< April 22	April 24 >

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 as modified. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file is frankly an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The purpose of allowing a limited number of fair use images to exist in an article is to illustrate the subject matter in question, and the only thing being illustrated here is sex appeal and a nice round butt. As the son of a Colon and Rectal surgeon, I can appreciate a being the butt of bad jokes and other such nonsense, but as far as this article is concerned the image currently in use serves no illustrative purpose for the article in question beyond demonstrating the sex appeal does exist in anime series. Baed on WP:NOT, I am therefore moving that the image be deleted on grounds that it is unencyclopedic for the article's subject matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(PS:I've never nominated an image for deletion before using the new system, if I screwed something up please fix it. I would appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment there appears to be an upload war on this image, with two different versions of the file overwriting each other repeatedly. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - Niemti uploaded a picture over the existing. Niemti must upload a new picture per procedures, the original should be reinstated. The images are of different sources and must not share the exact same details. The original picture should be reinstated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the original image, Niemti's image is possible CV of a magazine publication. It is not a screenshot and that much is obvious. See Talk:Motoko_Kusanagi#Could_we_use_a_different_image.3f for more. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Relist. I don't think you should have even nominated it for deletion before. It's going to make this even more complicated as we have a deletion process to carry on along with an ongoing edit war. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair it is not an edit war, I acted within acceptable guidelines and it was Niemti who refused to follow procedure. The image comes from a promotional magazine or a scan of the GITS SAC artbook, either way, Niemti changes the source and it ruins the NFC rationals for fair use, reinstating the correct image is what you do. Thanks to Diannaa for getting the clean up started. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have supplied a reduced version and purged the alternate versions of the image from history. Is there anyone who is arguing to delete this image? If not, we can close this nomination. --B (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current image by B (talk · contribs) looks OK. The previous image where the character mostly was seen from behind looked less OK. I'd say keep B's image (and only that image – not the one where she was seen from behind). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what of the original image, that is neither the backside image nor B's image? -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That image has been deleted and I don't remember what it looks like, so I am unable to comment on that one as I can't see it. I didn't notice that B's image was a different image. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedia, orphan, and low quality image that serves no purpose on Wikipedia. Cornell2010 (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2013 (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, no consensus for deletion – Quadell ^(talk) 19:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user has an absolutely excessive collection of personal photographs of no encyclopedic use on her user page and her user talk page. WP:NOTMYSPACE. Note: in addition to these, there are another 18 that have been uploaded to Commons, where I will also be requesting their deletion. — Scott • talk 10:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why in the world I added File:Jeanne Griffin 1974 makeup style.jpg to my watchlist, but even if the amount of self-pics was excessive, we shouldn't be deleting all of them, typically editors are allowed some number without complaint.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that, but picking some of these to leave alone would be arbitrary. It would be better to wipe the slate clean and let Jeanne Boleyn start afresh, working within the established user page guidelines. Alternatively, if she wants to argue the merits of keeping some of them, she can do so here. — Scott • talk 16:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing at Wikipedia for over five years and now you bring up this shit. What a fucking hole. After over 300 articles, I cannot even upload pics to my User page. If there was a problem why wait this long to gripe? And I see you have even nominated ny main user picture for deletion. You must really want to get rid of content-creators dont you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind your language and refrain from making accusations without factual basis. For your information, the first time I ever heard of you was today. I didn't "wait" at all. Following the suggestions of others in this discussion I've removed File:Jeanne Griffin 1974 makeup style.jpg from the listing. — Scott • talk 19:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one in the upper right hand corner of your user page is fine and I suggest that it be removed from this nomination. As for the reasoning behind the nomination, please see WP:UPNO. Excessive personal content or content unrelated to the creation of an encyclopedia is not appropriate here. Also, photos that were not taken by you (e.g. your school photos or any other photos of you where someone else held the camera) need either an appropriate permission from the copyright holder or an explanation that you are the copyright holder by virtue of the only physical embodiment of the photo being given to you prior to January 1, 1978. But regardless of licensing - one or two photos of yourself on your user page are fine ... 40 photos of yourself are not fine. --B (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand: Jeanne is allowed some personal photos, sure. And she is a content contributor. Marking them all for deletion is excessive. On the other hand, I'm not sure about the copyright on those school photos. DS (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yearbook photos published before 1978 are public domain if the yearbook does not have a copyright notice. School pictures, on the other hand, (the ones where the professional photographer comes and you can order packages in various different sizes) are owned by the professional photographer and our use here is likely a copyright violation. Yes, Jeanne is a content contributor, but 40 personal photos is excessive. I doubt anyone would have a problem with her keeping some smaller number (something under 5) and blowing away the rest. If it's not used in the encyclopedia and not going to be used in the encyclopedia, we don't need excessive amounts of it. --B (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

