Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 April 6

< April 5	April 7 >

April 6

File:German Colonial Empire.png

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As worded by an anon at 99.226.115.81, inaccurate image: redundancy of inaccurate image, Posen of Prussia, French claim to German colony in Africa in accurate boundries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can see it, Posen was a part of Prussia then, the French claim case needs more clarification before discussed. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can see, Posen has nothing to do with German colonies. If the French had claims on territories that the Germans claimed, there were similar cases in Kaiser Wilhelmsland, over boundaries with the British and the German claims. This map does not look like it purports to be concise, just illustrative of the location of the colonies. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see two problems: Cameroon was much smaller in 1900 (see File:Cameroon boundary changes.PNG), and Wituland seems to have been British by 1900. If you compare the eastern border of Germany (around Silesia) with this map, it looks a bit strange, too. Yaan (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:01 - An Apology.ogg

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 ⚡ 11:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article Dawnseeker2000 00:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - additionally, no use rationale is provided for either of the current uses of the file. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - content of song has now been added to article. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But still no actual rationale for the inclusion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it being a single a good enough rationale? Leitmotiv (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:05 - Exiled.ogg

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 ⚡ 11:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article Dawnseeker2000 01:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - additionally, no use rationale is provided for either of the current uses of the file. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Content of song has been added to article. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But still no actual rationale for the inclusion (also, which article?). (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it being a single a good enough rationale? Leitmotiv (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:-77 as -X-76, Black Creek, WI, July 1958..jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carlton-screen-advertising.jpg

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, obsolete. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. File now in use in Carlton Screen Advertising. — ξ ^xplicit 00:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Explicit - free image currently being used. PhilKnight (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:InterioroftheRegentstreetpoly.JPG

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. PhilKnight (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be used in University of Westminster or related articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo itv2.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, obsolete, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Premio Logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, obsolete, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Swisstel Sydney Logo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, obsolete, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This was uploaded as part of an attempt to create an article to advertise the hotel and so is useless. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The PopTop Machine.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Riga riflemen.JPG

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 ⚡ 11:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable quality, i don't see any comparable images in the commons. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Latvia does not have freedom of panorama. — ξ ^xplicit 00:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wikipedia-rgcolorspace.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete superseded by File:Venn diagram for additive RG color.svg. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ben jerry plant waterbury sm.jpg

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GreekB-01.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, obsolete, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete superseded by File:Beta uc lc.svg. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dogen.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have historical images of this figure, no need for this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Femalesquash small 3747.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete very low quality. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Foobar2000v0.8.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ricin process.png

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons. Seems educational. No comparable images in commons yet. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Montpelier vt state house sm.jpg

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, dark, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RoyceFace.jpg

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. PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons. The other photo we have of this statue has little detail in the face. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OSOMUM1.JPG

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, blurry, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ijkde.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vxgas.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete superseded by File:VX-S-enantiomer-2D-skeletal.png. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Overwhelmingly Large Telescope.jpg

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 Peter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons, a rare free professional-quality image. Retagged with CC-by-3.0 per this page on owner's website. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons what do you mean low quality ? Did you look at the picture? 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EustonStationsignage.jpg

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 Peter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's certainly encyclopedic, and it could be used in a article about the station. It's released under a free license, so it being orphaned has no relevance at all. If anything, it should be moved over to Commons. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons, I don't see anything wrong with this image. Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Skylab I Logo.png

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

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

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. Apparently the text of the logo is wrong, as noted by the uploader. Redundant to File:Skylab1-Patch.png. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons missing scan lines isn't a big problem. Further the "higher resolution" image at File:Skylab1-Patch.png does not match this image, so if this is a real NASA image, then the other one seems to be a fake. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rinzai.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Integral tree.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, obsoleted by svg version. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete superseded by svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NewZealandElectorates1996.png

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. PhilKnight (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, outdated, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep outdated?? seems perfectly appropriate for an article like New Zealand general election, 1996. We have File:NewZealandElectorates1996-Labeled.png, currently in use, but I might prefer this one because it's less busy. keep and move to commons. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Descriptive geometry - skew lines appear equal length.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is rare application of a general solution in Descriptive Geometry. The general solution in Descriptive Geometry, per se, is almost unknown. This solution appears only elsewhere in the ENGINEERING DESIGN GRAPHICS JOURNAL. It indicates that the directions of viewing (aiming at?) two skew lines (missiles?) so that they present a specified geometry is conical. Pat Kelso (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Descriptive geometry - skew lines appear in specified length ratio.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is rare application of a general solution in Descriptive Geometry. The general solution in Descriptive Geometry, per se, is almost unknown. This solution appears only elsewhere in the ENGINEERING DESIGN GRAPHICS JOURNAL. It indicates that the directions of viewing (aiming at?) two skew lines (missiles?) so that they present a specified geometry is conical. Pat Kelso (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Descriptive geometry - skew lines appearing perpendicular.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is rare application of a general solution in Descriptive Geometry. The general solution in Descriptive Geometry, per se, is almost unknown. This solution appears only elsewhere in the ENGINEERING DESIGN GRAPHICS JOURNAL. It indicates that the directions of viewing (aiming at?) two skew lines (missiles?) so that they present a specified geometry is conical. Pat Kelso (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:HankAaron.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality blurry shot, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. We have far better photos of Hank Aaron than this. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wherehaslovegonebackside.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No critical commentary on this additional cover. Purely decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and #3. Rettetast (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ivasyukrotaruukrainian.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above. The cover is different, but there is no third party sourced critical commentary on the image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Rettetast (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sofiarotaruandchervonarutabackside.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as above. Rettetast (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sofiarotarutendermelodybackcover.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as above Rettetast (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sofiarotaruheartofgoldbackside.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No critical commentary on this additional cover. Purely decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#8.

--Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canadiantourbacksofiarotaru.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No critical commentary on this additional cover. Purely decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#8.

--Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Afiche refugio web.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Claimed self-made, but this looks like a film poster. —Bkell (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE: I originally listed this on November 18, 2008 as a possible copyvio/incorrect license but it never got listed and/or deleted.Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:F7d9 edited.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphan self-photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely not going to be useful. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heavy rain shower (night).gif

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

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

- orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Congrats to the renominator for finding such an old nomination. Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
move to commons as license is compatible, and perfectly reasonable to use on portals or other projects, such as a wikiversity course on being a weather announcer or whatever. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Renfuelive.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Used only at the deleted Renfue (Band); not going to be useful here, and definitely out of scope at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OregonProvSeal.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better version exists on Commons now: File:Oregon Provisional Government Seal.png Aboutmovies (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OregonProvSeal.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better version exists on Commons now: File:Oregon Provisional Government Seal.png Aboutmovies (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Japan times.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image's purpose seems replaceable by text; not a particularly iconic or illustrative image to justify fair use of copyrighted material. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mine Explosion Paul(4).jpg

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 Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded attributes AP (Associated Press) as the source. Possible inappropriate license claim RA (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been released into public domain by AP. It's all over the internet; if eligible for deletion under Wiki's slippery regulations, please advise on the correct license claim. Trying to create an article here, would appreciate it. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Piggybank.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file. Purpose now replaced by File:Open Clip Art Library Piggy Bank.svg. Cloudbound (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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