Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 November 19

< November 18	November 20 >

November 19[edit]

File:IKB 191.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The license states that this artwork is "ineligible for copyright" because it has "no original authorship". As a work of fine art, I believe despite its simple nature, IKB 191 meets the threshold of originality due to the choice of medium etc, and thus is eligible for copyright. The work of art is still copyrighted in the EU and the US, as 70 years have not passed since the author's death. Xijky (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant commentary here (PDF). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, even if it were agreed that it the painting is copyrighted, the solution would not be to delete it, but rather to add NFUR for any articles for which it is eligible under the NFCC and remove it from those articles for which it is not. It is currently the only image depicting this body of work in Yves Klein, and so is at a minimum integral to that article.
On the copyrightability issue, it's a blue rectangle. That's it. Classifying it as "fine art" does not change its place in copyright law, and I don't see what "choice of medium" (it's a painting; that's its medium) has to do with originality here, so you'll have to do better than that at explaining why you think it passes the threshold of originality. It's possible that as a physical object there is more to it in person, but as embodied in this image, it is just an uncopyrightable blue rectangle. postdlf (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this was just a uniform blue rectangle, I would agree with you: it would be ineligible for copyright just as the old flag of Libya was. However, the artwork can meet the threshold of originality because of the choices of the artist in applying the paint. The artwork does not have a uniform texture, and there are subtle differences in colour across the painting (upper left corner slightly darker, for instance), and thus to me would meet the threshold of originality. An object like this would not be equivalent to a machine-produced all blue canvas. I agree with you that the image could be used under fair dealing provisions in the article on the artist. --Xijky (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of those "subtle differences" are conveyed by this low res image, however, which would mean that, even giving your view the benefit of the doubt, the image does not copy anything that is copyrightable. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of our photograph is irrelevant as to whether the artwork is copyrightable. --Xijky (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But whether the artwork is copyrightable is irrelevant to whether our photograph is so low quality that it doesn't actually copy anything of that work that is copyrightable. If I take a photograph of an open book that is so blurry that the text is illegible, my photograph does not infringe on the author's copyright. More on point, a photograph of, for example, one of Jasper Johns' flag paintings that is so low res that the heavily collaged surface is not legible, such that the photograph looks just like an ordinary American Flag image, would not infringe on that painting either. Or if I took a photograph of Guernica that was so zoomed in on a particular spot that all it depicted was a uniform black rectangle, that photograph also would not infringe on the painting. postdlf (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the first case, the text of the book would be a de minimis exception. In the case of taking a photograph of one of Johns' flag paintings, the resolution would have to be so low that it was indeed indistinguishable from a normal US flag. In this case, the artwork is clearly identifiable as IKB 191, by the shape of the canvas, texture and colour of the paint, all of which can be discerned from the image (see top left corner at full resolution for a copyrightable use of slightly darker paint). If I make a bad reproduction of an art-work, it is infringing as long as the artwork is identifiable from it. --Xijky (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that as contrary to copyright law. Can you support that assertion? postdlf (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under §106 of the US Copyright Law, the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords. There is no stated qualification concerning the quality of reproductions. --Xijky (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to. The issue is what constitutes a "reproduction" or "copy" within the meaning of U.S. copyright law. I think in this case also it might also be properly analyzed as a de minimis use, if the legibility of the image is so low that nothing copyrightable is visible, it certainly doesn't make much "use" of the original work. You claim that the texture or subtle variations in color (i.e., surface details) are copyrightable; clearly noting else about the painting is, such as its rectangular shape or its color. If those (I will assume for now copyrightable) surface details are not legible in a photograph, then the photograph is not a "copy" within the meaning of copyright law any more than the hypothetical blurred out photograph of an open book would be. The copy must incorporate copyrightable elements of the original work for it to be a "copy" and thus infringing. So keep. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that there is still something copyrightable visible, namely the painting. Surely you would agree that there is something categorically different between this work of art and, say, File:BE-airforce OR-1.gif. If the painting was simply a uniform colour field, it would be ineligible for copyright. But the texture and composition, which are visible even on the rather poor medium resolution image uploaded, are copyrightable as artistic expression. Per § 101, ‘‘Copies’’ are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. If the image we are discussing is not a copy of the artistic work IKB 191, what is it ? And why are we using it to illustrate IKB 191 ? --Xijky (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you're not getting it, and selectively quoting statutory text is only going to confuse you further, because the answers are not evident there, at least not without some understanding of case law if not simply Wikipedia policy. Your last comment is equivocating two separate things, so I will separate them out.

