Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion

< February 3	February 5 >

February 4

File:Rogercotes.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rogercotes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by QueenAdelaide (notify | contribs | uploads).

Non-free, possibly copyrighted photo. Fails NFCC because a free picture of this bust could be taken. -Nard 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: being taken from a book cover is irrelevant, but this is a derivative work of the photo that was used to create the book cover. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 11 February 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.

File:Day length quick.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Day length quick.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Roland Longbow (notify | contribs | uploads).

It was a JPEG plot, and I obsoleted it with Hours_of_daylight_vs_latitude_vs_day_of_year.png -- Jalanpalmer (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 11 February 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.

File:Galaxy issues grid.gif

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galaxy issues grid.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Mike Christie (notify | contribs | uploads).

Obsolete. Replaced by File:Galaxy 1950s issues grid.jpg, File:Galaxy 1960s issues grid.jpg & File:Galaxy 1970s issues grid.jpg which divide the grid of issues in a more manageable way -- the single grid can't be comprehensibly displayed in an article page. Mike Christie (talk) 02:09, 4 February 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.

File:Pencil beam.gif

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pencil beam.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Charly_Whisky (notify | contribs | uploads).

PNG version available. No need for this GIF -- Jalanpalmer (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 11 February 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.

File:DSC 0348.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0348.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Peteykirch (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hah - It is Kevin Brock, #69, of the Rutgers Scarlet Knights football team running after a catch, on 17 November 2007. Keep and move to commons - Peripitus (Talk) 20:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The file is available on Commons now as File:Kevin Brock.jpg.--Rockfang (talk) 03:17, 5 February 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.

File:RayRice.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RayRice.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Peteykirch (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons. It is Ray Rice, #27, of the Rutgers Scarlet Knights football team following his blockers, whilst playing against the Pittsburgh Panthers, on 17 November 2007. Keep and move to commons - Peripitus (Talk) 20:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The file is available on Commons now as File:Ray Rice.jpg.--Rockfang (talk) 03:24, 5 February 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.

File:DSC 0240-start-gun.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0240-start-gun.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by William M. Connolley (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you failed to mention is that it is orphaned because of your apparently pointless removal of the pic from Bumps. I've restored it, so this deletion too becomes pointless. Slow down William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 03:36, 5 February 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.

File:DSC 0309.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Kept and moved to commons as File:Paul Laurence Dunbar Gravestone.JPG. Fastily this is most tiresome. It is only orphaned because, as with many images, you orphaned it immediately before nominating for deletion. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0309.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Drabikrr (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since when is a free photo of a notable person's grave unencyclopedic? Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 11 February 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.

File:DSC 0477 sm.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0477 sm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by David w ng (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:27, 4 February 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.

File:DSC 0493 sm.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0493 sm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by David w ng (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:27, 4 February 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.

File:DSC 0521 sm.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0521 sm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by David w ng (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:27, 4 February 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.

File:DSC 0560 sm.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0560 sm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by David w ng (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:27, 4 February 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.

File:DSC 0398 sm.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0398 sm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by David w ng (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:27, 4 February 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.

File:DSC 0508 sm.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0508 sm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by David w ng (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:28, 4 February 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.

File:DSC 0464 sm.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0464 sm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by David w ng (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:28, 4 February 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.

File:DSC 0576.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0576.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Alexanderbilar (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:28, 4 February 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.

File:DSC 0563 sm.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 08:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0563 sm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by David w ng (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. File no longer orphaned. — ξ ^xplicit 00:13, 12 February 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.

File:DSC 0508.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Kept - yet again only orphaned because the nominator made it so. Has been in the article for three years, and left there by many editors. A pejorative comes to mind - Peripitus (Talk) 08:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0508.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Swindonx (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and transfer to Commons, freely-licensed image that's surely useful for illustrating the area. Note that the description says that it's "taken outside Milton-under-Wychwood" — so a use is stated. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 11 February 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.

File:DSC 07081.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Kept - the image was orphaned by the nominator just before nominating here. It has been in the article for about 3 years and has been left there by many editors. Not a smart way to do things - Peripitus (Talk) 09:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 07081.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Wiblackburn (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:33, 4 February 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.

File:Campfire opposite.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Kept - the image was orphaned by the nominator just before nominating here. It has been in the article for about 3 years and has been left there by many editors. Not a smart way to do things - Peripitus (Talk) 09:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campfire opposite.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Wiblackburn (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:33, 4 February 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.

