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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halifax Exports Team Photo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DMighton ( | contribs).

• The non-free content rationale for using this image in 2002 Royal Bank Cup is "show identifiable image of champion team" but that article is not about this champion team but rather it concerns a competition. I cannot see that this image adds significantly to our readers' understanding of the 2002 Royal Bank Cup competition. For that reason I think that this non-free image does not meet WP:NFCC#8 in this context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Angus. ÷seresin 02:36, 16 January 2010 (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 discussion was: keep. The main concerns of those who believe it should be deleted is that it is not necessary to have this image as they can use another ship of the same design. However, there are many objections to this, and at least one editor has changed their opinion from one of delete to keep. Those who wish to keep largely outnumber those who wish to keep, with the main argument of those who wish to delete being that you cannot use an image of another ship to illustrate an article of this particular ship. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gdr ( | contribs).

• This was previously deleted as WP:CSD#F7 and remanded here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 30. The argument for deletion is that the image is replaceable, since the ship still exists (and we have a free picture of a substantially similar sister ship). The argument against is that the ship has been modified since the version covered in the relevant article, HMS Ambuscade (F172), as it is now owned by Pakistan. See the DRV linked above for more information. This is a neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 02:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the image is replaceable and that no valid rationale can be produced for use. It can certainly be replaced by a free image of a sister ship. Some claim that this is not acceptable as they are not the same ship but I do not agree. Other reference works [even specialist ones such as Janes Fighting Ships] use representative illustrations and rarely show every ship in a class. Then the image can almost certainly be replaced by a free image from United States Navy collections as it served during the Cold War when exercises with US ships were routine. Finally there are also sufficient free images of this type of vessel for an editor with the appropriate talents and tools to be able to create a line drawing, and again this is a form of illustration which can be found in other reference works. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The purpose of the image is to illustrate the article on HMS Ambuscade in Royal Navy service. The original deletion criteria was that the ship still existed so a free image was possible but that is not in fact true. The vessel was sold to the Pakistan Navy and has been extensively modified by that service. The Pakistan Navy uses a different colour scheme, the quadruple Exocet launcher in B position was removed, a Harpoon launcher replaces it, the Sea Cat launcher has been removed and the hangar modified to take a larger helicopter. It is not possible to replace the none free image with a free equivalent. A second problem with the Type 21 class is that all were slightly different, being individually built to a slightly different build standard. The argument of using any old image, especially an unrelated image, merely because there is a resemblance is specious. The article isn't about the type of ship, it's about the ship itself. If we say "here's a picture of the car Kennedy was shot in", we don't put up a picture of one just like it if we can get one of the car itself. We don't put a picture of Apollo-12 in an article about Apollo-11, just because they looked alike (if they did). And we're supposedly building a quality encyclopedia, a line drawing is a last resort when there isn't a suitable image to use. Justin talk 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidently I won't be closing this discussion but if the closer follows the same logic as me they will notice that you did not address my claim that this image is almost certainly replaceable by one created by the United States Navy. Or the suggestion that a free content-licensed line drawing could be created. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to allow the closer to judge the weight of argument. But seeing as you've chosen to harangue me, allow me to point out the failure in the logic you're following. You say it might be replaceable by one taken by the US Navy but don't offer one, neither do you offer suggestions where to find one. If one exists, then fine but to suggest that we delete because something might be available is about as convincing an argument as suggesting we delete images on the basis someday someone might invent a time machine. A line drawing? We already have an RFC of another admin who has decided to go through the same rigmarole, replacing images with the most ridiculously crude line drawings. Perhaps equally I should get my 5 yr old busy with a box of crayons? Justin talk 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with Angus McLellan. Despite the fact that the ship has been modified, the ship still exists, so a free image can be made. Calling pictures of the modified ship an "unrelated image" is rather extreme, and an unusual interpretation of our image rules. There's no need to use a non-free image of the ship. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, were to follow your logic, we would illustrate an article on a Royal Navy ship with a picture of a ship of the Pakistan Navy. That is simply ridiculous. As the poster below points out it isn't this ship. Justin talk 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A picture of a different ship, isn't this ship. A picture of the ship after it's seen extensive modifications, changed fleets, and been repainted isn't this ship. At some point it's a different ship and I think we're past that point. