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, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Replaceable with free text ViperSnake151  Talk  03:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Precedent indicates that corporate logos are generally permissible for purposes of identification. *** Crotalus *** 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Logos are fine, but this isn't a logo, it's a structure chart made of logos. The structure chart can indeed be replaced by text, keeping the AMPS logo only for identification on that article. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You know, we'd need a fair use rationale for every logo on the chart, for every use of the chart. Ick. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 9 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SLACKlysGallery.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Astrobayes (notify | contribs).

• Unused image with no description. Also contains odd artifacts in the upper left and other parts of the image. Optigan13 (talk) 07:39, 2 September 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: Keep Killiondude (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bc7.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Denelson83 (notify | contribs).

• This non-free image is used decoratively only. It does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only in British Columbia Highway 7, where it is the primary means of identification for the highway. --NE2 11:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Who, having seen the article title, would need to see this sign before they know what the article is about? Stifle (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The correct question is "Who, having gone to the article, would need to see this sign before they know how the highway is marked?". Omitting it is certainly detrimental to that understanding. --NE2 12:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I think I like my question better. Our non-free content criterion #8 requires both that the image adds significantly to readers' understanding of the article, and that its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding (my emphasis). Both are required, not just either/or. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You're misstating criterion #8. It has to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", not the article. This image is the primary means of identification for Highway 7. If you go to British Columbia and look for Highway 7, this is what you'll find. Not the text "Highway 7", but this exact logo. --NE2 13:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. User claims to be a deletionist. --  Denelson83  11:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a great argument. May I borrow it? --NE2 14:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Uploader claims to contribute using Mozilla Firefox. Seriously, what? J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I only said that after looking on Stifle's userpage and seeing a userbox that says "this editor is a deletionist" in it. Besides, if this image was to be deleted, that would mean all the other images in Category:BC traffic sign images would end up vulnerable to deletion, and I don't want to see that happen. And if it's only used in one article, why else should it be deleted? --  Denelson83  19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may well be a question we have to ask, whether Wikipedia should in fact be hosting those traffic sign images. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is fine on the BC 7 page only. --Admrboltz (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please explain how it meets WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ultimately it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8. But if you are going to claim that, you need to nominate the whole kit and caboodle. All of the BC traffic images need to go, not just this one image. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it does meet criterion #8 in the same way that any logo does: it significantly increases readers' understanding of how the topic is graphically represented in real life. --NE2 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how it significantly increases my understanding of BC highways. Maybe leaving one blank shield on a List of... article as a Fair use would be OK, but I don't think we need one for every route. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It significantly increases your understanding of Highway 7 to know how the province marks the highway. --NE2 15:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  But I already knew that it is going to be some sort of reassurance shield with the number 7 on it. Do I have to know exactly what it looks like, no. Also, I already knew as I use to travel to BC fairly frequently. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The way the highway is marked is significant information - not just that it's the number 7 in a design, but what that design is. --NE2 16:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing vote to Delete --Admrboltz (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator presumes to speak for the readers under WP:NFCC#8, defending his position with a repeat of the criteria ending with "(my emphasis)". Highway shields are identifying marks of the product and property of the government that builds them and are covered by the language used in the fair use template and WP:LOGOS guideline as identifying marks readers have come to expect in info boxes. The numerals used for route specific shields are rendered in generic highway signage fonts and the use of the specific shield in info boxes is no less a fair use than the use of the blank shield itself. Sswonk (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC) In case it is not clear from the previous sentence, that means fair use under NFCC for this file would be one single use, in the infobox of the British Columbia Highway 7 article. Sswonk (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no need to attack the nominator with accusations of malfeasance. All of us are quite capable of reading WP:NFCC #8 and acting on it. In fact, we're expected to act on it in working with non-free content. If you can't comment on opinions without commenting on the speaker, please refrain from commenting at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only on British Columbia Highway 7 per NE2. The use in exit lists is not necessary for understanding of topic, but it is critical to the article itself. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on British Columbia Highway 7. This is valid use for identification, which increases the user's understanding of the topic, and the omission of which would reduce that understanding. The look of the shield is important information we need to convey to the reader, rather than something we can expect him or her to synthesize out of the information we deign to provide. — PyTom (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the page fo rthe highway.The necessity for it in this article seems clear, per NE2.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NewCatPoster1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DCGeist (notify | contribs).

• This version of the film is not even mentioned in the article, so why this large non-free image is required is not clear. I removed it initially, but it was placed back in the article. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Particle2D.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jwilty (notify | contribs).

