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⚡ 01:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bitch slut.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DeeMeeTree (notify | contribs).

• Inappropriately named, only used for user's userpage. ^(C/SSG)G2sai_(talk) 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1220281192605.JPEG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KeyanFretwell (notify | contribs).

• This image doesn't have a proper description. I recognize one of the images as File:Palace of Westminster, London - Feb 2007.jpg. Does anyone know the other images ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Top: general skyline of london

houses or parliament

(right) tower bridge (left) london eye

tower bridge with skyline of london

hope this helps

KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I found two more of them, but i can't find the last two :( I spent 2 hours on this image now, that's plenty as far as I'm concerned. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Win7 build7100 Wordpad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kirachinmoku (notify | contribs).

• Fails to comply with Wikipedia Non-free content criteria policy clause 3a: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." This image is uploaded on 1 October 2009 for Wordpad article, when an equally-qualified image, File:WordPad on Windows 7.png, was already in use in the very same article and could (and still can) convey equally-significant information. Fleet Command (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I apologize but I forgot to mention: This nominated file also fails to comply with Wikipedia Non-free content criteria policy clause 3b: "Minimal extend of use", as it contains more copyrighted contents than its fair-use rationale demands: It contains a portion of Windows 7 taskbar which is not vital for the article Wordpad. The significance of this issue is in the fact that the counterpart of the nominated subject did not suffer from this issue. Fleet Command (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish i can do a screen grab that would show just the program and nothing else? Would this be acceptable? KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 22:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and No! Yes because it would resolve Minimal extent of use (NFCC 3b). No because your image would still fail NFCC 3a: Minimal usage and needs to be deleted. Please don't take this personally, but in my humble opinion it was a big mistake on your part to upload the image in the first place. Maybe you were not familiar with NFCC 3A. That's OK, as long as the problem is resolved. Next time, please pay attention that copyrighted material are very delicate and must be handled with extreme care. Fleet Command (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was told it would be ok (not sure who by). Is there anyway it would be possible to do the picture and still comply to all the rules? KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 21:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Yes, there is. First read WP:NFCC. If the image which you wish to upload already exists, see if your image is really better. (Do not upload screenshots of leaked beta; it affects the producer's sale and does not qualify for fair-use.) If you think your image is really better and you wish to replace the already existing image, upload the image as an update to the currently existing image (not as a separate image): Open the currently existing image and click "Upload a new version of this file" at the bottom of the screen. (If your image gained acceptance and the file name was a problem, you can always rename it.)

          Now, in this case, your image is not really better. Your image is from Windows 7 RC1 build while File:WordPad on Windows 7 is from RTM version, the version that people use.

          Oh, and by the way, take it easy. These things always happen in Wikipedia: Better things supersede currently used ones. Just wait your turn. One day, you'll be the one who is uploading a better version. Fleet Command (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Make a new one or delete. I have a few problems with the picture. Firstly, it shows the EULA of Windows 7, which is copyrighted material, secondly, the resolution infringes non-free use copyright, could be a bit smaller. Thirdly, it is fullscreen, and too wide. Therefore, if the image is used, it would be impossible to read unless in high (and copyright infringing) resolution. I will demonstrate by taking a better picture of Wordpad, and reduce one of the many problems with the usage of the picture. Thanks. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 09:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Er... Would you excuse me, but a suitable one already exists, as mentioned above. That's why this one is proposed for deletion. Fleet Command (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hospital Front, Censored.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhythmnation2004 (notify | contribs).

• Derivative work. Copyright still held by the Humana Women's Hospital Tampa. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humana Women's Hospital Tampa is no longer in existence as of the date of this writing. The image is imperative to the integrity of the article, but I would be willing to blur out the Hospital name if needed in order to keep the image. 72.187.16.5 (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Derivative work. Copyright still held by whoever bought the assets of Humana Women's Hospital Tampa at auction. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Konrad Ryushin Marchaj.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dharmacom (notify | contribs).

• Sourced to the "Mountains and Rivers Order Archives", but other uploads by this user claim other authors. J Milburn (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a comment that Rachael Romero is affiliated with Mountains and Rivers Order and Dharma Communications. I'm fairly certain this is legit. (72.95.77.135 (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The 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: List at PUI. PUI is more suited for questionable claims of copyright. kmccoy (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill Gold in his movie poster studio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nyguide (notify | contribs).