First, if a photograph of a copyrighted work doesn't reproduce any copyrightable elements of that work, then it's not a "copy" such that it could constitute infringement if fair use did not apply. It isn't enough just to "reproduce" or "copy." "The [copyright infringement] plaintiff must show that the defendant copied protectible — that is, copyrightable — expression." Cohen, J., et al. (2002) Copyright in a Global Information Economy, pp. 353-54. You're failing here by viewing the "work" as an indivisible thing, but in any case of a copyrighted work, there are aspects of it that are copyrightable and aspects that aren't. Id., p. 65. ("copyright protection does not attach to every element of a work."). In this case, the painting's shape obviously is not copyrightable even though that is part of the work, nor are its dimensions, nor is its color of blue because you can't copyright a color. So even assuming the painting is copyrightable, if a photograph of it does not actually copy copyrightable elements then it is not a non-free "copy" within the meaning of copyright law, even though it is still literally a photograph of the painting. As for whether such a photograph is informationally valuable to the article, that's really a matter for editors to decide: is it enough to show the painting's color and dimensions, if finer details of it are not legible? The Yves Klein article currently describes the IKB paintings as "uniformly coloured" (contra your descriptions above), though with varying surface textures because of the differing methods of applying paint. Not really a lot to hang your hat on.

Second, you also claim that those copyrightable elements are visible in the painting, but I disagree. If you did not know that a painting was the origin of that blue rectangle, I doubt you or anyone else would claim that it was copyrightable. And that's what we care about on Wikipedia: is the image we are using copyrightable, which as I explained in point one is a separate question from whether the subject of the image is copyrightable (and obviously if the photograph is not copyrightable, it did not copy anything copyrightable from the painting).

So let's get some other opinions on whether File:IKB 191.jpg is copyrightable. postdlf (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I seem to have misunderstood some aspects of US copyright law. I'm still pretty adamant that there are copyrightable elements in terms of colour variations etc, but my understanding was that any image of a copyright work which doesn't fall under de minimis was considered a copy of the work, which I now see to be false. --Xijky (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Australians-fanatic-anzacday-2007.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user's uploads are all random low-res images (at least one historic, at least one verified copyvio, and many images previously deleted at PUI) tagged as PD-self or GFDL-self but without any stated source. varying small resolutions, no metadata, some have borders. this one, with the crease in the middle, looks like a photo in the book. one of his uploads at commons is credited to two other people. my guess is that these are just random pics from around the internet Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Also nominating the following images:[reply]

File:Arkadasisraelturkey.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Arkadasassc.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Ataturkisrlarkds.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Ishak Haleva.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Kasbeach.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Ortakoy-Etz-Ahayim-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Or-A-Hayim-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Kuzguncuk-BetYaakov-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Izmir-Signora-Giveret-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Izmir-Rosh-Ha-Ar-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Izmir-Algazi-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Heybeliada-BetYaakov-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Hesed-Le-Avraam-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Haydarpasha-Hemdat-Israel-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Goztepe-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Edirne-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Burgaz-synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Ashkenazi-Synagogue-ist-tr.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Antakya-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Ankara-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Ahrida-ohrid-synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Adana-Synagogue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Akdamar-church-van-lake.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Hagiasophia.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:StAnthonysRomanCatholicChurch-taksim-ist.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