• Obsolete. Universally replaced by vector version Papa November (talk) 14:38, 2 September 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 - unfortunately the image is not free and while tagged as such now it lacks any rationales for use. Looking at the image and the uses I think that they would likely be decorative only. Now if there was an article on the statue itself....but there appears not - Peripitus (Talk) 10:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008-0817-SJSU-SJSU-SmithCarlos.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bobak (notify | contribs).

• See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2008-0817-SJSU-SJSU-SmithCarlos.jpg. Can't be kept with a free licence. Grillo (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of way overzealous application of copyright law. The photo has originality in and of itself, thus qualifies for its own copyright, even without freedom of panorama, at least based on everything I have read. IANAL but this kind of nonsense is really hurting the project.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. I fail to see how a photograph taken of a three-dimensional sculpture in the context of its surroundings takes anything away from the sculptor's rights and the photographer can certainly make a creative original work around it. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's such a huge problem, alter the license with my full permission to do so. The point of Wikipedia isn't "Gotcha!" copyright enforcement, its collaboration to make the encyclopedia as good as it can be. --Bobak (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the United States, there is no freedom of panorama. Thus, per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) whoever holds copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. Every single editor on Wikipedia could call this an overzealous application of copyright law. It doesn't matter. This is law. Pure and simple. Wikipedia can not overrule law. Wikipedia can not break the law. Wikipedia can not ignore the law. This image does have rights; rights held by the sculptor (unless said artist gave/sold those rights to another entity) and rights held by the photographer, Bobak, who released those rights under GFDL. That release did not release the rights held by the sculptor. This isn't negotiable. I've tagged the image with ((non-free 3d art)) and tagged it as missing a fair use rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  IANAL, but I think this is just something that the US has not specifically addressed and has not been challenged. I'm not saying Wikipedia needs to be the one who challenges it but someone ought to; it's ridiculous. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't be so certain this law hasn't been challenged. There's tons of case law out there, and this law has been on the books for 33 years. I strongly suspect it has been challenged, and multiple times. Vis-a-vis Wikipedia; whether it is ridiculous or not is irrelevant. It's the law. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's silly for me to into a debate on this but as I understand it the copyright law does not explicitly deal with statues (or many other things) in terms of freedom of panorama and thus people are taking that lack of exclusion to mean that statues are cannot be photographed but as I already said, I think the law is absurd. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sculptures are specifically mentioned in 17 U.S.C. 106(5). See for yourself. Your belief that the law is absurd does not mean we can ignore it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I read that and never challenged that sculptures were copyrightable what I questioned was a freedom of panorama exemption for sculptures. There is a specific exemption for architectural works "located in or ordinarily visible from a public place" and sculptures should certainly fall under the same type of exemption, in my view. I do not recall advocating for Wikipedia to ignore it but I did comment her because I do think that if the law is absurd, that we should speak up and advocate for change. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sculptures do not fall under the same exceptions as architectural works. If you feel the law is absurd and feel you should speak up for change, and you are a United States citizen, then by all means register a complaint with your congressmen. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel I need a translator. I said exactly that. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IANYL, but this is getting ridiculous. No one can show where this has ever been an actual issue in a context like Wikipedia. A fair use rationale should be adequate to get by, especially since its not a very good photo. Copyright paranoia is real, and its a danger to us all. --Bobak (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is, the image is not free of rights. It is only free of the rights you released. You can call it paranoia if you like. It doesn't really matter. It is law. It's very well accepted around here that images of recent statues are not free of rights unless the creator of the statue releases those rights. There's no evidence that has been done here. Therefore, it's not free as was originally marked. Calling this copyright paranoia is hardly a convincing argument to give us as to why we should ignore United States law on the matter. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible to change to a fair use licence if the image is used to illustrate a discussion about the sculpture itself or some other valid rationale. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've already re-tagged it as being used under fair use here, and as missing a rationale. Most of the uses it is currently used under will have to go. In fact, it might end up being orphaned. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:07, 9 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fatal Shark Attacks.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by StableChaos (notify | contribs).

