Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 24

< February 23	February 25 >

February 24

File:Confederate Monument of Bardstown closer.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned local copy of Commons file. Kelly ^hi! 01:19, 24 February 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:Noseoutframe.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep Skier Dude (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we need an image like this in the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. One could say it makes the no-plane theory look kind of stupid for trying to find anything in such a grainy image or that it gives it a greater appearance of credibility than it deserves by expecting readers to do that. I think what I can say is that this picture pretty much only succeeds in confusing people who bother to notice that it is not just an image of the towers. Not sure why a theory so soundly rejected by most 9/11 conspiracy theorists and discussed only flippantly in mainstream media justifies a rather unhelpful grainy image like this being included in any article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As much as I despise 9/11 conspiracy theories (and no, "the official story" is not a conspiracy theory), the image serves as a visual aid on how the self-proclaimed "experts" use and misuse images to manipulate their followers into believing their theories. ----DanTD (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep the image as it may be usefull in some future article. However, it should definitely be deleted from the article. It is not notable as it presents a view supported by only a handful of people (if that many) and it would also be confusing to those unfamiliar with 911 conspiracy theories as the section does not explain it. Undue may also apply as it's use seems to promote a more widespread acceptance of the theory than is actually the case. It could really be deleted for aethetic reasons alone...it is too large for the section. Wayne (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted from that article, it would become orphaned and thus be deleted after 7 days, so your comment is contradicting itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 29 February 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:Dooh-Dah, 1979.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; The keep !votes have not demonstrated why the image complies with WP:NFCC, criteria #1 and #8 to be specific. Also, please note that there is no precedent for "[cutting] a bit of slack" for Creative Commons files licensed with NC/ND restrictions. Non-free is non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of an ongoing event Doo Dah Parade. Could be replaced with a free image - for instance, see this photoset on Flickr. Kelly ^hi! 03:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The image claims fair-use, and displays an original Doo Dah Parade. The ones at the photoset are too contemporary. ----DanTD (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't contain any commentary on this particular image, or any point that would require this image for a reader to understand the topic. Kelly ^hi! 21:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The 1979 Doo Dah Parade in Pasadena, California. The Synchronized Briefcase Drill Team, with 16 men & women in three-piece suits performing precision routines, such as "Present Attache´s" here."

Is that enough of a comment for you? ----DanTD (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, why is that needed for a reader to understand the concept of "Doo-Dah Parade" in a way that a 2011 image couldn't? Kelly ^hi! 04:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the level of extravagance for each float or exhibition of a 2011 parade, compared to that of those in 1979 has something to do with it. The article does mention the synchronized briefcase drill team from '79, and the image shows that very exhibit. Plus the image has historical context that would make it useful. I hope you understand that I'm not trying to diminish the contemporary images you're suggesting we use as replacements. ----DanTD (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Replaceable by other images from any Doo Dah Parade, for example the ones on Flickr mentioned above. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per Dan TD. I agree that adding historical context helps our readers understand the "Dooh-Dah" phenomenon. We've also traditionally cut a bit of slack for fair-use images licensed as CC-NC, as this one is. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:12, 4 March 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:Camb Police Bldg.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this building still exists (if not I will withdraw this nomination) even if no longer the police headquarters, and could be replaced with a free photo. Kelly ^hi! 03:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One cannot easily get a photo of that building because it is only a two-lane street wide. Not able to back up enough to get a good photo like this. Furthermore this optimal vantage-point used here is atop an AT&T building across the street and it is unlikely anybody will be able to get rooftop access to make such a photo. I contacted the City Manager's Office to get permission for this photo. They forwarded a copy of that permission to Wikipedia's email (the one listed for such permissions) and CC'd myself. If WP needs another copy I can re-forward it. CaribDigita (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of permission did you get? Unless the permission allows use under a licence considered as free, it should be deleted since it is replaceable. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Quote)To: [email protected] , Monday, December 7, 2009 11:54 AM --

Greetings, the City of Cambridge was contacted by (CARIBDIGITA) who volunteers to help expand informational articles on Wikipedia. (CARIBDIGITA) contacted us to obtain formal permission to use a photo taken by me of the Cambridge Police Dept. You have our permission to use this photo as a reference for informational purposes related to the Cambridge Police Department. If it is possible to add this credit: Photo courtesy of the City of Cambridge, great. If not, that is still ok to use the photo that appears in the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Police_Department_(Massachusetts)

Ini Tomeu Public Information Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Ph. 617-349-4339 / Fax 617-349-4199 itomeu cambridgema.gov (end quote)

I see that you sent this to OTRS, so I have tagged the image with {{OTRS pending}}. Always tag images with {{OTRS pending}} if you send something to OTRS since files otherwise may risk being deleted. That said, I suspect that the permission is not enough in this case. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the above was the text sent to OTRS, I don't believe it will constitute a free license for Wikipedia purposes - "You have our permission to use this photo as a reference for informational purposes related to the Cambridge Police Department" seems to imply a noncommercial license. They will have have to consent to a specific license, such as public domain, GFDL, or cc-by. Kelly ^hi! 23:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that's what it had to be tagged with. What about "Fair Use"?