• Looks like a press shot, uploader has also uploaded other suspicious images of the subject. J Milburn (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I am the photographer of this image, and I have released it to via GNU to the creative commons world. There is no reason to delete this image of this notable person, as it illuminates the person and his workspace.Nyguide (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Early Sisters.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Benjiboi (notify | contribs).

• There are free images available showing the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence Damiens.rf 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Please lead the way as no one else has found one. I will also draw attention that unfortunately nom has shown a personal disdain against me and more broadly against LGBT culture/people. I'm sure they have set these feelings aside and have nothing but the best interests in deleting a photo of LGBT activists but it seems worth mentioning. In any case if a free image does exist it would certainly be welcome. Most of the early members of the group have died so that may be a bit tricky. -- Banjeboi 03:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unless a free image is found of the earliest members this seems an acceptable one. Nom shows every sign of holding a personal grudge which shouldn't play into image usage policies. -- Banjeboi 03:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article has no need for an image of the earliest members. The image is not needed for reader understanding. There are free images of the sisters, and more could be created. —teb728 t c 07:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually an article about a group that started in the late-1970s would certainly benefit from an image showing how they presented themselves. No known free images covering this period seem available and every other image we have is less than ten years old. -- Banjeboi 14:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is about the organisation not the earliest sisters. Also people should be aware that Benjiboi worked (or works) for the organisation in question as their archivist and has a COI. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please desist Cameron Scott, your hostility and incorrect attempts to Out me violate policy. This does show more clearly the motives of those attempting to remove material at play. -- Banjeboi 14:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't out you with information you have supplied yourself, so I have no idea why you mention WP:OUT, you mention it on wikipedia and it's fair comments for others to mention. If I linked your comments to your real life name, you'd have a point but I'm not doing that, simply using information freely given by you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, no. We do not use personal information to subdue and harass others on Wikipedia. You are alleging my identity as you just can't seem to let it go and it oddly looking like you're obsessed with me. What information do you refer that makes you think I ever worked for the group anyway? -- Banjeboi 14:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused by this statement, are you saying that you've never claimed to have served as an archivist for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Inc? Are you sharing your account with someone else? you know that account sharing is not allowed? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've long suspected that you are confused but why don't you start by presenting the information that you claim links me as working for the group. If not it seems you are simply conducting further WP:Baiting attempts. -- Banjeboi 15:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your current claim is that you have never worked for them in any capacity (paid or unpaid) as an archivist and you do not share your account (because otherwise how could you have claimed so previously)? I find it very serious, that you are now trying to deny and hide a COI that you previously acknowledged. What can we make of such behaviour? Are you now going to cough and splutter and try and claim that your previous statement meant something entirely different? Who's going to be believe it at this stage? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off that was from three years ago and indeed was made by someone else, I never knowingly broke any rules although I certainly wouldn't allow anyone to use my account anymore. Secondly, your obvious extra free time spent investigating other editors would likely be spend actually improving content. So, despite all this "research" do you have an actual reason this image should be deleted? An article about the organization would certainly discuss their early history and as they are known for their outrageous appearance including images would help illustrate that for our readers who don't care about personal gripes between editors. -- Banjeboi 16:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Putting aside the fact that the image doesn't have a fair use rationale as required, I do not see how this image meets WP:NFCC crit 1, to wit: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose". It has long been consensus that non-free images of living people are generally not defensible, and I would say that's the case here; the image (and frankly all the nonfree images in the article right now) are being used merely as decoration and do not significantly contribute to reader understanding as required; removal does not significantly impinge on that understanding. (braces for impact) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know the legalese here but essentially there is at least one plot flaw in your assessment - I believe all those in the photo have died. Certainly two or three have. Even if they had not we certainly couldn't roll back time to show what they looked like in the early 1980s. As stated above if there is any free images from this period please point them out, I don't know that any exist. This remains the only image of the group - known for it's image - from the period. -- Banjeboi 07:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all those in the photo have died. doesn't matter, the image does not provide anything prose cannot and the article is not about them but your organisation in general. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does and this is not my organization despite your extensive efforts at researching my rl identity. And yes, actually, free images hinge in part on a subject being alive - we presume that if people in the image are alive then a free image is likely available. Although the opposite is not necessarily true I think it is true in this case. Unless you've mastered the time-space continuum we likely are not going to see a free image from the earliest years of this group, whose notoriety is based in part on their appearance. Ergo an image of what they looked like in their earliest days, especially compared with how they appear presently, would seem to be quite relevant. -- Banjeboi 10:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the rewrite and the clean-up to make the article NPOV, the article most excellently explains those issues. There is no case under NFCC to include this image. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually an image is generally a much better representation than a mere description - what remains is what seems to be your prejudices against the subject which should not be a part of the discussion. The rewrite actually has many errors but that's for Moni3 to sort out, the previous version was the product of POV-warriors - mainly pro-Catholicism ones who apparently found offense in the group but didn't seem to have any egregious POV problems as you allege. In short our readers' understanding of the group are enhanced by this image despite your oddly vested interest in removing it. -- Banjeboi 10:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete is not a free image and not required for article. --HenjiBolmann (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • — HenjiBolmann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and most likely sock of Cameron Scott. -- Banjeboi 12:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please strike or support that accusation as you have been asked to do so at AN/I or I will move to have you blocked. