< April 7	April 9 >

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article Dawnseeker2000 01:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article Dawnseeker2000 01:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article Dawnseeker2000 01:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused location maps replaced with template. These maps are all derived from one which had an error - the islands are at different scales. XLerate (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low Quality, blurry/unencyclopedic shot. Not incredibly useful to Wikipedia. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- At the time, the file served a purpose because there was no other picture of said person, but currently, there is a higher resolution picture of the person on the article page. The file no longer serves a purpose and therefore should be deleted. RaaGgio (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a corrupt version of original : laterally inverted and signature clipped off. See original at http://www.darvillsrareprints.com/Images/images/Vanity%20Fair/Yachting/keppel.jpg . Now superseded on Commons by correct version File:Derek Keppel.JPG Rcbutcher (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, superseded by .png version Skier Dude (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, superseded by .png image Skier Dude (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, superseded. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, dim, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, dim, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, superseded. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons. I don't see how this can't be useful. — ξ ^xplicit 00:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, copyvio? FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, obsoleted by File:US-O3 insignia.svg. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, obsoleted by svg version. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, obsoleted by svg version. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, obsoleted by svg version. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, obsoleted by svg version. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, obsoleted by svg version. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, obsoleted by svg version FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. Apparently superseded by newer, svg version(s). FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, obsoleted by svg version. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons. Not too many on Commons. — ξ ^xplicit 00:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic: Unnecessary, Never used, never will be Highfields (talk, contribs) 10:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality, low-resolution image which was only used (and only ever liked to the used) on ((stickfigure)), currently on its way to deletion at TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the email correspondance copied to the talk page, the copyright owner has given permission for use on Wikipedia, but hasn't released the image under a free license. Consequently, delete as replaceable. PhilKnight (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need to show what these two people look like. The article is not about them, and their appearances are of no importance. J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disagree and opine that the article is most certainly about them, or more specifically, their deaths. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails NFCC.8; also currently an orphan. ÷seresin 21:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have free images depicting this airstrike, which should be used in the article infobox. In its current role, this image is replaceable, and so fails our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No rationale information produced, and if there was, the fair use rationale would be unsuitable as its purpose as it does not add to the article, nor is it particularly relevant. Its purpose seems merely to identify Cole during a performance which holds no special significance Patyo1994 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very very low resolution. Redundant with higher res File:Jacob Crowninshield.jpg. Moreover, image source is findagrave.com which is partially misleading since it was copied from some original source. Pichpich (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as public domain because of relevant Argentine law. However, according to the template used: "Nevertheless, its author and source must be acknowledged." This is not the case here and we can't know for sure that the image in question was indeed first published in Argentina. And if all of this can be established, the image should be replaced by this one. Pichpich (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by cleaner version File:JerryPotts.jpg. Pichpich (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calvera rare photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Use in article is essentially, "Look, here's an image of a picture of this article's subject put up on eBay." Inclusion does not substantially aid our understanding of topic; exclusion doesn't obscure it. Uploader persists in ignoring NFCC for this and other images. --EEMIV (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not ignore NFCC. The only thing I ignore, it's your approach - to delete everything without any discussion. However, that's better. Now let's leave this up to community to decide whether it suitable there or not. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we already have a better image and, IAW NFCC, 1 is enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 18:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note. File was originally nominated at WP:PUF, but because it is marked as non-free, should have been brought to WP:FFD instead. — ξ ^xplicit 18:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails NFCC.8; sourcing is also dubious. ÷seresin 21:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan, bmp image, no clear purpose, cannot find related content in users contributions. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very old upload (2004) of a non-free Swedish postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp 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 necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ~~Very old upload of~~ a non-free Swedish postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp 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 necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand what is meant by "very old upload". Contrary to what is stated above, the image is not used to illustrate the topic on the stamp, but purely the stamp itself as discussed in the text in order to underscore that discussion. While the stamp's existence and its purpose are already "perfectly well explained" in prose (I hope, as I formulated that prose), the image, in my opinion, significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the text beyond a purely cerebral understanding: the message that Reutersvärd's art was honoured in this way is really driven home by the image of this lovingly made stamp in a way that prose cannot convey. The use is truly fair use; no interests of the copyright holders are damaged by displaying the image – on the contrary – and its use in the article is perfectly in line with the intention of the issuers of the stamp to honour Reutersvärd's achievements. --Lambiam 23:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually very old upload did not apply to this image. It is unnecessary to show a non-free stamp image per WP:NFCC#8 which requires it to be of "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Displaying the stamp does not add significantly to the prose informing readers of the fact that Sweden issued a stamp to honour him. Besides which, the fair-use rational justification states that its purpose is: "to illustrate Reutersvärd being honoured by postage stamps as discussed in the article" and that is well done right now by the prose. Several non-free stamps, similarly used, have been deleted for the same reasons. ww2censor (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are basically re-iterating the rationale you gave before. I don't know if this counts as an additional argument in favour of keeping the image (you seem to have your mind all made up), but the version I uploaded has a much reduced resolution compared to the image from which it was derived as well as other versions easily found on the Web, so it would be really dumb for anyone to use this version for nefarious purposes. --Lambiam 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail the contextual significance criteria of the fair-use policy; if the primary topic of the corresponding article was the stamp itself, then it would likely be acceptable. However, since the subject of the article is the artist, not the stamp, then a free image (if available) should be used to illustrate the artist's work. If no free images are available, a low-resolution picture of one of the artist's original paintings would be good alternative, as this would meet the contextual significance criteria. Davnor (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The words "significantly increase readers' understanding" from that criterion are necessarily subjective. As it is, I think your interpretation is overly cautious. --Lambiam 12:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- You are correct that this criteria is subjective but remember that where copyright is concerned, we tend to err on the side of caution rather than keep such images. ww2censor (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very old upload of a non-free Granada postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp 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 necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, target article was deleted long ago under WP:CSD. — ξ ^xplicit 22:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, target article was deleted long ago under WP:CSD. — ξ ^xplicit 22:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free image being used in Pro-Wailing Wall Committee to identify the subject of the stamp in a non-stamp article fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and fails WP:NFCC#8 because the subject of the stamp could be well described in prose and not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article if it was omitted. ww2censor (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as Nonfree. If the architectural subject must indeed be used under FU, we have superior images to this one. ÷seresin 22:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 8