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Angusmclellan made the case quite convincingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle surprise. I did wonder how long it would be. Justin talk 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What an interesting series of debates on this image. I think that both sides have some valid points. I can see the issues of replaceability and of the changes to the ship being deemed substantive. Looking at the two images though (File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg and File:HMS Amazi (F 169) during Exercise RIMPAC 86 .jpg) really decides this. I cannot see, at the resolution we have, (which is the res we tend to display non-free images at), what the differences are. Looking at one of the same profile I can perhaps pick some small differences. Basically for the resolution we use there is no significant difference between the ship as it appeared and the appearance of its sister ships. I think that the free image is an adequate replacement and the difference can be easily described with text alone. I note that some of my old Jane's books about Naval vessels tend to this practice (as noted above by Angusmclellan)—a picture of one of a class and descriptions of the differences between individual versions. One this basis we should Delete this image as replaceable with a free alternative (an image of say F 169), without significantly impairing reader's understanding. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've been thinking about that. If there were no free version of a building that had been destroyed, would we instead use a picture of a similar building? I really don't think we would. If this were an article about a class of ships, I'd be fine with picking one and going from there. But it isn't. It's an article about a specific ship and even a perfectly identical ship would be improper in the article (in my opinion of course). It would be misleading at the least, and certainly unexpected by a reader. Hobit (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the above comments by Hobit. This isn't an article about the Type 21 class and even at the resolution we use none-free images you can spot the differences between members of the class, not only because of the prominent pennant number. This isn't an article about the class, I would never use this image for that purpose, given that a free image of another of this type is available. The article is specifically about HMS Abuscade. Justin talk 10:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I strongly agree with both Hobit and Justin arguments. Infoboxes belonging to WP:Ships's articles need a pic for any individual ship, not an image of another ship of the same class or similar. The picture in question also has the value of showing the original status of the frigate, firing her main gun and displaying her RN pennant number.--Darius (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. you are currently showing another vessel image as the main picture of her article ! What next ? On a person article put an image of his brother ? --Jor70 (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak to Normal Keep I undestand where Angus and FPaS are coming from with this but I disagree with their conclusions. Could we, for example, delete a non free image of a celebrity because look alikes exist? Or because they have siblings? There is a modified ship yes, though renamed. This is the most compelling argument to delete, I feel. It almost had me to be honest, but I just feel that with it being now in another navy and with large modifications, it is in essence a seperate entity. We are almost into the Ship of Theseus situation. How much of something do you change before it is a distinct object? As I say, I do find the deletion arguments compelling, but I feel that we are just over the edge where no, it can't be replaced and no we shouldnt try to guess as to what might affect the linear nature of time. On this one, FPaS, I'm not beating up Royal Marines, re-assembling a submarine, refueling its reactor and sailing it out to sea. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peripitus. The ship still still exists and can be photographed. The differences can be illustrated with the image of the sister ship. Rettetast (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hobit, Justin and Narson; we have no adequate replacement actually available. Apcbg (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity between sister ships is no argument for deletion, rather the opposite; one does not use the pictures of twins interchangeably I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per there is no US navy substitute. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as orpaned fair use. This file is currently not being used in any articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is used in an article now. [1] Ryan4314 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting the image from the article and then claiming its orphaned, really this is gaming the system. Justin talk 10:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The orphan argument only applies if it has been unused for a week. I was hoping to close this, but what we really need is an RfC on the topic to cover every ship or plane in this position. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It only ever became orphaned because SchuminWeb deleted it as a speedy, when plainly it wasn't a speedy candidate. An unsatisfactory substitute of an unrelated image was made temporarily. Justin talk 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete (struck per comment below Pfainuk talk 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)). I don't accept Angus and FPaS's arguments for the reasons already given by Jor70, Narson, Hobit and others. If you're going to have an article on an individual ship, it's not reasonable to use an image of another entirely separate ship, or an image of the ship after it has been decommissioned. Equally, it would not be reasonable to use an image of a ship before it was sold in an article on the ship after it was sold - or vice versa.[reply]