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• user created collection of five non-free logos. Fails WP:NFCC #3 and #8. Rettetast (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Keep comments fail to address reasoning behind deletion reasons. kmccoy (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MSstamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tim riley (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This image is in the Malcolm Sargent article. The text next to the image says: "In 1980 the Royal Mail put the image of Sargent on its 15p postage stamp in a series portraying British conductors...." It is rare that a conductor's image is put on a postage stamp. This is fair use. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you took away the image and kept the prose, how would the prose fail to adequately convey the same idea for which you are using the image? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Does not fail WP:NFCC#8 (Contextual significance). Although it indeed fails to comply with WP:NFCI clause 3, it falls within the purview of WP:NFCI clause 8.Fleet Command (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is an historic stamp placed in context in an article about the subject depicted. Thus it is fair use. Jack1956 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It might be allowed under US fair use law, but it is not acceptable under Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 22:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Showing the stamp isn't really important; the fact that the stamp exists can be explained in text. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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: withdrawn Skier Dude (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LucyStone 50c.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Binksternet (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose are already perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then explain it in prose, and orphan the image. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw: On closer investigation this stamp is proven to be in the public domain. I have modified the image information to reflect this fact. ww2censor (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leonardo Arguello Barreto.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jamespeterka (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to identify the topic in a stamp used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any mention of the stamp kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then explain it in prose, and orphan the image. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As no fair use rationale is given. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 17:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. The incremental benefit from having this image is negligible, and the information is already conveyed via text. The article has far too much non-free content already. kmccoy (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Non-free image that does not add a significant understanding WP:NFCC#8 also it is more images than necessary WP:NFCC#3a. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I completely disagree with nomination statement: Neither fails WP:NFCC#8 nor WP:NFCC#3a. Fleet Command (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And how exactly does this enhance a reader's ability to comprehend what a "Portable ID" is? The text alone seems to sufficiently describe to a reader what this, thus fair use does not qualify. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 04:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We should at least agree to keep the profile picture, without it, a citation pointing to the picture would be needed to confirm. Consensus reached to link to a portable ID picture, rather than having it in the article? ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 23:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Image does not fail either of the criteria suggested. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Image is used to illustrate the article and the appropriate copyright tags have been used. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, severe fail of WP:NFCC#3a. No reason why readers need this many images to understand the article. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Six images? That is not excessive. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 23:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated. I think you should at least agree that there isn't anymore argument about excessive use? ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 09:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. The incremental benefit from having this image is negligible, and the information is already conveyed via text. The article has far too much non-free content already. kmccoy (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PS3 Profile Screen Press.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ChimpanzeeUK (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image that does not add a significant understanding WP:NFCC#8 also it is more images than necessary WP:NFCC#3a. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 19:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I completely disagree with nomination statement: Neither fails WP:NFCC#8 nor WP:NFCC#3a. Fleet Command (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Image does not fail either of the criteria suggested. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 22:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I strongly disagree with your claim. The picture is used to illustrate the PSN article and would leave the article difficult to read without it. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 00:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, severe fail of WP:NFCC#3a. No reason why readers need this many images to understand the article. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six images? That is not excessive. Read the article properly, and see if you need the images. The images are just an easier way than to cite things continuously. A picture, after all says much more than a news link which has similar wording to the article. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 23:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it's excessive, and you've admitted that there is an alternative option, which means the image fails WP:NFCC#1 as well. Even if it's harder, less convenient, and more time-consuming, this is a free encyclopedia so we don't use non-free content unless we absolutely must. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I said the alternative is for the other picture. This picture absolutely must be included, or we have to link to a non-free content page anyway, and there is no new image for the profile screen, so it's a necessity. Please look at Xbox 360 which has pictures for the console boxes, I mean, that was allowed. We need this image to illustrate a lot of the article (User information and trophies).★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 09:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:O3ymf8twesjq7r01tji0a418j0vqfpg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The undertow (notify | contribs).