It's very likely that File:Australians-fanatic-anzacday-2007.jpg was copied from this website. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, most don't seem particularly useful notwithstanding the copyright issues. --Xijky (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all no question that these are of dubious origin in the sense that they are clearly not the work of the person who uploaded them. A detailed duck test results of which require a good dose of beans to the result reviels most key factors one looks for in such situations. A good snow fall wouldnt be inappropriate Gnan garra 13:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering that the editor who uploaded them is a Jewish man with dual Australian and Turkish citizenship, the images could easily be scanned snapshots. I see no concrete evidence presented that any of these images are copyvios, the editor is usually given the benefit of the doubt in such cases. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - See below for a further response. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elipongo. "Low resolution" of quality is absolutely not a reason to remove such images that are very enlightening. No one is obliged to use them and they can remain in the archive with no harm per WP:NOTPAPER. By the way, there is also no justification to lump them all together. If only one or a few are problematic then nominate those, otherwise leave the rest alone if they are free and unencumbered by copyright vios. IZAK (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing to delete because they are low resolution. I agree that low-res images can be useful. I'm nominating because generally when you see a user who has a ton of low-res images with no metadata, that is an indication that the low-resolution photos are taken from somewhere else, particularly if they are low-res but relatively professional-looking. (other webpages don't tend to host high-res images, so almost all copyvios are low-res, and--conversely--many low-res images are copyvios.) This user has had many images deleted as likely unfree, and at least one deleted as a confirmed copyright violation from BBC.com that he tagged as "own work". Among these photos is also a historical image tagged "own work". Also, how do you explain all the photos with apparent creases in the middle, along with an overexposed strip? those look like a book that is laid open, and there is a strip of bright light where the page bends. The images are of varied photo quality, and the varied processing makes it look like the synagogue photos with a yellowish tinge may all come from one source (a book with photos that are generally on the warm side, in color terms) while the others come from elsewhere, probably around the internet. My point is that we cannot trust this uploader's photos as a general matter, even if he could have plausibly taken one or more of these, because there is a non-trivial (probably more likely than not) chance that any given upload is a copyvio. I know that he is an Australian/Turkish man, but that also could just indicate his areas of editing interest as opposed to where he has personally visited with his own camera. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. There is a documented case of a copyright violation (the BBC image), and there are too many reasons to suspect more such violations. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tradians001.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader gives no reason for us to believe this is encyclopedic. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BahamianPotcake.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned doggie pic - no target article or encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Potcake dog. It's a clear picture so it's not without informational value. Just transfer it to Commons, where it can be dumped in Commons:Category:Potcake dog. postdlf (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - potentially useful file. --Xijky (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Karin.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned user image; no add'l encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Something single.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a declined disputed fair use, which I in turn am turning to FFD (I am neutral; this is procedural). I declined it because I could not immediately verify the statement given by the disputer, User:Uniplex. His reasoning was: Fails WP:NFCC#8, as "not the primary means of visual identification: the work had no cover art; this image is of an obscure reissue." Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of sources considered reliable as far as cover art is concerned: [1], [2]. Also: not issued in a picture sleeve. "Something"/"Come Together," went by without a PS. Uniplex (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scrabble-na-logo.svg[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; none of the keep !votes adequately refute the nominator's position and explain why the logo is in line with WP:NFCC, and WP:NFCC#8 in particular. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture fails the non-free content criteria, as the article in which this picture is used as about the general concept of the game scrabble and not the product produced by Hasbro, Inc. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 03:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the articles is about the game Scrabble, it covers the history/origins the game the logo(s) are appropriately used in accordance with WP:NFCC. There is no separation between the game and the "concept" of the game, unlike poker or naughts and crosses Gnan garra 13:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as Gnan. The article is completely about the game produced by Hasbro, considering Scrabble is their trademark and their game. The image meets the requirements set forth by [[WP:NFCC]. $The Haz talk$ 19:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scrabble United States.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdraw nomination. (NAC Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 13:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture fails the non-free content criteria, as the article in which this picture is used as about the general concept of the game scrabble and not the product produced by Hasbro, Inc. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 03:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, this image is clearly {{PD-textlogo}} material. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles is about the game Scrabble, it covers the history/origins the game the logo(s) are appropriately used in accordance with WP:NFCC. There is no separation between the game and the "concept" of the game, unlike poker or naughts and crosses Gnan garra 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scrabble United Kingdom.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdraw nomination. (NAC Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 13:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture fails the non-free content criteria, as the article in which this picture is used as about the general concept of the game scrabble and not the product produced by Mattel, Inc. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 03:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, this image is clearly {{PD-textlogo}} material. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles is about the game Scrabble, it covers the history/origins the game the logo(s) are appropriately used in accordance with WP:NFCC. There is no separation between the game and the "concept" of the game, unlike poker or naughts and crosses Gnan garra 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NFCC. However, Sven, it's still a registered trademark, which supersedes PD-textlogo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazmat2 (talk • contribs)
- That's incorrect. That it's a trademark has nothing to do with whether it's in the public domain, and it also doesn't make it non-free for Wikipedia purposes, as NFC and NFCC are only concerned with copyright. That it's a trademark just means that in addition to the PD tag, we also tag it with Template:Trademark as a caveat to downstream users, just like Commons:Template:Personality rights may be tagged on free images of people, and either can be moved to Commons which only accepts free (as in copyright) images. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the image is in the public domain --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Interested2 Userpage Eye.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned user-space image; no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mensa-001.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, LQ, too small to be useful Skier Dude (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an earlier revision with more pixels. Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