But that's where, to my mind, the keep argument falls down. The article in question is named HMS Ambuscade (F172) but also serves as our article on the PNS Tariq. Narson asks how much of something you change before it is a distinct object - and I think we're both coming from the same angle, but fall on opposite sides of the line. If we had two separate articles - one for the Ambuscade, the other for the Tariq - then I'd say keep. But we don't. And because the Tariq is still in service, it is possible that a freely licensed photograph will come available per NFCC 1. Pfainuk talk 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is more of an argument to reform the article on Ambuscade and create a separate artile for Tariq not to delete this image. Which I am happy to do, if we get the chance. Justin talk 10:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Switch to keep pending article split. Pfainuk talk 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, looking now to expand both. Justin talk 21:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just deleted the old revision, which was higher resolution than is necessary. Actually I hadn't meant to undelete it in the first place. That shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion, I don't think. Chick Bowen 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - HMS Ambuscade has been decommissioned so no replacement can be created. Images of different ships of the same class are not images of the ship, so whilst the fair use argument is not valid for a class article it's not reasonable to represent one ship with another. ALR (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Me thumbnail1224.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NastalgicCam ( | contribs).

• UE, OR, LQ, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:14, 8 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidney-T.-Graves.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GeorgeLouis ( | contribs).

• Disputed deletable image nominee, having previously been removed from an article and nominated for deletion via deletable image, and later restored to the article and the template removed. As used in Charles Harris Garrigues, this photo of Sidney T. Graves does not provide any further information than is provided in the text other than showing what he looked like, for a one-sentence mention in an article not about him. Therefore I contend that this image violates WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is just plain silly. This image is in the public domain due to its age. Can we please get real? As for me, I am beginning to get irritated, so I will go for a walk to cool off. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the file is in the public domain as you indicate. Additionally, as a non-free image, it fails WP:NFCC#8. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What would be the copyright status of a picture printed in 1936? Hobit (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1923 is the public domain cutoff year. Thus for a picture published in 1936, it would likely still be copyrighted unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rettetast (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rossrs (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BogotaSkyline and another interest points.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jumamuba ( | contribs).

• Derivative Work created from images in Bogotá. The uploader licensed the derivative as PD while several of the original files are licensed under Creative Commons licenses. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• So many city articles have images like this. Was there a misguided project at some point that added these poorly produced, derivative photo collages to half of the world's cities? Gohome00 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to erase it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumamuba (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antarctic adventure australian flag.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Keshidragon ( | contribs).

• Shot from a video game to show that the Australian flag was in the game. Zero discussion of such a thing in the article about the Flag of Australia. Does not signficantly add to reader's understanding - fails WP:NFCC#8. Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel that this image adds a great deal to the reader's understanding of the Australian Flag, and by using this image, we can facilitate crucial commentary on the use of the Australian Flag in popular cultre, and it's appearence in media such as comic books, shop windows, and as illustrated, video games. This image is adding a great deal to the article, why go to such effort to reduce the quality of Wikipedia? Keshidragon (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete. Not a word of discussion why this particular appearance of the flag should be significant or notable in any way. Flags of all sorts of countries appear in all sorts of contexts in media of all kinds, and this is just one random and utterly trivial example of this trivial piece of common knowledge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Future, an image does not have to spew notability from every orifice to be included on Wikipedia. Of course images of flags often appear in different contexts in all different flavours of media, and I feel this can be broadly summarized by my image, which clearly illustrates a wide variety of uses for the Australian Flag, and is of utmost relevance to the article in question. This image adds a substantial amount to Wikipedia. Keep. Keshidragon (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The image is also orphaned and have been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F5. Rettetast (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SamGiancana.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joyson Noel ( | contribs).

• Nothing known about the copyright status of this non-free image. It was just downloaded from nndb, a website that accepts user contributions and does not attributes the authorship of images it uses. (this image may belong to a news source, for instance). Damiens.rf 12:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Backing-up the url gives:
  • http://www.nndb.com/people/979/000113640/

  which gives: Copyright ©2009 Soylent Communications

  So we have a copyright holder and a valid FUR. Oh, nom is currently indef blocked as a disruptive editor. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Soylent Communications owns the database itself. I find it unlikely that they are the copyright holder of every image on the website. ÷seresin 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. You can submit self-written entries and upload your own images for them, just like in Wikipedia – with the sole exception that nothing about it is ever outwardly documented. It is quite unlikely the owners of NNDB actually own that image. Delete, as long as true provenance cannot be shown. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Could be they dredged this image up off the interwebs. I'm not familiar with nndb. I do note that Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sam Giancana.jpg is also in play by the same nom. Jack Merridew 23:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The source is a user submitted list. Looking at the image (camera equipment left and right of his head) this is most probably a press image, probably as he was leaving court somewhere around 1965. Cropped press images with no provenance should not be hosted here. I can see that Associated Press still have images of him from the same period, that you have to pay to use. Image fails WP:NFCC#2 and has a rather poor source - Peripitus (Talk) 22:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Source is no good. Rettetast (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great Moravia not cropped, eng labels.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Helix84 ( | contribs).

• Delete. And its copies too. The boundaries -and even the existence- of this formation are/is controversial/disputed by historians. Where exactly are these map boundaries from? What is the source? Where can I check the original map? There's no information in the image file. This map has 0 reliable, neutral,verifiable third-party sources. ЛенинВладимир (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vishnuvardhan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Premangi ( | contribs).

• Screenshot from a movie. No source specified. Uploader hasn't edited Wikipedia for a long time. Raziman T V (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SinCityD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:SinCityD.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).

