Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 5

< February 4	February 6 >

February 5

File:Large infinite baffle subwoofer with 18 inch woofer driver.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: nomination misleading. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Antique lacquer wheelchair.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: patently incorrect nomination as this image is neither orphaned nor unencyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Crappy head unit.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. –xeno^talk 21:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and transfer to Commons: appears to be a clear, well-focused image of technology that may be dying out. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and transfer, quite a useful image that easily falls within Commons scope. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete - without copying to Commons. I can't think of any potential article this could be used in.--Rockfang (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep - for use in article about rednecks. Looks like the stereotypical gerry-rigging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Blonde hair Daniel Christensen.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 ⚡ 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Lighting seems off and orangey which makes this a poor choice to illustrate blonde hair. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete kind of blurry and colour is out like CoM said.--kelapstick (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Stack of 80 RPM Edison Disc Gramophone Records.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: nomination plainly wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and transfer to Commons: Seems like a perfectly good illustration of 80 rpm gramophone records. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Daniel Christensen hair.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: wrong again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Give me one 'good' reason why that can't be used on the article blond; it is a perfect illustration without identifying characteristics making it a vanity shot. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep and transfer to Commons for reason stated by uploader. ("File:Guy with nice hair.JPG" may be a better image, though.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Guy with nice hair.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) 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep and transfer to Commons: image can potentially be used to illustrate articles relating to hair colour. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Blonde hair.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) 14:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and transfer to Commons as image can potentially be used to illustrate an article on hair colour. ("File:Guy with nice hair.JPG" may be a better image, though.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep seems like a useful picture, move to commons might be better suited.--kelapstick (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Marantz Model 2235.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: kept (and then speedily deleted per WP:CSD#F8). –xeno^talk 21:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Looks like an encyclopedic photo to me. Could illustrate several articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Not only could it illustrate an article, it did. It was illustrating the article Marantz 2235, which it seems eminently suited for, by definition, even, when it was removed by ... the nominator. Fastily then quickly came here, and wrote this image was orphaned and unencyclopedic (because he had just removed it from the encyclopedia!), and "Use not stated", which, frankly ... :-( --GRuban (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep no reason it couldn't be used in Marantz 2235. Although I would recommend the contributor dust off the amplifier and table before taking pictures for the encyclopedia, maybe remove the CDs too.--kelapstick (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep, nominator's removal isn't a good reason to claim that this is orphaned. This is akin to nominating a category for deletion because it's empty after an out-of-process removal of all its articles; how many more images were in use until just before nomination for deletion? Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment - the file is on Commons now.--Rockfang (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Allis D15.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: nomination incorrect on the facts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:80s stuff.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 ⚡ 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete The focus issues here are problematic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete poor focus, Miscellaneous unrelated electronics, no encyclopedic use in my opinion.--kelapstick (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Center channel.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete should be replaced with a better quality image. Preferably one that uses the text box feature of paint rather than writing it using the paintbrush. I'm also not crazy about the flash in the television, but what do I know, I take horrible pictures...--kelapstick (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. The image is crude because of its content. It shows an absolutely horrible speaker setup, a terrible example, with two speakers fighting for center channel placement, and four more struggling to define left and right. Left and right symmetry has been lost with one loudspeaker turned sideways. Jagged scratchy letters have been drawn digitally with a shaky mouse hand on the photo above the loudspeakers, rather than a font used from a paint program. Dust on the camera lens created spots on the image when the flash hit the dead video screen and reflected. Homemade loudspeakers look like they were thrown together from car speakers but with no engineering consideration—they will certainly cause severe comb filtering. This image fails in so many ways, but its main purpose, to show a center channel speaker, has been lost in the decision to put two speakers near the center. Binksternet (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. As above, and because the concept Center channel is better shown by a simple diagram than by an amateurish photograph full of irrelevant distractions. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: So it's not better than nothing? Think that way when it comes to some of these. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Listening room.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep I think more explanation in the caption of what is depicted in the photo would be useful as far as what the equpiment is and what a listening room is all about. But the image looks good to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete poorly focused collection of miscellaneous unrelated stereo equipment. Question, is a listening room just a room you go to listen to music? If so this doesn't illustrate a "listening room" it illustrates "equipment in the listening room".--kelapstick (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Too many pieces of equipment cause a loss of focus on any one; setup is faulty with components not hooked up. Doesn't demonstrate a listening room as much as a collection of unlikely stereo components. Not encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Carpet door.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) 18:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep and move to commons. A fine illustration of carpeting being used to improve the sound proofing qualities of a door. Looking at the soundproofing article, it would be good to add it there as this common technique does not seem to be illustrated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep interesting subject, might be better suited at commons.--kelapstick (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep, clearly useful. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:My instruments.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Move to commons would be good. Seems to be a reasonable image to illustrate some popular instruments in Western culture. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not much is really identifiable, and the keyboard is in a really awkward position. I don't see much encyclopedic use for a mix of random instruments, minimum it should be renamed to something descriptive. --kelapstick (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete I see no encyclopedic use for a random bunch of electronic instruments. Nothing is notable about this user's particular instruments. The reflection on the acoustic guitar is distracting. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Gemini mixer and MCS EQ.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: Not (now), isn't, is and kept - Peripitus (Talk) 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep The image is encyclopedic. Shows a mixing console and graphic equalizer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep per CoM, maybe move to commons.--kelapstick (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Encyclopedic and is used in the article Gemini Sound Products.

