< January 26	January 28 >

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 MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: book cover in the article about the author, see footnote to WP:NFCI §1. Stefan2 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the article is about the author, there's a whole section dedicated to this book. But IMO it's lacking the in-depth coverage and sourcing that would justify a photo of the cover. De728631 (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2014 (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 MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File has already been uploaded to Commons by the uploader and photographer under a CC-BY-3.0 licence. They are not able to revoke this licence by uploading again to en.wiki a second time with a new copyright licence. Contacted the user on their talk page 7 days ago with no response. Switched the article to use the Commons version so it now has no inbound links.Cube00 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CC licences are irrevocable and this was first uploaded at Wikipedia by Steveo1544 with ((self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-3.0)) on 24 Oct 2007. Moreover there's now this line "Original publication: 1st Combat Communications Group" which suggests that this could even be PD as an official US military work. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2014 (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 ⚡ 14:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving split media request - revision by User:Lupin was reverted with a minute so clearly an error. No change to description page so no source information to split to own file. Cube00 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The upload summary reads "TeXed by myself. ((GFDL))" so there's the source and a license. I'd say we let this stay for awhile in case someone can decipher the diagram and split off this revision with a description. De728631 (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2014 (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: Unused revisions have been deleted. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Past revision - Resolving split media request - revision by User:Silent Wind of Doom no longer covered by fair use so it can't be split to its file. Cube00 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2014 (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: Done. De728631 (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single revision only - the picture of the magician was only active for one minute before being reverted by the uploader so it was clearly an error. Also the description page was not updated so there is not enough information to split to its own file. Cube00 (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2014 (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: Done. The other image exists at File:Bishop John Sweeny lithograph.jpg. De728631 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single revision by User:Buffalutheran - uploaded in error having only been available for 2 minutes before being reverted by the uploader. Also the image description did not change so there is not enough information to split into it's own image. Cube00 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (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: Revision deleted per CSD F5. De728631 (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single revision from User:Craig burns uk - no information so can't split to its own file. Cube00 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This file is attributed to a certain Denis Ellery but is missing any evidence of the current permission. I have now tagged it and it may be deleted in a week unless we get an OTRS ticket. De728631 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2014 (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 ⚡ 14:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single revision by User:Tob - copyright image and not used in article so not fair use or able to be moved to Commons. Resolving a split media case. Cube00 (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All these don't look copyrightable at all per ((PD-text)). De728631 (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These don't look useful, considering that we have an SVG. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2014 (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: Unfree revisions deleted, file transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two revisions from User:ComputerJA - Image of Gateway International Bridge incorrectly uploaded to this file name, file description not changed and from the summary there isn't licensing information to split to its own file. Cube00 (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2014 (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: Possibly unfree revision deleted, file transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision from User:Rammstein737 - The picture of the car is a clear case of User:Rammstein737 uploading a known incorrect photo of a car in place of an art gallery. It was reverted one minute later by the same user which shows it was done in error. There is nothing to split as no information about the car image is available in the edit history. Cube00 (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single revision - no description for the football revision, file was previously called Lamont.jpg but looking at the history there is no description there at that time so it can't be split out for Commons. Cube00 (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2014 (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: Unfree revision deleted. De728631 (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First revision by User:Casey Abell is a scan from the Penguin Modern Classics edition with a complex sketch from 1966 and still under copyright. Cube00 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just the first revision needs to be deleted, the current version is fine. I think there is a standard mechanism for deleting previous versions... GrahamHardy (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just after deletion of that revision not the whole file, sorry if that wasn't clear. Cube00 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2014 (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: Uncredited revisions deleted per WP:F5. De728631 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two revisions by User:Kubass747 are of a portrait with no description/licence so they can't be split and moved to Commons. Cube00 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2014 (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 ⚡ 14:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crop from User:GrapedApe. Discussion Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_27#File:James_H_Trainor_NASA_Badge_1.jpg concluded cropping was not required so this revision does not need to split at this time. Cube00 (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scan of a government-issued photo ID is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Also, content-wise, a scan of an ID doesn't help the content of James H. Trainor. I previously had tried to crop out the ID, leaving only the NASA photo, but that was reverted.