• decorative use, no discussion of the film depicted, only a brief mention that does not necessitate an illustration. Rossrs (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should stay, shows Clive Owen with his awesome ability in the role he played as Dwight in Sin City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.214.5 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Clive Owen's awesomeness aside, the article about him says nothing about Sin City other than "After Closer, he appeared in Derailed alongside Jennifer Aniston, the comic book thriller Sin City as the noir antihero Dwight McCarthy and...... " That's all. Nothing about him being awesome, nothing to set this film apart from any of the others mentioned in the article, and nothing that is so difficult to understand that a picture is needed. Rossrs (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • If that's the prerequisite of any pictures, than 87% of pictures on Wikipedia would be deleted. It shows Clive Owen in character of a very popular movie. It should stay. xhurricanex (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Good point. It is a prerequisite. Rossrs (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Babylonheightspg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Powertrip ( | contribs).

• CV (No indication at source page this is published under stated CC license) Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; I'm 99.9999% sure that's not free content. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 18:30, 15 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pizzawithwendys.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Drunkboxer ( | contribs).

• Requesting deletion as 1) it is not in the scope of the project (childish GIF images won't ever be used in the article space) and 2) it is not being used anywhere; of course, the third argument would be it is of abhorring low quality. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 20:11, 8 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wienerschnitzel logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot ( | contribs).

• vector version exists at File:Wienerschnitzel logo.svg Koman90 A+ (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Even at 130x130 resolution, the .svg version has significant problems rendering accurately on my computer. If you expand it to higher resolutions, it is readily apparent that the .svg version is not an accurate representation of the corporate logo, as several letters are nearly illegible. I'm all in favor of a vector image vs. a raster image, but I don't think the vector image offered is an equivalent replacement. Neil916 (Talk) 05:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reason stated by Neil916. This image is a poor trace. --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I have updated the replacement image to be of better quality. --Svgalbertian (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Austin Dartt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Koman90 ( | contribs).

• Koman90 A+ (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google-search-logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Koman90 ( | contribs).

• Koman90 A+ (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheNewPhobia ( | contribs).

• Orphaned file Koman90 A+ (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Image is PD-textlogo, do not need to delete.--Svgalbertian (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Pretty much identical to File:Google wordmark.svg --Svgalbertian (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barq's Root Beer Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Coffee ( | contribs).

• vectorized version available at File:Barq's Root Beer Logo.svg Koman90 A+ (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Case526 ( | contribs).

• Orphan, unencyclopedic. Use not stated. — Bility (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pele San Diego.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billwhittaker ( | contribs).

• Non-free image adding little to the article. We already have free images of the Goddess, and this particular sculpture is not discussed in the article, nor is there any need for it to be. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• DON'T DELETE Seems like a capricious deletion. By far the best image of Pele (deity) in the article. A fair use rationale is provided in the image file. None of the other images are discussed in the article either, so that should not be an issue. Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Again a question: on what basis is this a non-free image? It's government owned. I know I don't know a lot about copyright law, but I'm really lost here. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it's related to freedom of panorama in the United States. Unlike buildings, sculptures are copyrighted, and that makes depictions of them non-free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as decorative non-free image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we could justify either this one or the painting below Pele HVO.JPG for fair use, but hard to justify both. If someone has more of the story behind this sculpture (e.g. why it is notable) that might justify it, but so far the article does not mention it. I added a discussion of the controversy surrounding the painting and its iconography for example. W Nowicki (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both this and the one below. Neither is the object of sourced, non-trivial analytical discussion as an artwork, of a kind that would require visual presence to be understood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fut.Perf. Rettetast (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pele HVO.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paradiver ( | contribs).

• We already free images of the subject in the article, and this particular piece of artwork is of minimal significance anyway. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note of course your first clause above will no longer be true if the previously listed image also gets deleted. I still ask the question: could any of these be replaced with a picture of the actual goddess? I am not an art critic, so cannot argue that it has any artistic merit, but was added for its cutural significance. W Nowicki (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Would prefer to keep it if we can. The iconography in this depiction is different than the other ones. The article needs some discussion of the painting's significance, I think there are sources. I can give it a try. Do we need to down-res it as well? It is already from an off-angle, so should not be confused with the real thing in that respect. W Nowicki (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The discussion added recently is hardly a convincing reason for having this. The subject of the article is the deity, not some hardly-notable competition organised by some tourism center and won by some non-notable artist, a trivial event. As it stands now, we have the discussion of that event as a mere fig leaf stuck onto the article as a pretext for hosting the image, not the image as a crucial support for the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whoa, you are certainly entitled to an opinion, but that sounds almost insulting. The work is the certerpiece of exhibits at a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Pele is a major character in the culture of Ancient Hawaii, and the festival was certainly imortant to those in the area. To have a neutral point of view, this culture deserves the same respect of those of the West. Let me put it this way: can this be easily replaced by a picture of the actual goddess? :-) W Nowicki (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rettetast (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Postwatchlogo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot ( | contribs).

• OR. Previously put up as orphaned fair use but kept as public domain. However, not used in any articles. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2010 (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.