Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 July 26



July 26

 * 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:

Image:Mohammadreza_Shah.jpg

 * Image:Mohammadreza_Shah.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Sina ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * There are free images available for Mr Reza Pahlavi. Abu badali (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, with a very high probability it is taken prior to 1977, and it is in public domain, --Pejman47 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * dispute - You're committing the common mistake to believe that PD-Iran is for images taken in Iran more than 30 years ago. It is actually for images first published in Iran more than 30 years ago. To show that this image is PD-Iran, we need more source information. If I read it correctly, any pre-1977 publication from Iran attributing this image to some Iranin photographer would be enough. --Abu badali (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The image certainly "looks like" a posed, official portrait - it seems again "likely" than this would've been published at about the same time it was taken. The evidence isn't conclusive, and I don't read/write Farsi - I probably can't prove it. Wily D  14:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, considering the age of the photo, most likely early 70s, it must be out of copyright. Dfitzgerald 07:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dispute - please, read my dispute comment above for understanding why you're committing a common mistake. --Abu badali (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, as the image is very likely PD. If evidence against of copyright surfaces, the image should be renominated. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:21, 31 July 2007 (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.


 * 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:

Image:Mohammad_Reza_Shah-Leaving_Iran.jpg

 * Image:Mohammad_Reza_Shah-Leaving_Iran.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by SG ( [ notify] | contribs).

- Deleted. There is consensus that this image adds to the article, but there is not consensus that this image shows encylopedic information that could not adequately be explained with a few lines of text. (By the way, the fact that the image will become PD in two years does not affect this decision.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsourced non-free image of Reza Pahlavi leaving Iran, used to illustrate the information that he had to left iran, doens't seem to add any notheworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is taken in 1979 and we must wait for two other years to use it as PD.--Pejman47 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as fair-use. You want to delete an image for two years, for what? This adds a lot to the article it is used in. I have clearly stated my fair use rationale on the image page, as well as having tagged the image as a "non-free historic image". It isn't merely a generic image that could be replaced by a free alternative. And, by the way, as the saying goes: "A picture is worth a thousand words." ♠ SG →Talk 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If we know we'll have a free alternative after 2 years, then the image is replaceable, and should be deleted. It's better to have no image in the time frame than having a non-free image. --Abu badali (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We know that we'll have a free alternative for every image in a finite number of years. What exactly is the cutoff time period that wouldn't allow your argument? Anomie 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I confess I don't know for sure. But anyway, in this case, this image is promptly replaceable by free text. --Abu badali (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as fair-use It has a rationale now. Anomie 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fair use rationale fails to explain why is this image necessary for the reader's understanding of the topic. --Abu badali (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above. It does add to the article. --Anakin (contribs, complaints) 11:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. Dfitzgerald 07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per SG. It adds to the article in my opinion.Shervink 15:44, 30 July 2007 (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.


 * 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:

Image:Reza_shah.jpg

 * Image:Reza_shah.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by HumayunMirzajr ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Picutre of a picture. It can't be released under PD unless the inner picture is already PD. No source info for the inner picture is provided. Abu badali (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is taken in his palace in tehran, so can easily be used. --Pejman47 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * dispute - You're committing the common mistake to believe that PD-Iran is for images taken in Iran more than 30 years ago. It is actually for images first published in Iran more than 30 years ago. To show that this image is PD-Iran, we need more source information. If I read it correctly, any pre-1977 publication from Iran attributing this image to some Iranin photographer would be enough. --Abu badali (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep PD. -Nard 13:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes you believe it's PD? I would not object it to be kept if we could be sure that it's PD. --Abu badali (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously PD. Dfitzgerald 07:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, as the image is very likely PD. If evidence against of copyright surfaces, the image should be renominated. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:21, 31 July 2007 (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.

Image:MunsonPromotional.jpg

 * Image:MunsonPromotional.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Silent_Wind_of_Doom ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image is claimed to be known to have come from a press kit or similar source, but no verifiable source info is provided. Abu badali (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:

Image:Sk_dip.jpg

 * ====Image:Sk_dip.jpg====
 * Image:Sk_dip.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by nd1985 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * The image is unneccessary and does not even depict swimming. - Impostor404 04:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the image is not used to illustrate Swimming. It is used to illustrate Skinny dipping, which is what it depicts. Whether the image is necessary or otherwise is irrelevant in this context, because the image is free and not "fair use". Euryalus 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept, no valid reason to delete. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:35, 31 July 2007 (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.