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:Antenna beam.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Neutral The lighting isn't great in this photo and it's not clear to me from teh caption exactly what's being shown. This is a directional antenna? It seems like it's possible to get a better photo than this one? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete recreate during the day without a person in the picture. If you need to give perspective of size, find an object that is always the same size (yard stick, dollar bill etc.)--kelapstick (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Bad lighting, bad angle and cropping reduce visibility of the antenna the image is meant to show. Glowing eyes and a defocussed bit are distractions. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Multiple Antenna.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: nomination contains errors of fact as noted by GRuban. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep and trout nominator. In this edit, Fastily removed this image from the article Television antenna, where it was serving to give a good illustration of a kind of television antenna. So the image was not orphaned, clearly encyclopedic, and its use was obvious. This is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. :-( --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Second radio mast; 35 feet.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: nomination contains errors of fact as noted by GRuban. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep and trout nominator. In this edit, Fastily removed this image from the article Television antenna, where it was serving to give a good illustration of a kind of television antenna. So the image was not orphaned, clearly encyclopedic, and its use was obvious. This is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. :-( --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Mast 1-2.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: nomination contains errors of fact as noted by GRuban. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep and trout nominator. In this edit, Fastily removed this image from the article Television antenna, where it was serving to give a good illustration of a kind of television antenna. So the image was not orphaned, clearly encyclopedic, and its use was obvious. This is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. :-( --GRuban (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Over 100 miles away signal strength.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this image useful as an illustration? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete no real use (that I can see), and likely a copyvio (screenshot of TV program in the background).--kelapstick (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Studio monitors.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Crop and move to commons is that an option? I think it could be useful there, but as is, it has too much "background".--kelapstick (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. These rough loudspeakers are not studio monitors. They were assembled from wood and car speaker parts in a manner completely devoid of audio engineering knowledge. Binksternet (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Neutral. Agree that "studio monitor" is a poor title but I would not criticize the image for showing reasonable home-made speaker cabinets. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Square magnet.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) 14:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Looks encyclopedic and useful. A stronger caption might be nice expaining what we're looking at, but its seems good to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Decent illustration of the back of a speaker. --kelapstick (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Move to Commons — this is quite an encyclopedic image. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Good focus and composition. Binksternet (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. The magnet is both square and I think ceramic type. Illustrates these properties well.

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:Listening room.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete poorly focused collection of miscellaneous unrelated stereo equipment. Question, is a listening room just a room you go to listen to music? If so this doesn't illustrate a "listening room" it illustrates "equipment in the listening room". (Same as previous)--kelapstick (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep this; delete the next one; File:Homemade studio.JPG. But keep this one.