File:DSC 0544.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Kept - the image was orphaned by the nominator just before nominating here. It has been in the article for about 3 years and has been left there by many editors. Not a smart way to do things - Peripitus (Talk) 09:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0544.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Wiblackburn (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:33, 4 February 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.

File:DSC 0846invicta.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0846invicta.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Eternalsleeper (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an Invicta Ocean Ghost watch and now has a home in the Invicta Watch Group article - Peripitus (Talk) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 03:57, 5 February 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.

File:DSC 1023.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 1023.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Onetwo1 (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:46, 4 February 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.

File:DSC 0745.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0745.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Eternalsleeper (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons — the Hungarian Wikipedia seems to have imported an article in which this image was used, so there's clearly an encyclopedic use for it. Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 04:12, 5 February 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.

File:AirCanadaCentre1999.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AirCanadaCentre1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Miller17CU94 (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is listed in the purpose of why this picture was taken. Chris (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's good quality and in use, without any license problems. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The file is now available on Commons as File:Air_Canada_Centre_in_1999.jpg.--Rockfang (talk) 04:27, 5 February 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.

File:DSC 0607woodQuay1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC 0607woodQuay1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by CharlieCLC (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:50, 4 February 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.

File:Woodquayapts.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woodquayapts.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Heggyhomolit (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:51, 4 February 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.

File:American buff geese at 5 months.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. –xeno^talk 21:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:American buff geese at 5 months.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Miller17CU94 (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Freely-licensed photographs, even low quality ones, of rare poultry and livestock breeds are very hard to come by. As such, any photo we have of the American Buff Goose should be copied to Commons and kept. I have added this to the appropriate article. Steven Walling 07:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article appropriate. Chris (talk) 13:27, 4 February 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.

File:American buff goose at 12 months.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. –xeno^talk 21:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:American buff goose at 12 months.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Miller17CU94 (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Freely-licensed photographs, even low quality ones, of rare poultry and livestock breeds are very hard to come by. As such, any photo we have of the American Buff Goose should be copied to commons and kept. Steven Walling 07:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep File is freely licensed. It may be low quality, but it is what we have until better images can come along. Chris (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, file is in use and quite encyclopedic. Perhaps transfer to Commons? Nyttend (talk) 15:46, 4 February 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.

File:American buff goslings at 5 weeks.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. –xeno^talk 21:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:American buff goslings at 5 weeks.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Miller17CU94 (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Freely-licensed photographs, even low quality ones, of rare poultry and livestock breeds are very hard to come by. As such, any photo we have of the American Buff Goose should be copied to Commons and kept. Steven Walling 07:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image is freely licensed. Chris (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, file is in use and quite encyclopedic. Perhaps transfer to Commons? Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 4 February 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.

File:Largegazebo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Largegazebo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Tokugawapants (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Low Quality, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not at all low quality. A useful image in a recognisable location, with no licensing problems. This should be moved to Commons, however. Nyttend (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CSD#F8. Blatantly not low quality.--Rockfang (talk) 04:40, 5 February 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.

File:Gazebo Tricia Nixon.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Kept and tagged for commons move. I think that Nyttend is correct and the licence is also - Peripitus (Talk) 09:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gazebo Tricia Nixon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Geographer (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, potentially useful image without problems; for example, this could be used at Tricia Nixon Cox if there were enough text there to justify another image. Move to Commons, however. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could be just having a brain fart, but I'm thinking Freedom of panorama may apply here. Normally, I think of gazebos as buildings. But unlike some other gazebos, this one appears to be more mobile. Mobile enough that got moved from the White House to the Nixon Library. Could this gazebo possibly be considered a work of art? If so, that might make it a non-free image.--Rockfang (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to me to be as functional as anything else. I don't see gazebos as buildings any more than I see cars or chairs as buildings, but I see them all simply as normal objects. If nothing else — surely gazebos don't carry copyright notices, and since this was used for a wedding in the early 1970s, it's clearly public domain because of the lack of a notice. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 8 February 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.

File:Miraj by Sultan Muhammad.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miraj by Sultan Muhammad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Sultan Muhammad (notify | contribs | uploads).

Highly offensive as per Islam and any characterization of Prophet Muhammad is unacceptable 115.186.133.69 (talk) 07:06, 4 February 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.

File:HPIM0483.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPIM0483.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Dzelinsk (notify | contribs | uploads).

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 21:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a personal image server. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 11 February 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_February_4&oldid=1078928755"