Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 March 5

< March 4	March 6 >

March 5

Sean_O'Mara.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 Howcheng (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sean_O'Mara.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Xonboy (notify | contribs).

Uploader tagged it as PD-self, but it's obviously not his own work (copyrighted publicity photo from the web) – Quadell ^(talk) 02:30, 5 March 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.

Ajithkumar.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ajithkumar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eelamstylez77 (notify | contribs).

Tagged as cc-by-sa, but the source does not support this. Replaceable if non-free. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What other tag should be applied to it? There is currently no other image on the subject.--Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also advert. watermark on image. Ejfetters (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this image can be deleted. I will upload another image, considering the watermark.

Please do not upload images unless you are the copyright holder. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:16, 9 March 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.

Josephvijay.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Josephvijay.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eelamstylez77 (notify | contribs).

non-free promotional image, falsely tagged as cc – Quadell ^(talk) 02:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What other tag should be applied to it? There is currently no other image on the subject.--Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyright unclear, and can be replaced with free use image. Ejfetters (talk) 08:46, 7 March 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.

Jayzblueprint3.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jayzblueprint3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mitchellandness1 (notify | contribs).

Unsourced, obviously not the official album cover for The Blueprint 3, checked on rocafella.com. Taylor Karras (talk) 04:06, 5 March 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.

(35)-PhSh.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:(35)-PhSh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pale blue dot (notify | contribs).

Orphan Magioladitis (talk) 06:21, 5 March 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.

Daniela-romo.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daniela-romo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chepetoño (notify | contribs).

non-free image used to illustrate a biographical article. Clearly a free image could be created and this one fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 06:26, 5 March 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.

LoveGame Lady GaGa (Music Vid).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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LoveGame Lady GaGa (Music Vid).JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Child Funk (notify | contribs).

non-free image from a video that shows nothing in particular. I cannot see how this image significantly adds to reader's understanding. No discussion of the image at all in the article and it is not necessary to illustrate the fact that a video was made. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 06:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peripitus, a video was made. It was released on iTunes. Purchase it and watch it. You'll see that scene in the image I have uploaded. It is for encyclopedic use only, nothing else therefore it does not deserve deletion! --Child Funk (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete':Image badly fails NFCC#8. The article is up for deletion itself. --Legolas ^(talktome) 08:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears purely decorative. Ejfetters (talk) 08:48, 7 March 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.

Tristan_Wilds.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tristan_Wilds.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Treyonna712 (notify | contribs).

creator uploads tons of suspicious photos, this one is obviously a magazine scan Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 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.

Julito_McCullum.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julito_McCullum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Treyonna712 (notify | contribs).

creator uploads tons of suspicious photos Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 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.

Maestro_Harrell.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maestro_Harrell.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Treyonna712 (notify | contribs).

creator uploads tons of suspicious photos Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 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.

Jermaine_Crawford.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jermaine_Crawford.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Treyonna712 (notify | contribs).

creator uploads tons of suspicious photos Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:49, 5 March 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.

Felicia_Pearson.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Felicia_Pearson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Treyonna712 (notify | contribs).

creator uploads tons of suspicious photos Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:49, 5 March 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.

MichelinManRunning.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. While Flapdragon clearly is passionate about this image, I cannot ignore the consensus that every other editor that commented wanted the image deleted. They seem to feel that a free image could reasonably be found for the purpose to show what the Michelin Man looks like, therefore this image would be a replaceable non-free image and fail WP:NFCC #1.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MichelinManRunning.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flapdragon (notify | contribs).