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:Homemade studio.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Appears encyclopedic. An improvement of the caption with more details of what's in the picture and how it's used might be nice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete poorly focused collection of miscellaneous unrelated stereo equipment. Same as listening room.--kelapstick (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Deja vu - Have already seen this setup as "Listening room" and now there is a distracting handset on the right hand speaker. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:FLCC building.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: plainly incorrect nomination as this edit, timed within a minute of the nomination, shows. Good faith has its limits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:First Act bass and electric guitars.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: Kept - yes it is early but the nomination was clearly incorrect - Peripitus (Talk) 05:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Good illustration of one brand of electric guitar and bass. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep, only orphaned because the nominator removed it. Useful image, although it should be moved to Commons. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Pacard.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) 14:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Encyclopedic and useful illustration of this type of warning sign. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep, although ideally should be moved to commons, would have more uses there.--kelapstick (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Neutral but the file name should be spelled Placard. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Tower base.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) 14:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Does the image illustrate something about the way radio towers are constructed or grounded? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Bent mast.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) 14:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a good photo of a roofline and antenna. Is the title indicating it's intended just to show a bent antenna? I think it woul dbe a good illustration (potentially) for this style of eves and gabling as well as gutter issues. But maybe not. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Canandaigua radio tower-what is it for?.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: Kept - Not a useful nomination Fastily - Peripitus (Talk) 06:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Nice photo. Perhaps someone can help identify what type of tower it is and what it's used for. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong Keep. The nominator removed this photo from the article Canandaigua (town), New York with this edit, where it was the only photo of any part of the town. Then he waited a few hours and nominated it for deletion on the grounds that it wasn't used in any articles! That's somewhere between intellectual dishonesty and outright vandalism, and I'd expect better of any editor, but especially an administrator. :-( If this tower is, as seems likely, the tallest structure in the town, it's a perfectly appropriate and encyclopedic illustration for the article. It's also, as observed by Child of Midnight, a really beautiful photo. --GRuban (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep, nominator's reasons appear disingenuous, as it's plainly useful. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Wow that photo is nice! I never noticed that; the way it's just at dusk makes it rather picturesque. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep but the title should not raise a controversy (unless that aspect is notable in an article). The size of the image in the article may need to be reduced if consensus arises that the picture is more artistic than important. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Alex O.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated, copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not a great illustration of a desktop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Poor composition, not useful. Binksternet (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing notable. Bad snapshot of a screen. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:File name taken!.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can indicate what it illustrates. A taped headphone? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Not even the file name claims anything notable. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Attenuation.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) 14:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Looks encyclopedic to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Dimensia Victrola.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) 13:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep: What it is illustrating is the use of the Victrola trademark; a known antique record player; well into the 1980s for something completely unrelated; a television set; in this case RCA's high end Dimensia model. This would surprise a lot of people. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Screen backing.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) 13:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Seems to be a useful illustration of a constructed backing for a projection screen. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong comment: How the heck can he get off calling that "low quality" it's not blurry at all; the camera I use is a cheap Olympus 10 MP model but when the flash is on it's always clear; the color quality and other things are not great; not nearly as good as my old 5 MP Kodak; but still. 19:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, that doesn't have the metadata; that means that I did take that with the kodak camera; that's a fine picture then. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Sony.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) 13:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Focus could be a bit tighter, but it shows a dual tape deck sony product with "autoreverse". ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Dimensia remote.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) 13:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Seems like it would be good to include on commons. Well shot. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:RCA Dimensia.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete I don't think it's a great shot for showing something distinctive and encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep:Just keep it. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Dimensia control.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.~~ Keep following a late 'vote' by Daniel Christensen who perhaps could be nicer; deleted and restored by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You idiots; dimensia control was not a low res one i just forgot to add my argument; it had no keep or delete votes yet; just the biased nominator vote. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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:DimensiaIO2.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete Seems to be illustrated better in next photo. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Dimensia Interface.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) 13:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep Encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Admiral.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) 13:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Move to commons? Good illustration of a classic Admiral radio which also shows the knob adjustments that used to be features. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Wall of microwaves.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) 13:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It's an interesting photo and it shows a lot of different styles and models of mocrowave, but it's not very sharp. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Neutral The bottom section should be cropped to remove the distracting monitor. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Strong keep on this, it shows many models of microwaves and is interesting and useful. However i support the idea of cropping it or otherwise improving the image of course. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 10:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Dual.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete The quality (focus) of the image is not great. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete: ONLY because I can just take a better picture; but where it is on the VCR article it looks fine. It's under special features. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Boss Audio.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep:Shows a dynamic view of all of one brand of something. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. The image is too busy to feature the BOSS products, the two Diablo speaker drivers. There are too many other elements cluttering the image and drawing attention away, including a lace tablecloth, Lego toy pieces, an audio amplifier of unknown make, a Makita portable drill, a bottle of white glue, a portable CD player, a candlestick, clothing or fabric, china tableware, and a stack of puzzles and books—one of which is, appropriately enough, Clutter's Last Stand: It's Time to De-Junk Your Life! This is not the environment in which one would expect to encounter the BOSS product and so it is not typical, not a good example. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: That is a Boss amp! How can you be able to read that blurry book title in the background but you can't see that the amp is a boss; it's even visible at far; when the image is at it's preview size! Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the image caption from the Boss Audio page: A 15 inch speaker box with 15 inch Boss Diablo subwoofers and a D1300.2 Boss Diablo amp; 1.5 cubic foot per chamber sealed; recommended size for the speakers