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2014 (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: Kept - as a freely licenced and used image - Peripitus (Talk) 11:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crop from User:GrapedApe discussion Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_27#File:James_H_Trainor_NASA_Badge_1.jpg concluded cropping was not required so this revision does not need to split at this time. Cube00 (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scan of a government-issued photo ID is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Also, content-wise, a scan of an ID doesn't help the content of James H. Trainor. I previously had tried to crop out the ID, leaving only the NASA photo, but that was reverted.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, US federal government work, public domain. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions from 19 April 2013 are not worth splitting/moving to Commons because one is a very low resolution line art image and the other is a blank grey square. Cube00 (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uploads 2 and 3 per nomination. De728631 (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2014 (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: Unfree revision deleted. De728631 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision from User:Printguy is copyright with no details on the licence, unable to split this file out. Cube00 (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2014 (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 ⚡ 14:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary decorative collage of non-free logos. damiens.rf 10:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This kind of derivative montage of multiple copyrighted images should be a speedy deletion category. Each inclusion of each image needs to survive on its own merits, not through some kind of herd immunity.—Kww(talk) 05:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this image was necessary because it demonstrated the partnership organizations that have paired to create this event. For both of the two years that International Jazz Day has existed, this is the image that they have used as it's logo. I will try to contact the people who have contributed to this topic to see if this image might be more appropriate on the International Jazz Day Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Jazz_Day Barrett Kinsella(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 6 February 2014 (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 MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. This is a promotional photo for the play. Seen here, here and here, for instance. damiens.rf 10:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This requires permission sent to OTRS from the Yara Arts Group. De728631 (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2014 (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 Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the poor quality, the origin of this image has been contested at this ANI discussion. The resolution and artifacts suggest that this is either a self-made videotape production of poor quality or a screenshot from a copyrighted source. De728631 (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I see, it's not in use anymore anyway, so it's orphaned on top of everything else ES &L 12:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted as a likely copyvio. In other news, editor is indefinitely blocked. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2014 (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 MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image with no description. Very simple design. I don't think it would be useful to Commons without a description. Cube00 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is supposed to be a ribbon for a NATO Medal, but doesn't match up to any real one. --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the ribbon bar for service in the Former Yugoslavia mission but there are superior equivalents in Commons:Category:Ribbon bars of NATO. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2014 (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 Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2014 (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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image, sculpture created by Wikipedia user but the lack of an article suggests it will fail the WP:N test. As a result if there is no article on any wikimedia project then it can't be hosted on Commons. Cube00 (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete the first, keep the second. The argument that we don't need both images wasn't refuted, and the arguments for keeping the second image were persuasive. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#3a failure: we only need one of the picutres. One of them should therefore be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the words is more appropriate for this use-case (the article topic appears to be more in line with the image with words) and having the blank one as well does not substantially help explain the topic further. DMacks (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the meme as a whole which a substantial part of is the first image Photoshoped into another image, But then again i would rather my image remain Retartist (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article describes both the original image and the edited image. Showing both images is a valid demonstration of the progression on the meme.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; if anything, the other one is less appropriate. Tezero (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete the first (unannotated). We only need one for the illustrative purposes of the article, and the annotated "first meme" version works better for that. We also need sourcing for where the original image came from – however we gain nothing by embedding that image into the article (as the small meme text doesn't substantially change the two images).

