sure it isn't just a dog) Damiens.rf 06:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Orphaned, UE. — BQZip01 — talk 05:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Rainbow America.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rainbow America.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jeffpw (notify | contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Jenny and Greg on the cover of Soap Opera Digest.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenny and Greg on the cover of Soap Opera Digest.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
  • We don't have to used his non-free magazine cover just because the cover story was briefly mentioned. Damiens.rf 06:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, I do not care if you delete it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and uploader. — BQZip01 — talk 05:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Natsign.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Natsign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jeffpw (notify | contribs).
  • Orphan copyright violation (a picture of a poster) Damiens.rf 06:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom, doesn't serve encyclopedic purpose, copyvio. American Eagle (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could serve an encyclopedic purpose...but since it isn't serving any purpose other that taking up server space (it isn't used anywhere), it needs to go IAW WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — talk 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

LeapIntoLegend.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: Deleted, non-free book cover, used only in articles that barely mention this specific cover or this specific book

File:LeapIntoLegend.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rotterdam1953 (notify | contribs).
  • Image is being used to decorate our articles on (1) the book's author, and (2) the cover illustrator. The existing rationale is certainly insufficient, but I can't really imagine a good rationale for using non-free content in this way. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...one of the two images currently in use for the artist. It is important to show a small sample of his work to properly illustrate the artist's techniques/subjective take on the subject, etc. The image should be kept for the book, not the author. Since there is not an article on the book, this image shouldn't be in use outside it's author's page. — BQZip01 — talk 05:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

DSCN1946.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: Moved to Commons and deleted here. – Quadell (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSCN1946.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brianej (notify | contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

DSCN1948.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSCN1948.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brianej (notify | contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

DSCN1959.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: Moved to Commons and deleted here.

File:DSCN1959.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ALK (notify | contribs).
  • Orphan, bad name, no description, no idea where this is, so far as I can tell it was never used – Quadell (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied) Delete unless location can be determined, then move to Commons. It is a nice picture and would serve an encyclopedic purpose if used in the area's article. But if not, then delete. American Eagle (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Location added. I don't quite have the time to link to it though. --ALK (Talk) 16:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

DSCN1964.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: Moved to Commons and deleted here

