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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Box-model-bug.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Omegatron ( | contribs).

• Obsoleted by Image:W3C and Internet Explorer box models.png. Warren -talk- 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons shining through - Peripitus (Talk) 00:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DrRobertJarvik.gif‎ (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lawofcosines ( | contribs).

• Nonsense that has been used at least twice to vandalize Robert Jarvik. Ward3001 (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wctclogo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Josh290 ( | contribs).

• unused/orphaned image of "The logo of Woodham CTC". It also appears to have been vandalized with an image of a penis on July 29, 2007 and no one noticed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's an unused fair use image, though not tagged as fair use. It clearly is. I attempted to revert with moderate success. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I9 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KEKEPALMER.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MovieMan123 ( | contribs).

• Image can be found all over Google images and with the uploaders previous record it is doubtful they are the copyright holder Quentin X (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused and questionable rights per nominator. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 debate was: - Delete - No significant argument about how the image meets WP:NFCC#8 in significantly increasing reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 00:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jang2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KingKongIran ( | contribs).

• Non-free picture used for decoration. Damiens.rf 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is covered under fair use. The Scythian 18:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being covered under fair use is just the beginning of acceptability here. It has to jump through a LOT more hoops to be acceptable, and it achieves none of those hoops. The image isn't discussed in the article. It's not an historically important image, since it doesn't display any particular battle of relevance or importance. It's being used for decoration only. Image fails WP:NFCC #8 significance. Also fails #10a, as the source can not be verified. The link is dead, and doing a search of the first 360 images from [1] yields no matches. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The image actually does have historical value, as it rather clearly shows Iranian helicopter airlift usage in the conflict, so I would argue it at least "passes" that test. As for decoration, well, that is up to one's own opinion. The Scythian 23:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Helicopters are frequently used in combat. How is this image historically significant among the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of times that helicopters have been used in combat??? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It has to do with how they were used during the conflict, in relation to the resources available, at least on the Iranian side. It is of historical value in the sense that it actually SHOWS the Iranians keeping a rather complex and manufacturer unsupported aircraft both in operational condition, and in combat support use. If it showed an Iraqi helicopter in use, it would be if less value. From a military history standpoint, that is why it is of use. There is more to the photograph than just an image of a "helicopter in use". The Scythian 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Such use can be replaced by text. You do not need an image of a helicopter and soldiers to convey this. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well again, that is up to creative insight, and is thus very subjective. I am not debating the fair use rationale of this image, but it's visual use in the article has defiant historical meaning to the conflict. The photograph conveys meaning, and that meaning directly relates to the unique nuances of that war. Regulating such visual input from the article to simple text is an injustice, to say the least. Why on Earth must an entire element of combat and support be stifled to just textual stimuli? Why the limitation on your part? In fact, why even have images at all, by your logic? The Scythian 07:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We are a free encyclopedia. I have no problem with limited, historically significant fair use image use. However, this image is not historically significant in and of itself. It's not like a photo of the Hindenburg exploding. This is just a run of the mill, average every day image of a helicopter and troops. There's nothing about this image in particular that has been reported in secondary sources. This image is far, far from unique and is readily replaced by text. We do not use fair use image for visual stimuli. They are not to be used for decoration of an article. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You just offered no rebuttal to my comment on the significance of Iranian helicopter operations during the Iranian-Iraq War, and in fact just repeated what you said in your previous statement. On the contrary, this image is very unique, as it shows Iranian helicopter usage, which is somewhat rare to find. For you to say otherwise, seems to indicate a lack of knowledge of the conflict. Perhaps a better argument for you, would be to simply say the photograph is not "legally in use the article", and leave it at that. It would save us both a lot of time. The Scythian 19:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You've offered up no evidence that this particular scene is of historic significance except to say that it is because helicopters were used in the conflict. That's not good enough. The Iranian Air Force had 90 of these helicopters in service in that period. How is this helicopter's operation in the particular battle (unknown) being depicted of historical significance? Are you asserting this is the only Chinook that saw service in air cav type operations in the Iran Iraq war??? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 debate was: - Delete - while there may be sourced commentary in the future; the issues are that there is not now and per Wikipedia:Music_samples the quality of the recording is too high (173kbps rather than the Samples must be of reduced quality from the original. ... (roughly 64kbps).... With sourced commentary a lower quality version should be uploaded - Peripitus (Talk) 01:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Actoninstinct.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cabe6403 ( | contribs).

• Track is not discussed specifically (only mentioned in the tracklisting) and the musical style of the album is not discussed. As such, a track sample is not warranted. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is only new - it was created today - and thus incomplete. I believe the musical style of the album will be discussed, as it is already for other albums, and would argue as such that a sample may be of benefit. Were something akin to what has been written for Tiberian Sun to be added, would this make the sample more acceptable? Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I would be happy for a sample to be included alongside detailed sourced commentary. I'm sorry, I hadn't realised the article was so new. J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need to apologise, easy mistake to make and it's something best addressed sooner rather than later. I'll see if I've got time tonight to have a go at it. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per it gets included in a bit better context. Give the article time, try not to demolish a house while it's still being built. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Girls Aloud popstars 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Matcham of the Day ( | contribs).

• I don't really see why this image is needed. We have plenty of free images of Girls Aloud- maybe not this period of their career, but why is an image needed anyway? J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the article for Popstars: The Rivals a couple of days ago and wanted to put a picture of both One True Voice and Girls Aloud under the section Popstars The Rivals#Christmas Number One. Matcham of the Day (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agreeing with J Milburn on this one. This is a poor quality image, and is readily replaceable by free content image Image:Girls Aloud High Res Tangled Up Tour.jpg, just adding a caption that says something like "Girls Aloud in 2008". There's nothing specific about the image being discussed that makes it necessary to the content of the article. Deletable under WP:NFCC #1 and #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with Hammersoft here, when there's a far better image that could be used there's no need to keep this one. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I9 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC) This is a cropped section of an image that the user has uploaded numerous times in the past and has been deleted repeateadly. The image should be deleted. Thank you, Colombiano21 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 debate was: - Delete - no arguments about how the image meets WP:NFCC#8 in significantly increasing reader's understanding. Per Hammersoft the image itself is not discussed and the discussion below shows that it's use is decorative rather than being transformative of reader's experiences - Peripitus (Talk) 01:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ObamaYeswecan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dstern1 ( | contribs).

• Adds very little to the article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete used for decoration only. It's not even mentioned in the article. Fails WP:NFCC #8 at least. The fair use rationale is also exceptionally weak. "Purpose of use? Article about campaign" If that's all our fair use rationales required, we'd accept all fair use images. It's easy! Just say it's for an article! --Hammersoft (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The ciriticism seems to be focused around NFCC #8 - that the image is not significant enough to warrant its use. In an article about Obama's campaign, it seems reasonable to include the image of a campaign poster. Poster are a significant part of the campaign. Additionally, the poster shows a certain degree of populism in its style, which was characteristic of the Obama campaing. Thirdly, other than the logo at the top, it is the only image in the article of actual campaign media (other images are photos from rallies, etc...). In the section called "Media Campaign", at least some campaign media should be shown. Visuals are an important part of the campaign, and without this image, the article suffers. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 08:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Without this image the article suffers nothing but less decoration. The logo at the top is actually discussed in the article. This image is not. Find secondary or tertiary sources that discuss this image as somehow significant and it becomes encyclopedic. Otherwise, it isn't and fails WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Image clearly shows Yes We Can campaign slogan. <flrn> 13:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is discussed as a song in the article, not as a campaign poster. The poster isn't discussed in the article at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2008 (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.