• This graph fails verification and is therefore unencyclopedic. It claims to be based on information found here, but I checked that page and several subpages and was unable to find corresponding data. In particular, the "Projected" bar seems to be pure imagination. This graph has been questioned by several bloggers including Brad Plumer and Matthew Yglesias and I have been unable to find any evidence supporting it. The image creator has a very thin history and uploaded at least one other file that was deleted for being unencyclopedic. *** Crotalus *** 17:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I certainly found nothing to support the projections and wondered if I were just missing the historical data, but if that's invisible as well this has got to go. The corresponding chart at the source seems to differ considerably. --Dhartung | Talk 23:31, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1944ceromony.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• We don't need a non-free image to make the point that "Puebla FC played its first professional match in 1944" Damiens.rf 18:48, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1953 copamex.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• We don't need a non-free image to make the point that "Puebla FC won the 1953 Copa Mexico title". Damiens.rf 18:49, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1990 campeonisimo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• Unjustified non-free image failing several points in our criteria. The copyright holder is not specified. The source url is an image hosting service. The purpose of use is just "Solely to use in article".... Damiens.rf 18:51, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campeon 82 .JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• We don't need a non-free picture to make the point that "Puebla FC won the 1982 first division league title". Damiens.rf 18:57, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puebla campeon .JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• We don'tneed a non-free picture to make the point that "Puebla FC won the 1990 first division league title". Damiens.rf 18:58, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ejecutivospue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• We don't need a non-free picture to make the point Puebla FC at "one time used an orange uniform and was known as the Ejecutivos" (and this image, even if free, would not be specially useful for that). Damiens.rf 18:59, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2005 campeon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puebla82 (notify | contribs).

• We don't need a free image to make the point that "Puebla FC won the 2005 Primera A league title". Damiens.rf 19:00, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006 campeon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• We don't need a non-free picture to make the point that "Puebla FC won the 2006 Primera A league title". Damiens.rf 19:01, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2007 promotion.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• We don't need a non-free picture to make the point that "Puebla FC won the 2007 Promotion title". Damiens.rf 19:02, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asensi y pirri.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puebla82 (notify | contribs).

• No source, no comprehensible reason for using this non-free picture. Damiens.rf 19:03, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1985 squad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image that does not identifies the copyright holder (the source url is an image-hosting website). Also, it's not clear why it is necessary (or even helpful) in the article it's being used in. Damiens.rf 19:05, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008CopaHeroica.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• We don't need a non-free picture to make the point that "Puebla FC won the 2008 Copa Heroica Puebla". Damiens.rf 19:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see no point in having that image here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1999 concacaf.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• We don't need a non-free image to make the point that "Necaxa won the 1999 CONCACAF Champions League". Also, the copyright holder is not specified and the source url is a link to an image-hosting website. Damiens.rf 19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant misuse. Image was pure decoration only, not referenced in text. I've removed it from the article. I also find the rationale comical (with no insult to the rationale provider intended); a player kissing a trophy is hardly iconic. How many zillions of times does that happen per year? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 3 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1950 champion.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• We don't need a non-free picture to make the point that "Tiburones Rojos de Veracruz won the 1950 first division league title". Damiens.rf 19:08, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1945 champion.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• We don't need a non-free picture to make the point that "Tiburones Rojos de Veracruz won the 1945 first division league title". Damiens.rf 19:08, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:El mirador.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puebla82 (notify | contribs).

• Decorative use of a non-free image. Damiens.rf 19:10, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1901pachuca.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• It's impossible to verify the copyright holder of this image, or even its veracity, since the solely source information given is a link to a jpg file in a web-hosting service. Damiens.rf 19:12, 2 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1939 Atlas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• No reason to believe this image is in the public domain. It's said to be from 1939 and there's no verifiable source information that would validate this (just a link to a file in an image-hosting site). Damiens.rf 19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete stated purpose at rationale is "to illustrate the exsistance of club Atlas in 1939". Umm. So? The article mentions nothing of the 1939 squad. We know from the infobox it was founded in 1915. We don't need a picture from every year (free or not) to show it was in existence in each year. Image is not free, and does nothing to add to reader's understanding of the subject. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 3 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cubero.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puepue11 (notify | contribs).

• No license and the soure is just a link to a file in an image-hosting site. Damiens.rf 19:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Image isn't mentioned in the text at all, much less shown to be of historical significance. I've tagged the image as missing license. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 4 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheMightyBooshNight.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ERT (notify | contribs).

• Living people. FU not justifiable. ÷seresin 20:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think it's eligible for deletion under living people criteria, but under WP:NFCC #8 concerns it is. The image is not significant to the text, except to depict the characters. The fair use rationale claims depiction, but also important due to format of presentation, which isn't even discussed in the article. The article doesn't discuss the image, and we're already using a fair use image at the top of the article that depicts the two characters shown in this image. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 3 September 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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shaili Chopra.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jadia gaurang (notify | contribs).

• Unfree image of a living person, therefore replaceable. (Indeed, the subject herself has submitted a replacement at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=3615021, but we probably can't use it on quality grounds.)  Sandstein  20:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete living person photo being used only for depiction. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 3 September 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, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fahrenheit-9-11.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClonedPickle (notify | contribs).