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:Barn theater.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete focus is not good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Soundesign1.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Image is not of good quality. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Real12.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) 13:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The subject matter seems like it might be useful but the picture quality is not great. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Anylite.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One of these two shoul dbe kept and moved to commons. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Anylite2.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) 13:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
See above. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:ErgonomicMouse.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The lighting is not very good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:BetterDCC.jpg).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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Out of focus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Dimensia intelligent.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep: That one's not that bad. Best megapixel ever! Daniel Christensen (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete: Okay delete it you can't read what the buttons say. Daniel Christensen (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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:BazookaSub.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete QUality of image is not good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Allis D14.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: as with other Allis-Chalmers tractor images nominated on this page, there are problems with the claims made in the nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Allis-Chalmers Model D15.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: wrong on facts again. I could say "lied", but there are other explanations that involve temporary insanity, stupidity, or a poor command of the English language. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Allis-Chalmers Model D17.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: claims made in the nomination don't correspond with the facts of the matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Allis D19.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This picture of an Allis-Chalmers D Series agricultural tractor has a fairly obvious use, isn't orphaned, and isn't unencyclopedic. Quality is a relative concept. If we don't have a better picture of the subject, this one will do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this picture?: File:Allis-Chalmers D19.jpg Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete user has uploaded a far better quality/lit/cropped image (listed above). This one is not well lit, and is missing parts of the front and rear tires. --kelapstick (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Wood splitter.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) 13:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The encyclopedic utility of a picture of a log splitter seems self-evident to me. No longer orphaned. Quality is a subjective and relative concept. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep As above. A useful illustration to the article and the quality is reasonable when shown at reduced size. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep while the quality/lighting of the subject could be improved, I don't see any reason to delete it. --kelapstick (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Slant wagon.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) 13:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Strangely enough, it wasn't that hard to find a home for a picture of a slant wagon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. A useful illustration to the article and the quality is reasonable when shown at reduced size.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:DMMside.jpg).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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Subject matter is unclear—are we supposed to look at the book Big Rad Fire Truck or the blue thing with buttons or the furniture in the background? Very poor composition, doesn't show subject. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:DCC1.jpg).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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Image is not of good quality. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Poor focus, with background sharper than subject in foreground. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Basicdimensia.jpg).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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Poor lighting, subject in partial darkness and blurry focus. There are already better photos of the subject. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Damn1.1.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be clearly captioned, so it isn't hard to figure out where one might want to use a picture of a set of Sanyo loudspeakers. Nomination is clearly mistaken on two counts. Orphaned isn't a reason to delete free content. Low quality is subjective. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete I think the quality needs to be taken into account and I don't think this one is of encyclopedic standards. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Too blurry, poorly photographed. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Poor quality, does not illustrate speakers as intended.--kelapstick (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Cyber Acoustics.jpg).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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete The low quality of the image is a problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Image doesn't show product clearly, purpose is thus lost. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Better2235.jpg).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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Looks okay to me and is well captioned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Photographic focus problems. Does not show a Marantz HD77 speaker as stated in the caption. It shows a speaker that has been modified with another manufacturer's driver: Pioneer. The rough substitution includes some kind of crude caulking around the incorrectly-sized speaker driver. Binksternet (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: LOL that is foam not caulking. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Whether foam or caulking the unit was not manufactured as shown. Distracting background and cable across foreground. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete poor focus and quality makes it not very useful. Alterations make it not accurately illustrate what it is described as.--kelapstick (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Infrasound Config2.jpg).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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Very poor quality image with indistinct subject. Binksternet (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete poor quality, can't really be used for anything.--kelapstick (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Anylte.jpg).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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Poor composition detracts from subject matter, problems with focus and extraneous elements such as person in the background. Binksternet (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete the lack of focus really makes the image unusable, that and the calculator being sideways.--kelapstick (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Marantz1.jpg).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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Not only could it illustrate an article, it did. It was illustrating the article Marantz 2235, which it seemed obviously useful for, when it was removed by ... the nominator. User:Fastily then quickly came here, and wrote this image was orphaned and unencyclopedic (because he had just removed it from the encyclopedia!). Now I'd accept the "Low Quality" argument, since we have a much better image for that article File:Marantz Model 2235.jpg... except that Fastily removed it from the article in that very same edit and nominated it for deletion on this page just above the same way! If all this work doesn't drive a productive contributor photographer from the encyclopedia, it will be not for lack of trying, clearly. :-( --GRuban (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Out of focus photograph is not as useful as others of the same subject. Binksternet (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete the other Marantz image is better. Would not be opposed to recreation of this picture in better focus though, but that would be better suited at the Commons.--kelapstick (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:ME.jpg).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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Surplus to requirements, no offence intended. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Stardock Fences.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) 13:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fences by stardock is proprietary freeware while the icons are under GPL making the screeshot derivative work of all and the correct license being Proprietary eula AND GPL a combination that GPL doesn't allow IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. The image contain no copyrightable graphic elements from Fences. It is literally a translucent rounded rectangle background which is created by means of standard drawing calls. And even if this were not the case, I work for Stardock, and have permission to place graphics from our programs under free licenses when necessary (see File:TweakVista.png which was recently incorrectly deleted for " false license"). GreenReaper (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Bunyan.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