This would be different if substantial image editing were involved, i.e. Nic Cage's head on the doge. In such a case, three images (two sources and result) could be justifiable. However in this case the meme simply adds some small text. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original source is this. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2014 (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 MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image, image overwritten with no description so it is unlikely to be worth splitting up or of any use to Commons Cube00 (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The photo of the houses does not have any copyright info and the tobacco tin image is of rather poor quality. De728631 (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision at 02:44, 8 March 2008 was uploaded when file was called "Old House.jpg" however there is no description so it is not worth splitting to it's own file as it couldn't be used on Commons. Cube00 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current revision has no description (description page is from previous revision) so it can't be split to it's own file or moved to Commons. Only used in a user sandbox. Cube00 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2014 (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 MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails also WP:NFCC#3 (minimal extent of use). De728631 (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2014 (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 ⚡ 16:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG & WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image meets the guideline of WP:NFCC#8 as it depicts different angles of the outfit and industrial setting of the music video, considered iconic in popular culture and entertainment. Rolling Stone declared the "oppressive factory setting" as "the gold standard for utopian dance pop music videos" for its industrial location and choreography, frequently influencing subsequent videos. WP:NFG is used to depict multiple scenes of the setting and outfit to visually indicate the article's content. User5482 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: And yet the nominator distinctly refuses to elaborate why they believe it fails NFCC 8. Did you even look at the article itself? Pretty much 75% of the entire page is about the video itself because its just that iconic. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a montage of this type is normally treated as individual images. Thus, we have 6 images for the video, which is excessive. Suggest deleting this, and then possibly uploading a single image to illustrate the video. PhilKnight (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG & WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image meets the guideline of WP:NFCC#8 as it depicts the impact of the video's varied choreographies as referenced by various artists in their own work, cited from sources such as Rolling Stone, The New York Times, MTV News, Digital Spy, and VH1. The choreographed routine has been considered "some of the most memorable choreography in pop video history" and to "set the template for hundreds of videos to come in the Nineties and aughts" by publications such as Rolling Stone. It meets WP:NFG as the gallery style is used to demonstrate incorporations of the routine in other work to emphasize influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User5482 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This kind of derivative montage of multiple copyrighted images should be a speedy deletion category. Each inclusion of each image needs to survive on its own merits, not through some kind of herd immunity.—Kww(talk) 05:23, 5 February 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG & WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image meets the guideline of WP:NFCC#8 as it depicts the impact of the video's varied choreographies as referenced by various artists in their own work, cited from sources such as Rolling Stone, The New York Times, MTV News, Digital Spy, and VH1. The choreographed routine has been considered "some of the most memorable choreography in pop video history" and to "set the template for hundreds of videos to come in the Nineties and aughts" by publications such as Rolling Stone. It meets WP:NFG as the gallery style is used to demonstrate incorporations of the routine in other work to emphasize influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User5482 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This kind of derivative montage of multiple copyrighted images should be a speedy deletion category. Each inclusion of each image needs to survive on its own merits, not through some kind of herd immunity.—Kww(talk) 05:23, 5 February 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG & WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image meets the guideline of WP:NFCC#8 as it depicts the impact of the video's varied choreographies as referenced by various artists in their own work, cited from sources such as Rolling Stone, The New York Times, MTV News, Digital Spy, and VH1. The choreographed routine has been considered "some of the most memorable choreography in pop video history" and to "set the template for hundreds of videos to come in the Nineties and aughts" by publications such as Rolling Stone. It meets WP:NFG as the gallery style is used to demonstrate incorporations of the routine in other work to emphasize influence.