File:DSCN1964.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ALK (notify | contribs).
  • Bad name, orphan, no description, never used, where is this? – Quadell (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless location can be determined, then move to Commons. It is a nice picture and would serve an encyclopedic purpose if used in the area's article. But if not, then delete. American Eagle (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've determined a general location of the area to Kolob Canyons of Zion National Park but cannot give details on what the photo is of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALK (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Aundrea and Aubrey - main.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aundrea and Aubrey - main.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flyer22 (notify | contribs).
There is nothing decorative about the image. It is clearly being used in a section in which discusses the past friendship between these two. It is an early television screenshot of their relationship...where they would often sit side by side. I suppose I could put in information about them often being side by side, but still...
I do not know why I am even bothering to argue it. Most images listed here are deleted without even taking the arguments against deletion into consideration. Flyer22 (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I suspect that you deleted a different image I had of these two in that section some time ago (I'm too lazy to make sure that that's the case). That picture...I also felt was fine in that section, since it showed these two making it through round one of the series together as the section discusses it.
I will continue to upload a picture of these two in that section. If you keep nominating those pictures for deletion, then oh well. I suppose I will keep trying to get them right "for your approval," since I do not feel too many other people would be opposing an image that is relevant to that section which discusses their friendship (a significant aspect of those two seasons of the series and what contributed to the formation of the band). Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-free image that does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. We don't need a picture to understand that two people sat near each other. Jay32183 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It is not simply about two people sitting near each other, as I explained above, nor is it about that in that section. It is also made clear within the image's caption how significant this friendship was to the band, which is sourced. As for it not significantly enhancing readers' understanding of the topic, that is an opinion. But like I stated, if this image is deleted (which it will be, because, hey, almost all images listed here are deleted), I will upload another one of these two and take a different approach there yet again. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image will still fail WP:NFCC#8. There's nothing in the image that can't be expressed by a free means. If the topic of discussion is the friendship and image isn't needed. Also note, at the bottom of WP:NFCC it says "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created." That means you have to show the image is necessary, not that we have to show it is unnecessary. You haven't shown that the image is necessary and I can't tell from the image why it would be. It's an image of two living people, what's wrong with a free image of each of them? Jay32183 (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are plenty of images that are not necessary on Wikipedia, but are still very much allowed here. From what I know of most images being allowed here, it is not about whether they are necessary. It is about whether they significantly add to the article or add to the article enough in correlation to the commentary that basically goes along with it. You say that there is nothing in the image that cannot be expressed by a free means. But I ask is there any other image within the article showing a clear and quick picture of these two, other than the lead image and album cover image below the Making the Band section where people have to click on them? No. (Though casual readers would not know who these two are by the lead image, which does not specify who is who.) Is there any other image displaying a tiny insight into the past friendship of these two? No. How do we know that the readers who are not familiar with this group or those two seasons of Making the Band can easily imagine the imagery of the past friendship between these two? Anything they imagine would not be exactly accurate. If you say that it would be close enough, I can see your point there.
        • In any case, in the past, I uploaded an image of these two competing to make the band together, which did significantly add to that section, since it is not as closely imagined unless the reader watched the show...and yet that was deleted. If I added something like that again, but with even more detail or critical commentary (or both) about how these two competed with and against each other but made it through together, would you feel that an image such as that would be sufficient enough to stay? Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's a huge point you are misunderstanding. There doesn't have to be another image. If text alone makes the point we cannot have a non-free image. In a case like this, it's a free image or no image. Two people competing with each other, or working together is understood without an image. There isn't a non-free image you can justify for the purpose you want. Jay32183 (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is not a huge point I am misunderstanding. There almost never has to be an image regarding most of the images used in articles on Wikipedia. Non-free images being added to Wikipedia is about what I stated above -- whether they significantly add to the article (as in for a reader's better understanding of the topic) or add to the article enough in correlation to the commentary that basically goes along with it. The text alone does not convey what it looked like when they were competing against each other. Images placed in like I am suggesting for a new image of these two together, when there is significant text about what the image is displaying and or critical commentary, is perfectly allowed. An example? The image I have of one of these two, Aubrey O'Day, in her article about her singing the song "At Last." While there is not a whole section about her singing that song. Her singing that song was a defining moment for her on that show and in Sean Combs taking further notice of her talent.
            • You say that in a case like this (the image of these two together), it's a free image or no image and that there isn't a non-free image I can justify for the purpose I want. Obviously, judging by what CIreland says below this, critical commentary is a big part of whether this image could stay or not. Which is what I have been stating on this matter. These two competing against each other and making it through two seasons of the show together is a significant part of this group's formation and initial popularity. And having critical commentary about that to go along with an image showing one of their defining competing moments together would be perfectly acceptable. I am not some newbie on Wikipedia who does not understand how images are used here. I have seen images used in the way I am describing time and time again in good or featured articles here at Wikipedia. I am not speaking about the way I currently have this image, but for you to say that there is no non-free image I can justifiably add to that section is what I very much disagree with. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • There isn't critical commentary on this image. This image is decorating a point in the article. The image doesn't significantly increase the reader's understanding, or even increase the reader's understanding at all. WP:NFCC#8 actually does not say "add to the article enough in correlation to the commentary that basically goes along with it." I have no idea where you got that idea from, but it simply isn't true. If the image doesn't significantly increase the reader's understanding, it does not meet the criteria. It also has to increase the reader's understanding in a way that can't be expressed freely. Knowing what that exact moment looked like doesn't matter because the image is two people sitting next to each other. We can just say they sat next to each other. Jay32183 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am off that image, as I clearly stated below earlier. You say that there is no critical commentary on this image. Well, fact is...there could have been. And now what? Another perfectly good image deleted. Pointing out the fact that WP:NFCC#8 does not say "add to the article enough in correlation to the commentary that basically goes along with it" is ridiculous, as if I did not already know that. I was stating what I have seen in my experience regarding decent, good, and featured articles on Wikipedia. But there you again with making the image about them simply sitting side by side. Even so, I had proposed an alternative. You stated that no non-free image can justifiably be added to that section, and I disagreed/disagree with you. Nice to know that you will delete even images that do significantly increase the reader's understanding, though, such as nominating for deletion the example image I used in this discussion. You can delete all the non-free images I upload and it would not stop me from uploading more in ways that I feel are perfectly justified. Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You do know that repeatedly uploading replaceable non-free content is grounds for blocking, right? The problem with going by your experience, rather than WP:NFCC, is that there are a lot of images that should be deleted but get overlooked. Jay32183 (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You do know that threatening is grounds for reporting, right? Repeatedly uploading replaceable non-free content is only grounds for blocking when it is being done in bad-faith or without following the rules. I follow the rules here. I also happen to know that such opinions you have about the Aubrey O'Day image where she sings "At Last" is merely your opinion, especially considering that different editors at Wikipedia have disagreed about when WP:NFCC applies and when it does not. There is no problem with going by my experience....because it is not a matter of images getting overlooked. Rarely ever do images get overlooked in good and featured article nominations here at Wikipedia.
                    • But, yeah, I love it when editors try to intimidate good-faith editors such as myself (sarcasm). Flyer22 (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You aren't following the rules, you're making them up. You added information to a rule that isn't actually there to make your argument and try to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I haven't threatened you, but saying in a deletion discussion that you'll re-add material after it's deleted is not good faith editing. Jay32183 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I do follow the rules here (in general, anyway), and am not making anything up. I did not add information to the rule. I stated my thoughts. Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say that I would re-add deleted material, now did I? I said that I would keep trying to add an image (not that specific image) in a way that most editors would not see as a problem. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current use has no critical commentary and is purely decorative and all conceivable uses are replaceable with text. CIreland (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I disagree that the image is purely decorative. That was not my intention at all in adding it, nor do I see it that way. There is commentary, or rather noting of their dancing and impact of their friendship on the group, even though not critical commentary. But I am now over this image. I am about to remove it from this article and try again with another image, as I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Image is not in use & therefore fails WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — talk 05:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

DSCN2352.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSCN2352.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deborahcox (notify | contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Alanlandflag.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alanlandflag.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alanhidalgo (notify | contribs).
  • Flag of a nonnotable micronation which has, itself, been speedy deleted. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Should this "nation" ever achieve notability, we can undelete it. — BQZip01 — talk 05:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Duke_G.I._Joe.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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duke_G.I._Joe.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Comics Man (notify | contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_12&oldid=1138516597"