united states freedom of panorama only covers buildings IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep unless there can be a demonstration that something in the picture can't be legally photographed.--Crossmr (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. See Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. The sculpture is copyrighted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep - No evidence provided that this two-dimensional photograph of a three-dimensional object has third-party copyright. AlexJ (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete - If it was installed before 1923, then the artwork would be in the public domain. It was installed in approximately 1960.--Rockfang (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Can passport1.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 - probably non-free unused image. we have alternative images of the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 03:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

copyright probably owned by the state + possible other restrictions IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep In other words, you don't know, but you're going to nominate it anyway? Unless you can demonstrate a problem with links. No reason to delete.--Crossmr (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The burden is on the uploader. It is extremely likely that the design of the passport is protected under Crown Copyright. However, 70.29 notes, a FUR is probably sufficient. Reso lute 05:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case the burden is on the nominator to explain sufficient reason for deletion. I can't just go around tagging a bunch of things for deletion with the reasoning "I don't really know, but I'm going to nominate some stuff and see what sticks".--Crossmr (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fix the copyright notice. I don't see this as possibly being CC, except in relation to the photographer, but not the subject. It should have a FUR. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep - with FUR, but only if the following conditions are true: 1) there is no legal impediment to photographing a Canadian passport (as, for example, there is with photographing money), 2) we cannot get a better quality replacement. → ROUX ₪ 06:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. File is unused so who cares what the copyright status is. If this is FUR then what about the three hosted at commons and the other two hosted on Wikipedia. There is a third image hosted at Wikipeda but it has a FUR. See Canadian passport, Commons 1, Commons 2, Commons 3, Wikipedia 1, Wikipedia 2 and Wikipedia 3 (has FUR). something lame from CBW 07:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment well if it is covered just by the CC, a simple transwiki to commons will settle the matter. 05:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.210.242 (talk)
Delete - unused, and there are similar image on the Commons. PhilKnight (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Capirossi ducati.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) 13:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

nonfree logos logos logos logoooooos X_X IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep a logo simply appearing at some place in a photo doesn't make it a problem. Demonstrate this causes a copyright problem.--Crossmr (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment We have freedom of panorama. Readro (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

delete the picture itself is 1 big marlboro logo the only parts not covered by logos are the blurry background and the tires. As for freedom of panorama Malaysian copyright law excludes from the right of control "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public" (section 13(2)(c)).Ther is nothing permanent about a motorcycle.Plus it lakes a verifiable source.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You've already !voted. There is nothing permanent about anything if you have enough explosives. A motorcycle is just as permanent as a sign in the right conditions. He isn't reproducing a copy of a logo. The logo just happens to be in the photo and it isn't the main focus of the photo. A reproduction of the logo would be a squarely centered and focused picture only comprised of the logo.--Crossmr (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Why does the logo cause a copyright problem? Also, the source information was provided. Just because the flickr user has since de-registered doesn't mean that the image's license is revoked. Once the license is granted it cannot be revoked. Readro (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Crossmr. It's a beautiful picture of a motorcycle racer, the logos are not the focus. --GRuban (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Good image. Logos are not focus of picture. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep, the appearance of the logos here is de minimis; see the Commons treatment of this subject for a detailed explanation of why images like this aren't problematic. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Nyttend. AlexJ (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Casey Fossum edit.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) 13:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