Delete: This kind of derivative montage of multiple copyrighted images should be a speedy deletion category. Each inclusion of each image needs to survive on its own merits, not through some kind of herd immunity.—Kww(talk) 05:24, 5 February 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG & WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image meets the guideline of WP:NFCC#8 as it depicts the impact the video has had on subsequent generations. The video and outfit have been recreated on several television shows in the past several years, with the image indicating specific examples of homage as discussed from sources in the article. It meets WP:NFG as the gallery style is used to demonstrate several recreations of the clip.

There is no critical commentary of the images. See WP:NFCC#8. The image is a gallery and the image therefore fails WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary is provided from sources such as Entertainment Weekly and can also be viewed on Youtube. The guidelines of WP:NFG states gallery images "should be considered on a case-by-case basis", as in this case they are used briefly to demonstrate several televised homages. User5482 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This kind of derivative montage of multiple copyrighted images should be a speedy deletion category. Each inclusion of each image needs to survive on its own merits, not through some kind of herd immunity.—Kww(talk) 05:24, 5 February 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image meets the guideline of WP:NFCC#8 as it displays Jackson wearing the music video's outfit to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, therefore portraying the cultural significance and impact the ensemble has on popular culture. User5482 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no critical commentary of the image. See WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image and commentary is sourced from MTV News, which declares Jackson a "style icon", using the image in question to display the video and outfit's notoriety and overall impact on popular culture. User5482 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFCC#8.—Kww(talk) 05:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if it passes NFCC#8, it fails WP:NFCC#2 as it is a commercial agency photo. Mosmof (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG & WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image meets the guideline of WP:NFCC#8 as it depicts the infamous choreography in the music video. The choreographed routine has been considered "some of the most memorable choreography in pop video history" and to "set the template for hundreds of videos to come in the Nineties and aughts" by publications such as Rolling Stone. It meets WP:NFG as the gallery style is used to demonstrate the various forms of dance and choreographed routines performed in the clip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User5482 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no critical commentary of the images. See WP:NFCC#8. The image is a gallery and the image therefore fails WP:NFG. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive critical commentary on said choreography in the article and as said in previous response. The guidelines of WP:NFG states gallery images "should be considered on a case-by-case basis", as in this case which it is used to demonstrate the styles of dance portrayed in the clip, which is considered iconic within popular culture. User5482 (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I must agree with the notion that there might be too many non-free images in the article, but I think the first set of images is enough to set the scene. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This kind of derivative montage of multiple copyrighted images should be a speedy deletion category. Each inclusion of each image needs to survive on its own merits, not through some kind of herd immunity.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 5 February 2014 (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 MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image meets the guideline of WP:NFCC#8 as a visual representation of the significance the music video and outfit have on popular culture, in which the outfit was used by Disney, one of the largest and most popular corporations, in their theme park to promote their brand. This is also discussed in a portion of the article. User5482 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no critical commentary of the statue. See WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary is provided in the article and sourced from Entertainment Weekly. The original source states "a life-size statue of Mickey dressed à la Janet in her all-black leather outfit from the 1989 Rhythm Nation video" was "unveiled last fall for the Disney mascot's 75th birthday" at Disney World theme park. User5482 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a single relevant sentence in the article: "a statue of Mickey Mouse wearing the "Rhythm Nation" outfit was mantled at Walt Disney World theme park" which does not constitute a critical commentary and does not require an image to support the general reader's understanding. Critical comments would be discussions of the statue's cultural impact (beyond its removal after the Super Bowl) and reception. De728631 (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails WP:NFCC#8.—Kww(talk) 05:27, 5 February 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no contextual significance. The painting/collage is not discussed at all in the collage article. Due to the violation of WP:NFCC, the image should be deleted. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fails WP:NFCC#8.—Kww(talk) 05:28, 5 February 2014 (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.

January 27

File:The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Plants by Christian Rätsch.jpg

File:Lybian MI-25 Hind Captured by Chadian forces at Wadi Dom, Chad.jpg

File:Commutative.png

File:AFCS-Uniform-TEN.PNG

File:Alanwatson.jpg

File:Bishop John Sweeny.jpg

File:Scan0023.jpg

File:Nts.png

File:Bridge Rectifier for single-phase alternating current (symbolic diagram).png

File:Winnipeg Art Gallery.jpg

File:Lamont's entrance from Weedpatch Highway.jpg

File:The Awkward Age.JPG

File:Hadley.jpg

File:James H Trainor NASA Badge 2.jpg

File:James H Trainor NASA Badge 1.jpg

File:Pepsi 01.JPG

File:T F Simon Booksellers.jpg

File:UNESCO IJD TMIJ.jpg

File:"Sundown" (2006) by Watoku Ueno.jpg

File:Stavros Damianides Hyde Park Festival, Channel 9 Stage.png

File:NATO.jpg

File:IOS 7 lockscreen.png

File:Scarecrow.triddle.jpg

File:Original_Doge_meme.jpg

File:Copenhagen.jpg

File:Front of Old House, Bembridge School, Isle of Wight.jpg

File:Kiki 2.jpg

File:Identifying the Scope of Sea Traffic Management- The Interface to Ports Operations.pdf

File:Rhythm Nation video.png

File:Janet - Rhythm Nation influence.png

File:Janet - Rhythm Nation influence2.png

File:Janet - Rhythm Nation influence3.png

File:Rhythm NationTV.png

File:Janet Hollywood Walk of Fame.jpg

File:Rhythm Nation choreography.png

File:Rhythm Nation Mickey Mouse Disneyworld.jpg

File:Dove The Intellectual.jpg