60. 42 listed above and another 18 on Commons. — Scott • talk 20:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Jeanne said ("I've been editing at Wikipedia for over five years and now you bring up this shit. What a fucking hole.") is totally to be expected of a nomination like this. And the response ("Please mind your language and refrain from making accusations without factual basis") is what I like to call "when normal humans and typical wikipedia editors interact". Jeanne, my suggestion is you identify 10 you'd like to keep, and minimise your grief by letting the others go.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You would prefer perhaps that I respond to swearing and ranting in kind, Milowent? — Scott • talk 20:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more fun. Most uncivil behavior on wikipedia are acts, not words.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that Scott's point (and I agree) is that there is nothing whatsoever uncivil about "Please mind your language and refrain from making accusations without factual basis". Nor is there anything uncivil about nominating for deletion content that does not comply with our policies. --B (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split nom - Identify which images, if any, have potential copyright issues and delete those. Then maybe we can work on culling more as necessary. If there's a concern about being "arbitrary" in which images are kept, the best solution would be to discuss it with the uploader rather than nominating everything for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I at least keep the following pics: File:Jeanne Griffin 1974 makeup style.jpg; File:Family photo 1978.jpg; File:Dublin Jeanne boleyn.jpg; File:Woman in green Venice.jpg; File:Jeanne griffin march 1989.jpg; File:Teenage couple 1975.jpg; File:Jeanne in Belfast 1981.jpg; File:Jeanne in south Belfast.jpg; File:Jeanne Boleyn at Bridge of Sighs4.jpg; File:Tatiana sicilian teen.JPG; File:Jeanneboleyn.jpg. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those were already on Commons and as such not covered by this listing. In the spirit of reaching an amicable conclusion, I've delisted the others that you suggest. I'd be happy if you could keep it to, say, a dozen photographs between both your user page and user talk page.

Unfortunately, as your uploads have spread rather unevenly to Commons, I'm going to have to complete this process over there for the following files: File:Animal print T.jpg; File:British-influenced style 1974.jpg; File:Family photograph 1965.jpg; File:Jeanne 1997.jpg; File:Jeanne boleyn 1994.jpg; File:Jeanne Hever Castle 1979.jpg; File:Jeanne in Belfast 1981.jpg; File:Jeanne outside Hever Castle 1979.jpg; File:Jeanne boleyn aut 88.jpg; File:Jeanne Boleyn sandy row mural.jpg; File:Richard party.JPG; File:Sicilian ballerina 2007.jpg; File:Tati birthday 1.jpg; File:Tatiana kitty in Roma.jpg; File:Tatiana xmas 2009.JPG. That might make it seem as if I'm on a vendetta, but I'm not; it's just a complication.