looks like tv screenshot IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep just a bad picture. 2 seconds of research would have shown you that the author regularly takes baseball photos on flickr.--Crossmr (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Cingular rebate card.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

unfree logos IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
delete copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Coconutoiljar.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

non free art on commercial product IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep unless you can cite the problem.--Crossmr (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
i did, non free art on commercial product claiming to be free.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen you link to a single thing yet.--Crossmr (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not a great shot of coconut oil and the branding issues are a problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The image on the jar is copyrighted, that's the problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Chippedbeef.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

same as above IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

comment something went wrong yesterday and this wasn't created, fixed--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom - copyrighted packaging Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Frost days dec 2009 europe.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 as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphan
Deleted as uploader-requested. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:R95pTOT trend.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 as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphan
Deleted as uploader-requested. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:RR trends winter.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 as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphan

Weatherlands (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as uploader-requested. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Parc Labatt Montreal.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This non-free image is currently used in the Montreal Expos article. There is no discussion of the design shown in the article and it is not at all obvious that this image meets WP:NFCC#8 in this context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment there is a discussion on what the image represents, in the article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep there is a discussion on the page about the subject which the image represents. -DJSasso (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Fails Wikipedia's fair use policy (see WP:NFCI.) The article is not about the Labatt Park, which was never built. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Parispipple12.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not obvious that this image meets WP:NFCC#8 in this context, may not meet WP:NFCC#1 either as the text could be paraphrased and/or summarised and the image of the subject is clearly replaceable by a free image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Pasalacamara 2009.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not obvious that this non-image is used in a way that meets WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Stranger photos have happened 2008.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not obvious that the use of this non-free image meets WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to be a joke(?) picture where I cannot read the writing. The title does not help. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Burger Baron menu.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) 13:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

don't need to include entire copryighted menu in article, not a logo as stated in FUR Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Well, the portion of the article where this photo is placed does mention both the variety of burgers for which the restaurant is known and also its "donair" food product, both of which are depicted in different parts of the menu as photographed. The entire photo is necessary for proper context in relation to the article. (Yes, the article could use improvement, but it seems to me that the use of the photo of the menu to illustrate the products mentioned in the article is justifiable fair use.) Geoff ^{Who, me?} 15:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you just discuss the food offerings in the article? "Burger Baron offers X types of burgers", etc?

Keep Encyclopedic image that should be maintained. Licensing looks okay and it's noit a reproduction of the menu itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Pens Arena.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) 13:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This non-free image may no longer meet WP:NFCC#1 as the building it displays is very nearly completed - see this webcam for the current state. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete, a Pittsburgh photographer could replace this. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep, the image is an artists conception and not about the actual finished product, two very different things. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep, the image is an artist conception usually provided for an architect's proposal. The finished product will be very similar to the sketch, however due to budgets contraints, time and other factors the finished product will have some minor differences. So the image is needed for a historical perspective of the project.--Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Harriet Andersson.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 ⚡ 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

