< April 23	April 25 >

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) 07:50, 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:50, 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, lo res image, lacking description or context. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:53, 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 or description, image does not assert notability of it's subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:01, 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]

Incorrect (see dispute template on page), replaced in Alazocine. Leyo 08:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do delete, unfortunately my PC was in a screwy mood on the day.Fuse809 (talk) 08:09, 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, possibly hindu deity but otherwise lacks description, uploader blocked ( nominally for copyvios.) . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:06, 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]

Unidentified image of a building, lacks description or context. Technical quality is reasonable though, so with a description this could be moved to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:26, 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, lacking context or description. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:06, 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) 09:09, 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]

Appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §9. According to http://www.sumikawa-art.com/sakuhin-map/r.h.branton-yokohama-map.html the statue was made in 1991 by ja:澄川喜一 who is still alive. Stefan2 (talk) 09:38, 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]

Equation replaced by equivalent markup in respective article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:44, 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]

This looks like it's an organisational logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:26, 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.} (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, oh why, do we need a non-free image of this when the original blazon is in the public domain? It can easily be replaced by a different drawing of the same coat of arms. For example, Commons:Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Sweden shows lots of examples of how people have been able to replace a coat of arms with a different image. Seems to violate both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may delete it if necessary. I wanted to create a flagicon for this page. All I did was use the COA and add a white background and text using paint based on this design. As you can see, I've now changed the Template:Country data Bristol to now have the COA (is this OK?) Edd of Mercia (talk) 16:54, 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]

Orphan - Scooboo was deleted A7, Unencyclopedic - unlikely to be useful as non-notable topic Widefox; talk 14:26, 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]

Looks like a scanned document, so I'm not sure if the "own work" claim is correct. Additionally, it is not really a good idea to store this kind of information as an image. Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 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]

This computer icon is decorative; does not comply with WP:NFCC#8. Codename Lisa (talk) 14:56, 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]

This computer icon is decorative; does not comply with WP:NFCC#8. Codename Lisa (talk) 14:56, 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. No evidence that image is in public domain and if not PD fails NFCC#1. Deleted by Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The uploader keeps removing problem tags. He wrote that this is disputed whether this fair use file violates WP:NFCC#1, yet he writes that it is in the public domain without providing any evidence of that claim. It was previously posted here. Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hello. Contradictory tags and half-baked reasoning (both in desc. page and history) indicates the uploader knows nothing about the copyright laws beyond the fact he or she has to circumvent it by hook or by crook. The one specifically dangerous argument the uploader puts forth is that "the user gives all rights to image by posting it in public profile" which, apart from being fallacious, is against our philosophy of "if found on the web without a copyright tag, assume it to be proprietary." Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people seem to think that an image is in the public domain if it is publicly available. Maybe this is what the uploader thinks. I had a confusing discussion with him (see User talk:Stefan2#Genome Valley image of CCMB) and it wasn't always very easy to know what he was talking about. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 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 by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image of old FCC map, if needed should be replaced with updated map -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:55, 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]

Orphan image of unknown building. Sole live edit of uploader. No encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:00, 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]

Orphan low quality image of unknown subjects. No encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:01, 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]

Armorial bearings of uploader. No foreseeable use. Was previously used on userpage, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uploader says file should be deleted in March, see here. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. 50.200.187.51 (talk) 20:09, 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]

Orphan personal photo, low quality, no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:24, 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: Deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 04:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone use a sports poster for identification of a sports event? Seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. See also Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 15#File:Holyfield vs Bowe.jpg about the same issue. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the sky blue? I don't know why people use sports poster for identification, they just do. As you may or may not know, a lot of promotion goes into the sport of boxing in order to generate PPV buys and one of the means of promotion is the fight poster. Now the fight poster becomes the de facto image that represents the fight. It really is no different from the UFC or professional wrestling posters. The way I see it, Stefan, all these images have the correct rationale, they are not being abused, only being used for that one particular article as a means for identifying the fight. Beast from da East (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I completely agree with Stefan. Anyone could take photos of the event while it is happening and release those photos under a free license. A photo from the event would be a much better means of identification for the event than the promotional poster. Because of this, in my opinion it also fails WP:NFCC#1. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These posters are used to identify and promote boxing matches the same way World Cup or Super Bowl logos or even movie posters do. They illustrate the promotion's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. -- SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But why is the branding important for a sports event? Why would anyone use that branding a long time after the event when referring to it or identifying it? Whenever I hear about some historic sports event, I only hear the name of the event, the year of the event and the names of the participants. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Branding is considered to be important for most commercial ventures, boxing matches included. Some of these posters are the source of the nicknames for the fights, for example "Unfinished Business" for Holyfield vs Lewis 2.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with SaskatchewanSenator 100 percent. I really couldn't have said it better myself.Beast from da East (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the fights themselves do not require branding to create identification, and we have free photos of all (or nearly all) of the fighters in question which could serve the same purpose. Also note that there are many more uploads by this user which would have the same issue. See upload log. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you suggest using free photos of actors that appear in a movie rather than the movie poster? The boxing posters do create identification for those bouts that are known by the nickname coined by the poster, but why do you think it is necessary for branding to create identification?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:51, 3 June 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 – Quadell ^(talk) 19:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inexact source. Not enough for WP:NFCC#10a, I'd say. See WP:NFC#UUI §10. Also, it is sourced to a newspaper, and lots of newspaper images violate WP:NFCC#2. Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i gave a link to the exact source. they listed the newspaper as their source. do you have any evidence to doubt this? Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 02:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: Lots of newspaper images violate WP:NFCC#2, and there is no evidence that this one passes WP:NFCC#2. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