I hope you understand that I value your content contributions to the encyclopedia. — Scott • talk 09:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Scott I apprecaite that comment. No hard feelings, I hope.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of these photos seem to be private photos of the contributor, but it seems that most or all of them aren't self-shots. This means that someone other than the uploader is the copyright holder, and there is no evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. This is a great opportunity for Admins to demonstrate (again) that they have a human face. Just as Ms Boleyn has shown that wikipedia editors are not just anonymous computer geeks locked up in the basements of the world, but are real people with real lives. I feel that this is one of the times when admins could adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude towards a valuable and valued member of the wikipedia community. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The tradition at Wikipedia is that user pages are left alone unless there's something going on there that is disruptive or brings Wikipedia into disrepute. I think that's a fine tradition, and one that should be maintained. If it becomes standard for people to patrol other people's user pages looking for things they disapprove of, it's going to be far more disruptive than benign neglect, and will ultimately contribute to making Wikipedia a more hostile and less pleasant environment in which to do the real work of building an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 23:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. By the way I own the copyright to all of them. They were taken with my camera. If a passerby stopped you in the street and asked you to take their photo with THEIR camera would you hold the copyright to the developed photo?!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone stops you in the street and asks you to take a photo of him, then you are the copyright holder and permission is needed from you to upload that photo here. In this case, it seems that photos have been taken by someone other than you, so permission is needed from the photographers. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe this issue was brought up a few years ago regarding copyright. Are you seriously suggesting that if a total stranger stops you and asks you to take their photo with their camera, you are the copyright holder and they would need your permission to use the photo?!!! Please. I think this is just a sly roundabout way of getting my photos all deleted. I'll remember this next time Commons goes around begging for pictures.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jeanne, there are at least four separate issues. (1) Laws vary from country to country. We are most familiar with the US, so everything I say here is regarding US law specifically. You will want to do your own research about other countries. (2) Prior to 1976, there was a court case called Pushman v. New York Graphic Society that said that if the only tangible embodiment of a photograph was transferred, the copyright was transferred too. So if someone took a photo of you before 1976 and then handed you the camera (or handed you the developed photo and threw the negatives in the garbage can), then you own the copyright. (3) This ruling was eliminated by the Copyright Act of 1976 (which took effect January 1, 1978). For any transfer made on or after January 1, 1978, the photographer retains the copyright unless there is a written agreement stating otherwise. (4) Though copyright is NOT transferred, if someone takes a photo for you and then hands the camera back to you, they are giving you an implied license. For your ordinary use of that photograph, that's all you need. Remember - the world outside of Wikipedia doesn't really care about all of the obscure stuff we care about. If you want to post the photo to your Facebook page or email it around to your family or display it on your desk at work, you can do so, armed with that implied license. But if you wanted to make t-shirts showing the photo, then you could get in trouble. Now, the 11th circuit and 9th circuit have actually said that the scope of that implied license is unlimited unless the copyright holder expresses otherwise. In other words, if the guy that took your photo for you doesn't say, "don't go selling this", then you might be on solid ground even if you did want to make t-shirts showing the photo. But the bottom line is that Wikipedia looks on these with no small amount of angst. --B (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – What's to be gained by deleting these images? If the answer is that keeping them would be against some Wikipedia rule, then I give you WP:IAR, which tell us that if a rule is counter to the good of the project it should be ignored. Editors who contribute good quality articles to Wikipedia (as is the case here) should be given due respect and yes, more leeway than that shown to others. No harm is done to the project by allowing these images to remain. However, if deleted, Wikipedia is likely to lose a well-regarded content editor, which it can ill afford to do – as good an example of the need for the policy IAR as you could wish for. Daicaregos (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support Dai, it is much appreciated. Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Much the same reasons as Dai above. What is the purpose of this proposed action? I have found that putting a face to an editor's name has helped to smooth communications which might sometimes be difficult. Nothing's broke - don't try to fix it! Doug (at Wiki) 00:22, 5 May 2013 (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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a public figure who died TWO DAYS AGO being used under a claim of fair use. (Though it is from a news media source, it looks like it is probably a publicity still so it's not F7able.) If I'm reading Commons:template:PD-SG-film correctly, any film made in Singapore not under the direction of the government of Singapore is public domain. That should mean that even if he weren't a prolific public figure where we could reasonably expect to receive a freely licensed photo were someone in his home country to undertake an effort to find one, we also have a reasonable expectation that if he was filmed by a single person not affiliated with the Singaporian government before 1987, it's public domain. B (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a recent commercial image, and that's all that matters. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep photo of public figure who died THREE days ago. ;-) Huang's breakout year was in 1984. Back then, iPhones (or any other smartphone) were unheard of, and since people thought it was uncool to lug around heavy cameras, not many photos of celebrities back then were taken. Only during official events (e.g. Promotion conferences, etc.) were photos of them taken. Stills from TV serials that Huang starred in before 1987 were all by state-owned media, so no. And besides, while relevance of Infobox pic is no longer relevant since he died, he is most likely best known for his 2000s/2010s face as compared to his 1980s look amongst majority of people who know him. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unknown whether entertainment.xin.msn.com is the original author or not. See WP:NFC#UUI §10. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a historical image, so section 10 has no effect. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He died at the age of 60 and he seems to be at least 20-60 years old. Doing a Google Images search for "Huang Wenyong" and "黃文永", it seems that he looked more or less like that at the end of his life, so I guess that the photo was taken not too long ago. Hardly a historical photo, I'd say. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about the case of Amanda Todd? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:44, 27 April 2013 (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; while it is probable that the original source of this image is PD, we don't have any way to verify that. Given that public domain images can be readily obtained, this nonfree image is clearly replaceable. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a deceased California supreme court justice being used under a claim of fair use. Works of the state of California are public domain, so if this photo could be demonstrated to be an official work of the state of California (as opposed to a studio photographer), it might actually be public domain. However, if it isn't, http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2007_Supreme_Court_Booklet_withInserts.pdf has two photos of this same justice and this booklet is unquestionably public domain. B (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you upload the photos so you can declare this photo redundant? -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2013 (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 Tom harrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what understanding this screenshot is meant to give. It is essentially just a non-free photo of the three actors. Seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a screenshot from the music video of a song. Please see Template:Non-free music video screenshot. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That it is a screenshot from the music video is no reason to keep it, though. See for example the section about the image field for ((Infobox television episode)): "The name of the TV series this episode is part of, with a link to the series' main article. This parameter is used in ((Infobox television/colour)) to determine the colour scheme of the infobox. Series name is automatically italicized." A music video is more or less the same thing as a TV series episode, and the image provides absolutely no information about the music video and isn't critically discussed in any way. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added the plot now and therefore the image is critically discussed now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is still no sourced critical commentary about the screenshot, only about the musical video. It is essentially just a non-free photo of the people appearing on the screenshot and seems to be replaceable by a freely licensed photo of the same people. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2013 (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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art should only be in the article about the product, not in the article about the group. Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator without objections. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking a description, Image does not assert notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found it; it's Morwenna Lasko and Jay Pun. Added image to article. DS (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Withdrawn - Identified and in use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking context, Image does not assert notability of the data it is a chart for. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete superseded by File:Demographic stats.jpg which has the same data and which is used in the article. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lo-res Unused image, lacking description, image does not assert the notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image is unused expect in a sandbox, and does not assert the notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking a description or context, image does not assert the notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, image does not assert notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking image or description, image does not assert the notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn without objection. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, image does not assert the notability of its subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a view from the top of Perunthenaruvi Waterfall, outside Pathanamthitta in Kerala. DS (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Withdrawn - Identified .Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, Image does not assert notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, Image does not assert notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, image does not assert the notability of its subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment This apparently has something to do with South High School (Pueblo, Colorado) but the article update was never completed. Mangoe (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, image does not assert the notability of its subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment This apparently has something to do with South High School (Pueblo, Colorado) but the article update was never completed. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like it was scanned from a newspaper -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2013 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, image is lacking descrition or context, image does not assert the notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sheeeesh Can't we research these at all? Obviously this was uploaded and for a time included in polygyny, which at the moment is a complete wreck. I'm not seeing the obvious barrier to keeping this other than that people feel the data presented is incorrect or misleading, but given the state of the article I don't feel its present orphaned state is compelling evidence in that regard. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information is outdated by over 5 years (or more). Also, the graph does not show that from the data sample more than have of the forms have missing data. When dealing with statistical information, this is way too much of a percentage of information to get an accurate sample. Also, this sample is very specific, using less than 200 responses, which is too small of a sample size to reflect anything more than a group of maybe 20000 people. No good use, better information can be found. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Тимофей. — Scott • talk 10:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn without objection. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, Image does not assert notability. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Withdrawn - partialy identified Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2013 (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: Nomination withdrawn Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Unused image, lacking description or context, Image does not assert notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn - Group identified.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a copyright violation of http://radioscreamer.com/search/artist.php?name=Powerchild or is it the other way around? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - looking at the website, more likely the image was uploaded there after it was uploaded here. NtheP (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn without objection. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, image does not assert notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's Zameer Sattaur (wearing the black robe), in Syria, July 2007. DS (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Withdrawn- Identified Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, image does not assert notability of its subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, image does not assert the notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, image does not assert the notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn without objection. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, image does not assert the notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons it's a purple flower, and can be used to illustrate generic purple flowers -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partial identification of location (via diff search) do FFD Nom withdrawn pending more detailed botanical searchesSfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn without objection. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking description or context, image does not assert the notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons, useful there. Diego (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons it's a reasonable picture of the end of a rainbow -- 02:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Close FFD and Move to Commons Image now identified (via a diff search). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No foreseeable use. Cloudbound (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment aren't the Olympic Rings protected property? -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No foreseeable use. Cloudbound (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No foreseeable use. Cloudbound (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused promotional photo. Copyright declaration in summary appears to conflict with licensing declaration. Cloudbound (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user photo. Cloudbound (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2013 (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: No consensus – Quadell ^(talk) 11:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Superceded by File:Tabliczka FR A48.svg. Cloudbound (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons a completely different representation -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This extends to all the other French route markers below as well. –Fredddie ™ 02:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 03:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This representation at least resembles the actual road signs. The Tablicza... equivalents do not. Same goes for the other road sign noms below. See for example this photograph. Mcewan (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the photograph linked above, the Tabliczka images don't seem to represent the actual signs. Same for all similar nominations below. — Scott • talk 10:26, 3 July 2013 (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: No consensus – Quadell ^(talk) 11:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Superceded in use by File:Tabliczka FR A41.svg. Cloudbound (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons a completely different representation -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 03:58, 25 April 2013 (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: No consensus – Quadell ^(talk) 11:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Superceded in use by File:Tabliczka FR A42.svg. Cloudbound (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons a completely different representation -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 03:58, 25 April 2013 (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: No consensus – Quadell ^(talk) 11:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Superceded in use by File:Tabliczka FR A430.svg. Cloudbound (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons a completely different representation -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 03:58, 25 April 2013 (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: No consensus – Quadell ^(talk) 11:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Superceded in use by File:Tabliczka FR A404.svg. Cloudbound (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons a completely different representation -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 03:58, 25 April 2013 (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: No consensus – Quadell ^(talk) 11:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Superceded in use by File:Tabliczka FR A49.svg. Cloudbound (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons a completely different representation -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 03:58, 25 April 2013 (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 F9 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No foreseeable use. Cloudbound (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like an odd way to present that information anyway. –Fredddie ™ 02:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Copyrighted website. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 28 April 2013 (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 23

File:Picture Inside Quill & Dagger Tower.jpg

Photographs uploaded by User:Jeanne boleyn

File:Huang wenyong.jpg

File:Allen Broussard.jpg

File:Sandese Aate Hai.jpg

File:It's Been Hours Now Cover.JPG

File:Mmc graph.jpg

File:Mesker.jpg

File:McWin2.JPG

File:Park Road 1 neon sign.jpg

File:PARM.png

File:Plufftrans.png

File:Straw dogs.jpg

File:South Cannon 1.jpg

File:Gold Cannon 83.jpg

File:POLYGYNY.JPG

File:Portone turco.jpg

File:Ppfoucnerssssss.png

File:Pucusana1.jpg

File:Pure vibracion nationwide.jpg

File:Pure vibracion.jpg

File:2024 Olympics Logo.png

File:9to5mac logo.png

File:9to5mac hompage.png

File:9xDead2011.jpg

File:A shot taken at the Albert Park Formula 1 track, Melbourne.jpeg

File:ABS raked 4th in Brothershoft.png