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:Monkeynoze Cartoon.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned user-space image Skier Dude (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cumberland Sausage Show.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. Image was uploaded for article deleted at AFD (see discussion here). postdlf (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned user-created logo; no target article Skier Dude (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useless. --Xijky (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Talmadge Family Baptism 2a (2).jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR personal image, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - would be a useful illustration for an article on group baptism. --Xijky (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It dosen't look at all like a baptism, there's far too much splashing, and the microphone makes the whole thing out of place. The article on Baptism has a large number of submersion baptism and group baptism photos already, all of which are more... appropriate. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sven; I don't think this communicates any useful information about baptism (if not for the filename, who'd know that's what's going on?) or any other encyclopedic subject. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Degospectacular.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; uploaded for long-ago speedy deleted vanity page. postdlf (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned user image; no foreseen encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pkiddo.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned user image, no other encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WBHS Logo.svg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this is the official logo. Uploader claims own work, and the website for the channel is "coming soon". Fan-made logos are not acceptable. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is a wordmark. See File:Sony_logo.svg for example. It is the letters WBHS in Air Millhouse Italic. The website is coming soon because it's remade every year by students. PeRshGo (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of the website, we have absolutely no way of knowing if it's really the logo or not, especially since you're claiming own work. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turn on channel 19 or HD channel 902 in Comcast’s Van Buren Township Corp, 9502. If you think that’s unreasonable think of how many references are based upon books that are out of print and difficult to find. But it would be much easier to just assume good faith on the matter. PeRshGo (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hammerl2.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, insufficient permission (seems to be wikipedia-only) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hammock inside.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HammonsHouse.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, likely copyvio (in a blog entry here two years before upload date) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hammy Havoc.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamoudi.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hagness Jumping.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hahnaman Township Whiteside.PNG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Map highlighting Hahnaman Township, Whiteside County, Illinois.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hai-phong.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this scene is misidentified as hai phong theater. probably it's somewhere else in hai phong but probably best to delete because we don't really know what it is. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haidresser small.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value, no OTRS to verfiy that uploader is copyright holder Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haight-Ashbury 2.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photo of copyrighted mural, no freedom of panorama in the united states Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hail to the chief 076.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HaileVillageCenterFLSign.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, photo of copyrighted sign, no freedom of panorama in the united states Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hair and such 002.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Toy Singers) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hair-alchohal.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no source for data Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haiti FAVACA 082.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (unidentified site in haiti - not really useful) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hakama-wiki.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haiti Roundel.svg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, doesn't seem to be accurate based on what's in Military aircraft insignia Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hakham Avraam Kefeli2.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:30 Sentai.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much going on in such a small image. With a collage of thirty photos jammed into a 480x270 space, one is hard-pressed to actually be able to decipher anything meaningful out of it. Additionally, while the series are all listed near this picture, the picture is not necessary for the discussion, as the appearance of each team is not discussed (WP:NFCC#8). SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is an actual screengrab from a program which was focusing on the then 30th anniversary of the franchise. It acts to show that the 30 series are in some way similar where no free image (the freeness of a photograph used on another article is in question) is available.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you also address the point that you can't make out jack in the image? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. The nom is arguing NFCC#8, and looking at the page where it is used, I would tend to agree. For the image to satisfy #8, I'd expect the accompanying text to identify each of the 30 (top row, left to right, etc.), and to relate each subimage to something discussed in the text about that individual example. I'm not seeing that now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HAL HTT-40.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 F9 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, likely copyright violation Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Halabiye.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, no stated source, we have better images[3] Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jimihendrix1969mug.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 for lack of discussion in the article on the mugshots themselves. The fact that Hendrix was arrested for drugs, sure, that's important, but the mugshots are neither discussed in the article, nor themselves the subject of sourced commentary, nor otherwise significant to understanding that Hendrix was arrested for drugs. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a puzzling nomination. The subject's Canadian arrest and the disposition of his case is discussed at length in the article (an entire paragraph in the two paragraph section of the entry) and is fully sourced. The caption of this image identifies it as the mugshot from this specific arrest, and as mugshots are taken with every arrest anywhere, there is no need to state that separately in the article as well as that is a virtually universal given. The licensing template used also specifically relates to the use of mugshots in WP articles in exactly the way this one is used. As such this image and its use is both both appropriate and correctly applied and thus appears to clearly meet the requirements of WP:NFCC in general and WP:NFCC#8 in particular. Centpacrr (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the mugshot itself is notable, and it is not necessary to see the mugshot photos to understand the details of the arrest. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I and others have pointed out many times before, no image or illustration is ever "necessary" to "understand" what it illustrates. The purpose of this mugshot (and every other image or illustration on WP) is to serve as a visual adjunct to enhance and illustrate ("the employment of a graphic, photograph, drawing, picture, painting, or other artwork or rendering intended for enhancement, explanation, elucidation, and/or adornment") the article's context. If the standard actually were "need", "necessity", or "requirement" ("a thing that is demanded or obligatory"), then there would be no images at all on WP. Take for instance File:Forest_Glen_station_elevator_hall,_train_level.jpg: is it your contention that this image is "necessary", "required", "demanded", or "obligatiry" to understand that "there is a bank of six elevators that supply very fast access (at a rate of 17 feet (5.2 m) per second) between the station and the surface" of the Forest Glen WMATA Station? Really? No it isn't "needed", "necessary", or "required" to understand that anymore than this mugshot is to its context, but both do illustrate and enhance the understanding of the article. WP even has a template to license the use of "mugshots" which is displayed on the file's page making this image -- even if technically "non-free" -- appropriate, relevant, and acceptable under WP policy to serve as an "enhancement" to the user's understanding of the subject just as the elevator lobby image is to the Forest Glen station article. What a person looks like when arrested -- especially a well know public figure -- is notable and relevant to "understand" the details of the arrest, although like every other illustration on WP it is not really "necessary" as that is an unachievable and therefore false standard. "A picture is worth a thousand words" is not just an empty phrase. Centpacrr (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that File:Forest Glen station elevator hall, train level.jpg is free. This isn't, and therefore the rules are very different about their usage. What's your point? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you gave was "the mugshots are neither discussed in the article (they are as mugshots are an integral part of the arrest/booking process), nor themselves the subject of sourced commentary (ditto), nor otherwise significant (they are because he is a well known public figure) to understanding that Hendrix was arrested for drugs." That is purely your personal subjective editorial opinion and appears to be based on the false "standard" of "necessity" (as explained above) and apparently also not reading the article or the image's caption. The mugshot licensing template used here also makes clear that these images are acceptable for this type of use, i.e., to illustrate articles relating to the arrest of an individual.