• unencyclopedic Ysangkok (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep objection does not apply to copyright-free images used only on user pages, which it is, from time to time, and in any event, it could be on Commons. Rodhullandemu 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Unencyclopedic, yes, but can be transfered to Wikimedia Commons instead of being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetCommand (talk • contribs)
• Delete: Unencyclopedic. Also, could there be any BLP issues here? It has images of living people, with pejorative (and unsourced) terms above their heads. --Elonka 22:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On this point, this image has been used on the [[User:the undertow|the undertow]'s user page almost two years ago. I suggest that if it had been an issue then, comment would have been made. It wasn't, and the_undertow was hardly a shrinking violet so I imagine this is an unnecessary storm in an unduly tiny teacup. Rodhullandemu 02:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rodhullandemu. It doesn't have to be "encyclopedic"... it's a picture of a user (the undertow). Killiondude (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Law. 70.177.189.205 (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disruptive. How is this of any value to the encyclopedia? It appears to deliberately mock Wikipedia over the Law/undertow debacle. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:AGF please. Nobody, but nobody, thought this image was disruptive when it was on the_undertow's user page two years ago, and I see no reason to see why the position should have changed. Rodhullandemu 02:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't here then so I'm not familiar with that. It appears he uploaded this three days ago and I still say delete it. Things have changed a bit... nothing personal against the uploader but I wish he would lay low and edit quietly for a while instead of uploading images straight off that are likely to inflame the issue. Maybe he recognized that and that's why he blanked it from his userpage. Time will likely heal all wounds but time is needed. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author requests deletion. the_undertow ^talk 09:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Col John Waddy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jhfireboy (notify | contribs).

• Living subject, deemed replaceable, and was tagged as such. However, this is a borderline case, so I've declined the speedy, and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "replaceable" (can still be photographed) only in civilian attire, since he's no longer in active service, as the file comment notes — and apparently even getting a photo in civvies would be hard, since he's not in the public eye. I'd call it "replaceable" once an actual replacement photo is available, not until then. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote the article on this chap last month, and was unable to source an image then, although numerous images of him exist (see here). This image would I think be most appropriate for the article, but I did not upload it as I have no idea who took it or when. It would be nice if it came under this template, but I just don't know. As for sourcing another image, I wouldn't know how to go about it but I must disagree with the up-loaders rationale that he is not in the public eye - see here. Perhaps not in the public eye as much as a rock star, but not exactly a hermit either. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. We don't need galleries of unfree imagery like this. kmccoy (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FPLP Eddie.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by HokieRNB (notify | contribs).

File:FPLP Maggie.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by HokieRNB (notify | contribs).

File:FPLP Michael.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by HokieRNB (notify | contribs).

File:FPLP Sarah Lynn.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by HokieRNB (notify | contribs).

File:FPLP Sonya Lee.png (delete | talk | history | logs)- uploaded by HokieRNB (notify | contribs).

• These non-free images are used in a gallery in Little People. The use does not significantly increase readers’ understanding of the article as required by WP:NFCC#8. These are in addition to other non-free images (some of which should perhaps also be deleted) failing WP:NFCC#3a. —teb728 t c 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• One possibility: Delete 4, keep 1. If we get rid of Eddie, we should also consider getting rid of Eddie's look-alike at the top right corner of Characters of Mother 3. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why keep even one? They all fail NFCC 8 and 3. —teb728 t c 01:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keeping one might pass NFCC 3, in the event that someone comes up with a good reason that they pass 8. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If necessary, photoshop together as one image. These serve to identify the principal characters in a notable line of toys, video/dvd series, and computer game(s). I am also willing to take a new picture of the five together if that helps. HokieRNB 13:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep something, no opinion about whether just one figure or all of them. The photo(s) illustrate(s) more clearly than words how the Little People toys have changed from their original form. LovesMacs (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Photoshopping them together doesn't solve the problem at all- same number of images, different number of files. The article already has an illustration of the toys, these really aren't needed. If one of these is going to be kept, some of the non-gallery images are going to need to go. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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