screenshot not necessary to understand the brief mention of the film from which it is taken. A free image is also being used to show the subject's appearance, so this unfree image offers nothing unique or essential. Rossrs (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. We have a free image, this screenshot doesn't seem to show anything important that the free image doesn't. --GRuban (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Picture shows scene from a film specifically for Andersson. The film was particularly notable for Andersson's nude scene, one of the first in postwar European cinema. Historically significant image. - DonCalo (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. If the main justification for using the image is that it comes from a film in which Andersson appears nude, where is the relevance in showing an image that does not depict her nudity? She is obviously wearing something, and it may be the same clothing as in this image from the Summer with Monika article. Rossrs (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, here it is - it's the same as this image which is stated as being in the public domain. We can use this image to make the same point. Rossrs (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are cherry picking from my argumentation for keeping the image. It is not only because she appears nude; the main argument is that film was specifically written by Ingmar Bergman for Harriet Anderson. It is a historically significant picture that belongs in a biography about Harriet Anderson. The other one might be nice to add, as it shows how the film was distorted into some kind of early porn movie. - DonCalo (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not cherry picking. You stated that the film was notable for its historically early depiction of nudity, and I questioned whether this image addressed that notability. Now you've added that it was written specifically for Andersson and that sentence makes sense. You originally said "scene from a film specifically for Andersson". I did not understand what you meant because you left out a key word, and for that reason I started with the clear admission that I did not understand you. The other image might be good to add, from a marketing perspective, although it's a pretty tawdry bit of artwork. By essentially duplicating the unfree image, but in a free version, the case for the unfree image becomes weaker, in my opinion. We'll have to see what happens, but thank you for clarifying your point. Rossrs (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nude in the 1950s apparently was different than in 2010. Even the flyers don't show nudity. Anyway, let's stick to the main argument - the film was specifically written for Anderson - and keep the flyers in the article on the film. - DonCalo (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to stop now and leave it for others to comment if they choose to, but I note that you see the main argument as being that the film was written specifically for Andersson. I'm indenting your comments only for readability, to indicate the course of conversation. Rossrs (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I provided a fair-use rationale which I hope will clarify the situation. - DonCalo (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete. The free image is sufficient. Rettetast (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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:Salvatore Miceli-en.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) 13:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This file is a non-free image of a living person. Per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, the use of such media to depict living people is almost always forbidden. If this person were serving a life term, I could see it being irreplaceable. But that's not the case. He is in custody awaiting trial. We are not a crystal ball and we have no idea if he will appear in public, be let out on bail pending trial, etc. Until such time as he begins serving a sentence that makes him permanently unavailable to the public, this image must be considered to be replaceable. An earlier similar case can be found at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_November_3#File:Hussam_Abdo.jpg, a non-free image of a person who will be out of jail in ten years. Just because a person is currently in custody is not a reason to say an image is irreplaceable by free content.

I advised this user at User_talk:DonCalo#Fair_use_image_on_Salvatore_Miceli that if had issue with this to take it up at WP:NFCR or WT:NFC. He's refused that advice, and has not engaged in conversation with me (other than the insult noted below).

I would also like to note that the uploader has been improperly removing tags from this file Miceli-en.jpg&diff=next&oldid=342133717 (and on another file ) now deleted), despite being warned Miceli-en.jpg&diff=next&oldid=342129472 (and on the other file now deleted), and edit warring the image back onto Salvatore Miceli despite being advised not to do so. He's also placed somewhat of a personal attack on my talk page as well. Regardless of what I label myself, not taking the warnings seriously is out of line and a breach of WP:AGF. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Weak Keep While the nominator has a point, I somehow can't see myself saying telling an amateur Wikipedia photographer he should go up to one of Italy's "most wanted" Mafiosi and ask him to pose for a free picture. "But it's for the world's most popular free encyclopedia!" I'd strongly suspect we might find ourselves fewer by one amateur photographer. I think this particular picture subject could be considered effectively reclusive, as the late J. D. Salinger was. --GRuban (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

But we don't know if he's going to make a public statement/appearance or not. He's not permanently behind bars at this point. He is not dead. Plenty of people on trial make public appearances. Why should this person be treated any different? I also note that being a recluse didn't stop this file from being deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That is right. We don't. But we know he's not going to make a public appearance right now. So right now it is impossible to replace this image. If he is ever released and starts making public appearances, we could consider it possible. Common sense has to be applied to certain living people and realize that it is frankly impossible for anyone short of a special forces team to get a photo of them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you know he's not going to make a public appearance? He's not been convicted. He could show up tomorrow at a press conference for all you know. It's pure, unadulterated speculation that he won't. If he had been convicted, that would be different. But he hasn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And how do you know he is? It is pure speculation on your part that he might be in public tomorrow or at any point during the rest of his life. People on the most wanted list aren't just allowed to walk around. If he has a press conference, I'll happily change my opinion to deletion, but as of this moment right now it is completely unreasonable to expect someone to produce a free image of him.--Crossmr (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep per my above reasoning.--Crossmr (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. A free image cannot reasonably be taken. Or do you see a volunteer asking a notorious Mafia boss if he wants his picture been taken? He has been convicted in 2001 for drug trafficking and Mafia association. If there would be a public appearance it would be in court and that will only be known in advance to the press and prosecutors and even if a non-professional photographer would know about it then it is unlikely that a member of the public would be allowed in with a photo camera. - DonCalo (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy I don't think we can "reasonably expect" a free image to be provided or to be obtainable. If future circumstances allow someone to obtain a free image, that would be good, and this image should then be deleted without hesitation, but the possibility of that happening does not equate to a reasonable expectation. Rossrs (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 5

February 5

Wikious

Boobota

Sagapedia