Also am I to understand from your comment above that even if a "free" image such as File:Forest Glen station elevator hall, train level.jpg did not meet any of your criteria here (being discussed in an article, the subject of sourced commentary, significant to understanding the context, etc), it would nonetheless still be appropriate to be used on WP as an illustration even if it were not particularly relevant or even merely "decorative", but simply because it was "free"? So what's your point? Centpacrr (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been here for nearly two years. When an issue with this image was brought up long ago the concern that it was WP:UNDUE to have it in the article. That concern was addressed. NFCC#8 is really not the best argument to delete this mug shot from a law enforcement agency that, to my knowledge, is not selling this image for a profit. Doc talk 00:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does a profit motive have to do with contextual significance? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC #8 is satisfied. As Centpacrr has pointed out, the arrest is discussed in detail. The mug shot illustrates the arrest, therefore it is the subject of that commentary, which is sourced. The iconic image significantly aids in illustrating a historical event per this #8. Doc talk 05:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, and likewise contextual significance is not inherited, either, and the mugshot (distinct from the arrest) is not discussed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The taking of mugshots are an integral and universally mandated part of the arrest and booking process as practiced in Canada (where this occurred) and the United States, and thus their existence do not need to be separately stated in the text to be understood as having been done. Identifying them as such in the caption is more than adequate. Depending on the crime, such photographs may not be "notable" for the arrest of the average private citizen, but in the case of public figures such as entertainers (especially very widely know ones like Hendrix), politicians, professional athletes, public servants, etc, they most assuredly are notable for virtually any offense. (See, for instance, these TIME and Newsweek covers of O.J. Simpson here.) If the individual is notable, then so to are their mugshots. To consider them otherwise is ignoring the obvious. Centpacrr (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen the argument that an image like this needs separate discussion/sourcing to validate notability for the image itself. It's a mug shot: it speaks for itself. This deletion discussion is over, really: no consensus to delete. Doc talk 06:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the FU template: "It is unlikely that a freely-licensed image suitable for illustrating the section of the article describing the subject's arrest and incarceration will be found, owing to the nature of the section (unlikely that there are any freely-licensed images taken during this period). As such, the photograph can be reasonably described as "irreplacable". The image certainly illustrates the arrest better than any other image possibly could, and it's from a properly credited police agency. Doc talk 07:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fully satisfies NFCC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Readers do not have to see a photo of this mugshot to understand that he was arrested, regardless of the importance of the arrest. There is nothing notable about his appearance in this mugshot. Fails WP:NFCC8. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment reflects the writer's personal editorial judgment which is fine, but that is not the same as WP policy. See my comment above about the fallacy of a standard of the "need" or "requirement" for illustrations to be able to "understand" the context in order to permit their use. Centpacrr (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand the idea that non-free content and free content operate under very different rules, right? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comes under "fair use". Centpacrr (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you also understand the difference between what the legal standard of fair use is and the stricter non-free content policies of the English Wikipedia, right? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon doing a good bit of reading on the issue over the past hour is seems that any claim of copyrightability of booking photographs (or "mugshots") which are legally required public safety records is extremely dubious. To-wit: "[W]hen the authors in question are legally obligated to perform their creative effort, the Patents and Copyright Clause does not authorize a copyright. This is exactly the situation that exists for the work product of public officials. As long as they are not acting ultra vires, they are performing public duties when collecting and as- sembling information. Even if some of their selection and arrangement would seem to qualify under the Feist originality test, the creative component of their selection and arrangement does not stem from the economic incentive provided by the copyright law because it is legally mandated and therefore fails to qualify under Feist. Whenever a public duty is the cause of the expression, the incentive justification under the copyrights and patent laws is absent, and any construction of the Copyright Act to protect such official work product would be unconstitutional." ("SOURCES OF RIGHTS TO ACCESS PUBLIC INFORMATION" by Henry H. Perritt, Jr., JD) A mug shot is a public record produced by the government, and thus cannot be copyrighted. Not all public records are "made public" or "publicly released" or "published" — for example, an investigator's notes or in some jurisdictions, drivers' license data — but no public