File:Darling Buds - Let's Go Round There excerpt.ogg

File:Dalek I Love You - Horrorscope excerpt.ogg

File:ABC - Be Near Me.ogg

File:Hamilton.PNG

File:Manu.jpg

File:Derek Keppel.png

File:LSW06.gif

File:L 5ca5cff81afe0563377f5ca7d3515e56.jpg

File:La Salle colors.PNG

File:Morristown vt highlight sm.png

File:Horsetail reproductive strobilus.JPG

File:Horsetail vegeative.JPG

File:Hunanmap1.JPG

File:Inflatable boats.JPG

File:Yarn sm.jpg

File:Diving regulator.JPG

File:USAF.insignia.o3.collar.wag.png

File:USAF.insignia.o4.collar.wag.png

File:USAF.insignia.o5.collar.wag.png

File:USAF.insignia.o7.collar.wag.png

File:USAF.insignia.o10.collar.wag.png

File:USN.insignia.o1.blues.shoulder.wag.png

File:USN.insignia.o1.blues.sleeve.wag.png

File:ColombiaCapitalDistrict.png

File:USAirF.insignia.e2.wag.png

File:FoshayTower.jpeg

File:Bondpedia.Logo.png

File:Stickhead.PNG

File:Nilgai distribution map.gif

File:SaeedNamir.jpg

File:RescueVan.jpg

File:Cole Live on XFactor UK.png

File:JCrowninshield.gif

File:Mario Passano.jpg

File:JerryPottsKyYoKosi.jpg

File:Calvera rare photo.jpg

File:Nashikcitycentre.jpg

File:Nashikbigbazar.jpg

File:Nashikgp.jpg

File:Humans.png

File:Saab96stamp.jpg

File:Slania-Reutersvard stamp.png

File:Saab96stamp2.jpg

File:300001.jpg

File:2007 0120finalgig0016.JPG

File:Klausner.stamp.JPEG

File:Louvre pyramids at night.JPG