Replaceable. Michelin man was created in 1898. We should illustrate him with a pre-1923 public domain drawing. Damiens.rf 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disagree. Yes, he was invented over a century ago, and that's the point, he has evolved out of all recognition since then. 1898 M Man looks nothing like the present one. Part of the reason for this is the change in the nature of Michelin's business, which was mostly bicycle tyres when they started, but moved over to car tyres, which in the case of early cars looked a lot more like bicycle tyres (M Man was supposed to have been inspired by the sight of a pile of bicycle tyres) than the small, broad, squat shape of modern car tyres. Also he has been updated into an active, sporty figure totally unlike the original "Bibendum", who was a fat, jolly bon viveur. It would be great to add an image of the old M Man, if anyone can supply one (the image itself might be out of copyright but of course not the electronic versions of it you can find on the web) and ideally we could show his development right through to the present day, which sheds interesting light on the technological and social changes since his invention. This small, low-res image, which I scanned from a Michelin map of the early 1990s, is not even the current trade mark (he's now slimmer still) and I would say is an excellent case for fair use. Flapdragon (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current image's purpose is just to show Mr. Michelan. We can do that with an old image just as well. The article is not discussing the characteristics of the newer Michellan Man...--Damiens.rf 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In view of the fact the he's already represented in the image File:Michelin.svg, I agree with the nominator. If we are going to use an image to show what he did look like it should be a PD one. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. File:Michelin.svg is a picture of the whole logo (somehow that's permitted when a disused logo that no-one's using isn't -- go figure!) and is too small to show the man effectively. I say again, there is no such thing as a PD image of a recognisable Michelin Man -- *if* anyone can supply a vintage one old enough to be out of copyright, that would be great, but that's not how people picture him, because it was a long time ago. He is an important cultural symbol (as the article explains) and a picture of him is necessary. Imagine an article about Father Christmas with no picture. Flapdragon (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's still quite recognizable in these three ads from 1920. —An gr 14:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, you could just link to some blog with images that WP (and for all we know the blogger) have no rights over and that may disappear any day without warning -- or come to that you could just Google if you wanted to know about the Michelin Man and what he looked like. That's not really the point though, is it? Flapdragon (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this comparison if you don't believe the Michelin Man has changed much. As well as his belly he has lost his stockings, light leather sandals, plus-fours, pince-nez, starched cuffs complete with cufflinks, and (of course!) the omnipresent cigar. The gaps between the tyres serve him not only as pockets but as a mouth, giving him a characteristic and slightly sinister expression. More importantly he has had a completely personality transplant, from freewheeling flaneur to sporty spaceman with a goofy expression and moonboots. He's also rather innocent and childish-looking compared to the raffish original, arguably a case of neoteny where juvenile, lovable, unthreatening physical characteristics have an evolutionary advantage -- Bambi syndrome if you like. As well as being a sign of the times as I tried to explain above, this change shows a nice historical irony. Into an era when most consumers of tyres were working hard to pedal their bicycles along bad roads and lived in fear of punctures, Michelin Man's job was to make travel look so effortless and elegant it was like relaxing over a post-prandial cigar. Now, when we zoom along good roads in cars with no physical effort and punctures are rare, we want images of physical vigour and health and have a horror of obesity and smoking. I honestly can't see how this image fails to satisfy the four criteria apparently successfully employed to justify the logo image at the top of the article. Would it make any difference if the Michelin Man had his own article, which he probably should? Flapdragon (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to link to the blog. The images were published in the U.S. in 1920 are so are public domain. You could upload them to Commons. Since we can get free images of him, we don't need non-free ones. Your comparison of his old look and his new one is interesting, but if it's your own analysis we can't use it anyway. —An gr 21:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's shown in the images is out of copyright, but that doesn't mean you can just lift photos from someone else's website and upload them as public domain material!! -- surely you as an admin must know that, it's what I've been pointing out since the start of this discussion, and it's what it says at the bottom of every WP edit page. If you went to an art gallery and took a photo of a Rubens, and someone helped themselves to your picture to print in their book about Rubens on the assumption it must be in the public domain because, well, the picture was painted ages ago, would that seem fair? What we need is someone who has access to originals of this relatively scarce and collectable material and is willing to scan them and make images available. If you can find such a person that would be great but I'm not holding my breath. Or maybe you can persuade that blogger to release the rights, assuming s/he owns them.

But anyway that's neither here nor there, it doesn't negate what I was saying about the need to have a picture of the modern Michelin Man as well as his grandfather. The comparisons I was making are hardly original (as a quick Google would have shown), and even if they were and thus were ineligible for inclusion (yes indeed, NOR) I don't see how that would make it wrong to include more than one picture.

Let's focus on the criteria non-free images have to satisfy, and how this image compares with other famous old logos and trademarks such as (and I almost hate to name them in case I start some kind of deletionist frenzy) Nipper the HMV dog and the Pillsbury_Doughboy and so forth. Flapdragon (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can just lift them from someone's site. It's a photocopy of a PD 2D image, so it's automatically PD. It's not always ideal, but that's how US copyright works. An exact replication of something that is PD is still PD. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for a legal decision concerning this. Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional artworks in the public domain do not get new copyright protection of their own in the U.S. As an admin both here and at Commons, I am well aware that a large portion of the material we have that's PD because it was published in the U.S. before 1923 has indeed been "just lift[ed]... from someone else's website", and quite legally. —An gr 09:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're right about the public domain status of scans of old images (in which case I apologise), can we be sure that these are actually PD? What do we know about the provenance of these images, actually? The Michelin Man is well known to have been the creation of Curnonsky, who died in 1956, so presumably his work doesn't become PD until 2026. If you happen to know for a fact (how?) the images in question were made not by him but by some anonymous staff artist as part of his employment, perhaps you can consider them a work made for hire, in which case as I understand it they would come into the PD 95 years after their first publication, and even if we have some way of knowing for a fact they date from as early as 1920, we still have to wait till 2015. Or am I missing something?