record, published or not, can be copyrighted. All public records are non-copyrightable and are automatically in the public domain. Even if it were "non-free", however, I completely disagree with your conclusion that the Hendrix mugshots "are neither discussed in the article, nor themselves the subject of sourced commentary, nor otherwise significant to understanding that Hendrix was arrested for drugs." For that reason I believe that the images comply with WP:NFCC#8 as well as with WP:NFCC in toto. Centpacrr (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You oversimplify the copyright situation for works of various governmental entities, and in your oversimplification you have painted with too broad of a brush and made mistakes. I feel no need to engage you on this further, because I am convinced that you don't understand, and won't listen to me if I try to explain it to you because you just plain do not like me, and so why bother. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason unknown to me whenever another editor disagrees with you, your ultimate response is to raise the canard that it must be for some "personal" reason. And again it most assuredly it is not. As before, this is instead just a fundamental difference in philosophy as to what constitutes "fair use" as it applies to WP and how to properly interpret and apply the project's various policies and guidelines. You are, of course, free to disagree with me on that which is the nature of the discussions in here. The ultimate judgment, however, will be made by the consensus of the community with which I will be happy to abide as I hope you will as well. Centpacrr (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a photograph which illustrates and aids in understanding the text regarding an arrest. Which other fair use photo on Wikipedia demands that the actual conditions of taking the photo be discussed in the article to adhere to WP:NFCC, as the nominator vigorously states? "The fact that Hendrix was arrested for drugs, sure, that's important" -nominator's own words, -we have a fair use photo which illustrates that fact, it should be kept in the article.50.98.197.160 (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm just as much a Hendrix fan as most of the other people here, but that we like the picture, or the person in the picture, dosen't trump the policy. Non-free mugshots are allowed when there aren't free images of the person, or if the mugshot itself is iconic. The first can't be argued, there are free images of him, and the second hasn't been argued convincingly (I would personally need to see reliable third party sources on the matter). Sven Manguard Wha? 08:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free mugshots are not only allowed when there aren't free images of the person, or if the mugshot itself is iconic. Where is the precedent for this? Are we going to revisit The Doors article again? Or the GA-rated Ted Bundy? I sincerely hope not. Doc talk 08:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has claimed that this has anything whatever to do with whether or not one is a "fan" of the subject being arrested, or if her or she is "popular" or not. That is just an empty strawman argument. It has to do, instead, with the fact that a notable public figure was arrested and a "mugshot" is an integral and noteworthy part of that process. There are no other "free" images that reflect the arrest of this individual which is what this image illustrates. An image of that person in any other circumstance fails to accomplish that end. As the arrest of a well known public figure is acknowledged to be notable, then so to is how he or she appears at the time of that arrest. Using a picture taken as some other unrelated time is not only irrelevant to illustrating that event, it is just plain misleading as well. Centpacrr (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is, admittedly, a close call, and a lot of the arguments above for keeping are flawed, but I've carefully read the license, and it seems to me to rest upon whether or not the text accompanying the image covers the "booking process". I've looked at what the page says, and (while, again, I accept that it's a close call) I think that is what that section of the page is about, in part. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the "booking process" is not something that is separate and apart from an "arrest", but is instead an integral and inseparable part thereof. An arrest is not considered to be completed until the perp is also booked, printed, and mugshots taken. Unless and until all of these parts of the process are completed, the subject has not actually been "arrested" but only just "detained" which is an all together different thing. Thus when an individual is said to have been "arrested" that term is understood to include all of these elements of the process without having to emumerate them separately. That being the case, this is not really a "close" call at all. Centpacrr (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haldanes.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, not good quality, unclear encyclopedic value, could easily be recreated if needed in the future Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hale Township Warren.PNG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Map highlighting Hale Township, Warren County, Illinois.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamilton Steelhawks.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photo of pucks with various copyrighted logos prominently on them Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haley Space Flight Award.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, photo of copyrighted statue Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Escudo de oaxaca de juarez.svg[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 Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