• What Moore looked like while talking to the members of Congress is not important. I am not saying the issue is not worthy of coverage, I'm just saying it does not need to be illustrated. It is not clear how this image meets non-free content criterion 8, and the vague, copy-paste rationale does little to explain what the image actually adds to the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Image is worthless to the article text. You might infer this shows Moore handing out recruitment literature to a congressman, but there's no way to tell. What might be recruitment material is half off the image. The person he's talking to is a person in a suit. Oddly enough, people other than congressmen wear suits. Plus, using imagery in this case demands secondary notability of the particular scene. That doesn't exist here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 3 September 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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DVScotty.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tillman (notify | contribs).

• I feel this image fails a few Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. #1 (No Free Equivalent); Images such as File:Walter Scott and train, 1926.jpg appear to valid copies of the same man on commons, as well as other images of structure as it stands today. Also, #8 Contextual significance; Image shows man in front of his castle, but considering that: we have photos of the man and the building; this image isn't discussed directly; reliable sources establish the association between the two, we don't need this image to establish any relationship. Optigan13 (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking comment about specific image, Walter E. Scott contains mix of non-free and commons copies of images, and may need further cleanup. But, assuming one of the later adult images is legitimately free, image may still fail NFCC#1. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This may actually appear to be a valid image as none of the other images specify a source, and the other images copyright tags may be invalid. -Optigan13 (talk)

• Delete I've removed it from the article. The article only has a passing connection to Walter Scott, and the article text makes no mention whatsoever of the image, making its removal not detrimental to understanding the article (thus failing WP:NFCC #8). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• RETAIN -- the article currently has no historic photos, and this photo visually links the castle and its namesake. Per Optigan 13, it appears there is no free image to substitute. The article has the following context for this photo:

1. Namesake of building (lede)

2. Relation of Scotty to builder

3. Scotty's grave.

I restored the photo to the article for the time being -- I don't think it's proper to delete it while this is under discussion. I'll fix the FUR, if we decide to keep the image. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd recommend keeping the image in the article, at least until this has run its course. I struck the first part, as there doesn't appear to be a free equivalent. I couldn't locate a source for any of the other images at the moment aside from the other fair use image File:Walter Scott and train, 1926.jpg. I think if the relationship between the image and the article was made a little more clear this should be fine. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I despise the notion that because a file is subject to an FfD that it is somehow immune to other policies on the project. It isn't, I assure you. The image in question has zero relevance to the article. It is not mentioned in the text, and its removal has no impact whatsoever on a reader's understanding of the topic. It is there purely for decorative purposIt's a blatant WP:NFCC #8 fail. Removing such failures is routine work. I have removed the image again. Do NOT restore it without the article being modified to support its existence in the article someway. Else, the use is purely decorative and will be removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, I've listed three instances in the article that pertain to this photo. Are you seriously arguing that a historic photo of Scotty at "his" castle is irrelevant to the article about Scotty's Castle? C'mon.

• The article is about a house that had almost nothing to do with whom it was named after. The image itself isn't even mentioned in the text. It was just...there. Showing Scotty standing in a doorway of the property adds nothing to the article that isn't already there. And so what if he is buried there? Show me a picture of his grave. So what if he knew the builder? He didn't design it, didn't build it, didn't own it. So what if he is the namesake? Why then not show a picture of Death Valley, since it's also called Death Valley Ranch. The reality is there's nothing depicted in the image that is of any significance to the article. If you want to know what Scotty looks like, there's great images of him on this biography article. If you want to know what the property looks like, there's plenty of better examples to choose from on the article, and they're all free. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, of course, that the article could be improved. I'll put it on my list. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some details of Scotty's relationship with Johnson, the builder, drawn from Walter E. Scott -- which, incidentally, has a photo of Scotty's grave. It's a much closer relationship than you seem to realize. Scotty was quite a character. There were still lots of Scotty stories circulating among the old-timers when I worked in the area, in the 70's. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe so, but it still does nothing to show the connection and historical value of the photo relative to the text. The door could be anywhere. What about this photo is particularly of historical significance so overriding that it must be included in the article? Has its historical value/interest been noted in secondary sources? I believe the resounding answers are "Nothing" and "None". --Hammersoft (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've moved this photo to the Walter E. Scott article, in place of one of the unlicensed photos up for deletion. I hope this will satisfy concerns regarding its fair-use status. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really, as File:Walter Scott and train, 1926.jpg is the other Scott image with a source and a license. That image was already present in the article, and gives a clearer view of the man, and there isn't enough to justify two fair use images in that article. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed the image from Walter E. Scott. We already have two free images to depict his likeness, and this non-free image contributes nothing to the article; it's not referenced in the article in any meaningful way. The real problem here is that the image has no historical value. Mr. Scott standing in a doorway isn't notable, even if it is on the castle grounds. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 9 September 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.