problem, no evidence this one fails NFCC#2; MASEM: "NFCC#2 is specially aimed at images which are commercial works aimed to be sold as images to end-users" [1]. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 02:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NFCCE: "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." I only need to show that there is no evidence that it satisfies WP:NFCC#2, whereas you have to provide evidence that it it does satisfy that criterion. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Complies with WP:NFCC#2, WP:NFCC#10a, and WP:NFC#UUI §10. The source has been provided. No valid rationale for deletion has been provided. The nominator's opinion that "Lots of newspaper images violate WP:NFCC#2" is not grounded in fact or policy. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NFCCE, the anyone wishing to keep this image needs to provide evidence that the image satisfies WP:NFCC#2, i.e. that it wasn't made by any such commercial source. I don't need to show any evidence that it was taken by such an organisation – I only need to show that there is no evidence that it wasn't taken by such an organisation. Also, lots of photos in newspapers are taken by such organisations. Just check their image captions. In some cases, such as this one, the newspaper fails to provide the source, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 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; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 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 as a replaceable non-free image. Of course we can get higher-quality nonfree images to serve the needs that free images can; that is nearly always the case. But that's not where we set the bar. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#1: there is a PD stamp containing a photo of him. See File:Stamp of Armenia m175.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A post stamp is not an image with "acceptable quality". --Երևանցի ^talk 22:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't that acceptable quality? Doesn't look too bad to me. Besides, you could probably get a better quality image by scanning the stamp at a higher resolution. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You kidding me, right? The man is a national hero. Don't you think he deserves a picture? I don't have the stamp to scan, anyways. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A post stamp is not an alternative and it's simply unacceptable not to have a picture of such an important historical figure. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is so wrong with a stamp? The only problem you seem to be having is that the person who made the scan of the stamp made a bad job, but that is no reason for using a non-free image. Instead, someone should provide a better scan of the same stamp. This is the same reason to why we don't allow non-free images of living people, as someone may be able to take a photo of the person. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a 400px pic bothers you that much? A stamp is more of an art work than a photo. Here is the stamp on the right. First of all, he's pictured on it with Armenian soldiers marching during a parade. The stamp itself is very small, so even if we scan it with high quality, it would not be, in any way, encyclopedic. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:37, 7 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; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan personal photo with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:10, 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]

Orphan map with no quantifying information. No live use can be found. As it stands there is no encyclopedic value of map -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:27, 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; per the research below, it's unlikely this image would be free for Commons. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image is the sole live edit of uploader. Seems to be about Dragonball Z but unknown if valid information or not -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons so someone writing something about DBZ could use it. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons per the above reasoning provided by the IP. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think any image is worthy of moving it to Commons, I encourage you to do so, no one else will do it for you just because you say move to commons in a deletion discussion. I don't think this one is, else I would have simply moved it myself. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uploader says image is self made, but does not list an author. The image was uploaded in 2008, but is found on this site archive link as early as 2002 and here archive link from 2006. Unknown original owner. Might have been PD-Text, but the geometric shapes have fades and therefore it is complex enough to be copyright. There are probably many other locations online that have this image linked on it, but that does not make it free to use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly ineligible for copyright, but it would be stupid to guess about that when it would be so easy to just create an unambiguously freely licensed replacement. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this picture for deletion because, I had uploaded it and feel it is no longer necessary and neither useful to keep it. I took this picture myself and uploaded it here some time ago. Thank you Jimcham17 (talk) 23:07, 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.

April 24

File:Snugged up.JPG

File:ICE Ranger.JPG

File:SLC08 1 small.jpg

File:Show 6.JPG

File:Alazocine molecule.svg

File:ShrijiShringar.jpg

File:NGM Temple.JPG

File:Fig2PN.jpg

File:Fingazheadshot.JPG

File:Richard Henry Brunton - from Commons.jpg

File:Max jakob dimensionless number.PNG

File:RawatRajput.jpg

File:Flag of Bristol.png

File:Scooboo Logo.jpg

File:Drugs that often cause ADWE, Deprescribing.pdf

File:Microsoft Word Icon.svg

File:Word Mac 2008 icon.png

File:Novartis Healthcare facility, Hyderabad.jpg

File:FM1121255.gif

File:Sivan2.jpg

File:SANY0067 With Ed.JPG

File:SAHarris armorial bearings.PNG

File:Near acoustic 2009.jpg

File:Tyson vs Seldon.jpg

File:Anthony John Cooke.jpg

File:Vazgen Sargsyan memorial in Yerablur.jpg

File:Vazgen Sargsyan bw.jpg

File:DirtyHarry1994.jpg

File:ExpoMap.png

File:Familytree DBZ.gif

File:Jimit Sanghvi.JPG