error uploading file nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 20:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Half-der.PNG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by SVG Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no objection. Reyk _YO! 00:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Halge MAth.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, insufficient description, appears to have something to do with Shri Gaudapadacharya Math but was not immediately added to an article after uploading Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion ? It is a picture of one of the branches of Shri Gaudapadacharya Math. If you feel it needs to be deleted, go ahead. since it is a ancient branch, makes sense to be on the main page of the Math. Ashok Prabhu (Talk)

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

File:Hall of fameBCC.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, not very good quality, unidentified speaker, unclear how this could ever be useful Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hallmovein.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value, web-resolution, no stated source apart from boilerplate Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamam peace.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamayun Butt.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamasattacks2009.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unverifiable source for data Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamed Okhravi.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HameringInMyHead SHHFsignature.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamidnikzad.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamilton 400.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality, doesn't thumbnail properly Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamilton Project.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, collage of six images, not clear that uploader took these photos Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HamiltonHighChandler4.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hammer icon lg.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo, either unencyclopedic or copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hammer.svg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hammer1-wikipedia.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hammer2-wikipedia.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hammered.png[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hampdenlights.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Speedy delete per creator's request, since a better quality image has replaced this one. Sebwite (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hampshire Comics.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value, possible copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamra air.PNG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamsterfamily.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hand Eye coordination.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, of no encyclopedic value, and possibly a copyright violation.

Tony (talk)

09:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Buffet band logo.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SoupDarkMatterTag.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR and LQ, absentee uploader (not active in over 3 years), unclear what the image is representing so usefulness to the encyclopedia is impossible to judge. Angr (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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