P.S. What plausible reason though would a commercial entity (company) need a photo of the police department of Cambridge? If they needed one that bad couldn't they afford to pay AT&T for the access to its rooftop to take their own photo. Or to open the gate of the closed access parking lot in front? CaribDigita (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFC#UUI §1: non-free pictures of buildings still standing are generally not allowed. The policy is that images should be free for anyone to use regardless of whether anyone would have any use for them or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)" CaribDigita (talk) 04:40, 4 March 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:Fort Worth, Texas population over time.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned population graph. Kelly ^hi! 03:41, 24 February 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:Your King and Country Need You.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, can't be moved to Commons. Kelly ^hi! 06:51, 24 February 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:U.S. Secretary of State Hamilton Fish Brady .jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned version of File:Hamilton Fish Brady Edited.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 07:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd suggest moving it to the commons, if a version didn't already exist there. ----DanTD (talk) 18:19, 24 February 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:Briansadecki.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user photo, I assume. Stefan2 (talk) 12:30, 24 February 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:BSorg.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brandon Michael Sorg was deleted as A1. Thus, the photo looks unnecessary. Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 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:Questionmark copyright proposition.svg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image is a near duplicate of Commons image: File:Questionmark copyright.svg. In the original upload description summary the uploader says this was a temporary upload. I believe that we do not need this anymore. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:14, 24 February 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:Queensfroshweek.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image has no description, and therefore potential use is unknown. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:15, 24 February 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:Questshoes.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality orphaned image has no encyclopedic value and is most likely a personal image -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:19, 24 February 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:Quinnanya.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned personal photo -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:26, 24 February 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:Qutaibah.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, low resolution orphaned image has no good purpose -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:29, 24 February 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:Quote.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image can be replaced by plain text -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This image is no longer an orphan and is preferable to plain text because the wall-mounting demonstrates that the quotation has been granted recognition. Neelix (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whatever the case, the filename is horrid. It needs to be renamed if kept (and there should be no redirect... the current name should be salted as overly generic) 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:59, 25 February 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:Quote to be Moved up, Draft Seven.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image can be replaced by plain text -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:32, 24 February 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:R IRISH TRF.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned Image is supposed to be the Tactical Recognition Flash, but the true one is here: File:RIRISH TRF small.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:35, 24 February 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:R GIB TRF.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image can be replaced by commons file: File:Royal Gibraltar Regiment TRF.gif -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:36, 24 February 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:R ANGLIAN TRF.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image is better replaced by File:3trf.GIF -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:37, 24 February 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:R&WComet.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality Orphaned image is so blurry that it has no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:37, 24 February 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:R-985.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality orphaned image. Replaceable by multiple images on Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Junior -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:41, 24 February 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:R-941766-1175426782.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image has no encyclopedic value. May be copyvio of [http://www.discogs.com/image/R-941766-1175426782.jpeg this]. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:43, 24 February 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:R-Di3.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image may be copyvio as it is a sticker sheet insert from an album. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:44, 24 February 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:R0xKgEbyKefDeQsCknV7o0VrEa1B.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality Orphaned image is easily replaced by better quality images -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:56, 24 February 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:R160B Barcode.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality orphaned image has no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons - This barcode is for the R160 (New York City Subway car), and is relevant to that topic. ----DanTD (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it relevant to that topic? I could scan a barcode of a milk package or a newspaper barcode, but those scans wouldn't be very useful, would they? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you check the title, and the history of that uploader, it's obvious that's what it is. And yes, you could scan a bar code from a milk carton or newspaper, and if you describe it as being from a milk carton or newspaper, it could be useful. ----DanTD (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I just did it. It's now in the commons, so you can dump the original if you like. ----DanTD (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so let's see what Commons thinks of it: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:R160B Barcode.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 29 February 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:R4ds123.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality personal image has no good use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:10, 24 February 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:R4dsbrainage123.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality orphaned image has no use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:13, 24 February 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:5 Sen (Obverse).png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free images in the article Malaysian ringgit. Besides, the coin is already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg which appear in the article's infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coin that already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg are to small and we can't see it. — иz нίpнόp 08:24, 1 March 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:5 Sen (Reverse).png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free images in the article Malaysian ringgit. Besides, the coin is already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg which appear in the article's infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coin that already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg are to small and we can't see it. — иz нίpнόp 08:24, 1 March 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:50 Sen (Obverse).png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free images in the article Malaysian ringgit. Besides, the coin is already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg which appear in the article's infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coin that already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg are to small and we can't see it. — иz нίpнόp 08:24, 1 March 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:10 Sen (Obverse).png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free images in the article Malaysian ringgit. Besides, the coin is already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg which appear in the article's infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coin that already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg are to small and we can't see it. — иz нίpнόp 08:24, 1 March 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:10 Sen (Reverse).png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free images in the article Malaysian ringgit. Besides, the coin is already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg which appear in the article's infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coin that already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg are to small and we can't see it. — иz нίpнόp 08:24, 1 March 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:20 Sen (Obverse).png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free images in the article Malaysian ringgit. Besides, the coin is already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg which appear in the article's infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coin that already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg are to small and we can't see it. — иz нίpнόp 08:24, 1 March 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:20 Sen (Reverse).png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free images in the article Malaysian ringgit. Besides, the coin is already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg which appear in the article's infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coin that already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg are to small and we can't see it. — иz нίpнόp 08:24, 1 March 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:50 Sen (Reverse).png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free images in the article Malaysian ringgit. Besides, the coin is already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg which appear in the article's infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coin that already displayed in File:New Malaysian Currency Design.jpg are to small and we can't see it. — иz нίpнόp 08:24, 1 March 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:WetmoreMS01.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WetmoreMS01.jpg; deletion discussion should happen there Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:20, 24 February 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:Florachan9.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be lifted from net, no exif data, file size and the image appears to be professional in nature, initial image uploaded with this name by the same uploader was a collage of magazine scans from what appears to be a fan site, the uploader is also a dormant single use account with a previous history of unfree uploads.--KTo288 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that there are four different photos in the history (counting the collage as three). One of them also appears here, indicating copyvio. The collage has not sourced the individual photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 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.