But none of this is really relevant anyway in my submission since my first point stands: the image is necessary to the article, and fully justified under fair use. Why is that such a problem? It seems a shame to waste all this time arguing over one tiny low-res image of a disused logo twenty years old that does nothing to harm its owner's interests, when we could have spent the time doing something to improve this encyclopaedia rather than infinitesimally impoverishing it for essentially dogmatic reasons. And as for why the current logo at the top of the page is somehow more acceptable, when this one (MichelinManRunning.png) satisfies the fair-use criteria just as well or if anything better, I am still none the wiser. Flapdragon (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Angr for the link to that case. I note that relevance of that ruling to the UK is dubious and untested, and that in practice such images do still have copyright. The scans in question appear to be American, but doesn't WP as an international instituition have to make a reasonable effort to make sure that its content is legit in all countries? I mean, given how much time we've invested in wrangling over the question of destroying a tiny piece of content on a legal technicality when we could have been doing something constructive instead, we might as well get it right. ;-] Flapdragon (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WM servers are in Florida, so it really is mostly concerned with US copyright law. Commons seems to have a similar view, see Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Straw Poll. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is indeed replaceable with a free image. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable only in the sense that in a (hypothetical) article about cars a non-free picture of a Ford Prefect or Cortina could be replaced with a Model T because no free images were available of any later model. Or, imagine an article about Father Christmas which for technical reasons could only be illustrated by, say, St Nicholas or the green-cloaked pagan reveller from Dickens's A Christmas Carol, who certainly provides interesting historical depth but bears little resemblance to today's Santa Claus -- it would be perverse and misleading and would struggle to "identify its subject". If we took this to its logical conclusion we would turn vast swathes of WP into a text-only desert -- are we better off with Google images after all? (I'm using that more and more instead of WP now that non-free images are disappering.) I've done my best to explain why this image or one like it is necessary, and I note with disappointment I've been unable to obtain answers to my questions about why this image is ineligible under free use criteria (used for informational purposes only; logo of a company for which no equivalent free alternative exists or could be created without infringing on copyright; does not infringe upon the original copyright holder's ability to profit from the media; contributes significantly to the article in which it is used by identifying its subject), and about copyright expiry dates for the images suggested. That being the case, I don't see it would be legitimate to delete this image. Flapdragon (talk) 10:39, 9 March 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.

Blacknblue85.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blacknblue85.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Granpas hyena (notify | contribs).

This is a photoshopped image, uploaded by someone who is famous for uploading these types of image (I just had to fix one where someone's guitar had become a tub of mayonnaise) Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Actually it was a bottle of Metamucil but still. ViperSnake151 21:15, 6 March 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.

GreenMileComplete.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. Excessive fair use. Only one image is needed to idenify the book. The second image fails WP:NFCC#8. It is not significant to the understanding of the article. -Nv8200p talk 02:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GreenMileComplete.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jmj713 (notify | contribs).

DFU tag removed, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. This is a non-free book cover whose stated purpose is "to identify the book"; however, there is already a different image being used for that purpose in the article's infobox. This additional image is not discussed in the text, it adds nothing, and it does not increase readers' understanding of the article, in violation of WP:NFCC#8. —An gr 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my opposing thoughts at File_talk:GreenMileComplete.jpg. Jmj713 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 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.

Picture 6112.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture 6112.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shaljan (notify | contribs).

Unused and useless. Polar (talk) 18:56, 5 March 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.

Picture 032.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture 032.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justin65656 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image Polar (talk) 19:01, 5 March 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.

Kader.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kader.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shaljan (notify | contribs).

CV – The image is evidently scanned from a printed publication, and not a personal photo as the uploader suggests. Polar (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, CV. Ejfetters (talk) 08:52, 7 March 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.

Kader 2.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kader 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shaljan (notify | contribs).

CV – The image is evidently scanned from a printed publication, and not a personal photo as the uploader suggests. Polar (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, CV Ejfetters (talk) 08:52, 7 March 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.

Dennychin.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 Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dennychin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wl219 (notify | contribs).

Low quality (blurry), Obsolete by File:Denny Chin.jpg. howcheng {chat} 19:57, 5 March 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.

The Big Bang Pop Sculpture.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: keep.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Big Bang Pop Sculpture.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mvasquez (notify | contribs).

Derivative work of a copyrighted statue. Sandstein 21:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FOP in the UK applies to artwork permanently located in a public place, if this is in a British museum... ViperSnake151 21:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ViperSnake151, tagged with FOP tag. Ejfetters (talk) 08:54, 7 March 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.

Msilber.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. Happy‑melon 08:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Msilber.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Silberj (notify | contribs).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marianne Silber - Low quality image of a non-notable newsperson. Possibly a screen-cap, looks like a promotional image. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete apparent CV. Ejfetters (talk) 08:55, 7 March 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.