Orphaned images uploaded by Vlatkoto

 * Image:10241.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:2555.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Kumanovo.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Skopje location.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Skopje location.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:City of Skopje.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:City of Skopje1.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Kumanovo MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Delchevo MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Prilep MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Ohrid MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Berovo MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Veles MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Bitola MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:TOLSOROM.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:TOLSOROM numbered.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Studenichani MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Zjelinoi MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Ilinden MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Lipkovo mkd.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Chucher Sandevo mkd.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Jegunovce mkd.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Arachinovo mkd.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Tearce MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Tetovo mkd.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Brvenica MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Makedonski Brod MKD.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])


 * These images are orphaned, low-resolution locator maps of administrative units of the Republic of Macedonia. We seem to have plenty of replacement images; for example, see commons:Category:Administrative units of the Republic of Macedonia and the maps used in Municipalities of the Republic of Macedonia. Alternatively, these could be moved to the Commons if someone thinks it would be worthwhile to do so. —Bkell (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Macedonia(R))(BWS).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])


 * This is an orphaned, low-resolution map in JPEG format that claims to compare the boundaries of Macedonia (region) to the boundaries of the Republic of Macedonia. Judging from the summary at Image:ROM(Macedonia).jpg, this is a very contentious issue, and may constitute original research unless sources are given to justify the boundaries of the region. —Bkell (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:UMHRL.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])


 * This is an orphaned map, apparently the last in a series of images illustrating a proposed expansion of the Republic of Macedonia (see User:Cyberboki, for example); it seems to have been superseded by Image:UMHRL1.png. —Bkell (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Mkd muni znaminja (Bitola).svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])


 * This is an orphaned SVG image that appears to be broken; it seems to refer to an embedded bitmap, which may indicate that it's not actually an SVG image at all. —Bkell (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:MKD muni nonn(Vinica1).png

 * Image:MKD muni nonn(Vinica1).png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Vlatkoto ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This is an exact duplicate of the current version of Image:MKD muni nonn(Vinica).png. However, as Carlossuarez46 pointed out, this image has been released into the public domain, whereas Image:MKD muni nonn(Vinica).png is tagged GFDL. This leads to a little dilemma. We surely don't need both copies of this image. The public-domain image is more freely licensed than the other (in that it doesn't carry any of the restrictions of the GFDL), but the other has a slightly better filename and also has an alternate older version in its history. So it's difficult to say which of these two images should be deleted. What's the general guideline in cases like this? —Bkell (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sneslogo.png

 * Image:Sneslogo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Anomie ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Obsolete, replaced by higher quality Image:SNES logo.svg.- Anomie 06:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:SuperNintendoLogo.png

 * Image:SuperNintendoLogo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Anomie ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Obsolete, replaced by Image:Super Famicom logo.svg. Also orphaned fair use.- Anomie 06:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:

Image:Linn berggren98.JPG

 * Image:Linn berggren98.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Firsfron ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Delete - fair use image for a living person that can be replaced by free use image Ejfetters 08:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - image is not being used to show what she looks like, but the (very unusual) purposeful blurring of her image in publicity photos. In such a context, showing such a photo is clear fair use.  Jheald 14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment definitely is used to describe a feature of released pictures of her and not just to illustrate her appearance (indeed, it does a shitty job of that). Seems like a reasonable application of fair use - "blurring" is a very general process which really needs image to allow qualitative judgement. Wily D  15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The whole discussion about "blurred images" in the article is mix of unsourced statements, original research and weasel words. The only foot note reference points to a Wikipedia article! There are passages like "Speculation has abounded amongst fans since 1997..." (weasel words), "...this situation was something new and strange for Linn..." (original research), "Since 1997 she has appeared at her band's concerts only to perform in the dark or from behind objects " (unsourced), "Linn frequently appears unhappy, upset, or even ill in pictures taken of her"  (original search) just to name a few.
 * This image and the section discussing it must be deleted unless someone can find some references to some reliable source discussing about this "blurred images theory". --Abu badali (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I put it to you that the most reliable source is that her publicity images looked like this. Which is why including this image is important for the article.  Jheald 20:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, take some time to read No Original Research. No... seriously! --Abu badali (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jheald: impossible to show Linn Berggren blurry in promotional photos and videos without a promotional photo. Anything about Linn's blurry images can easily be sourced, and I'll do so today. I understand the concerns about weasel words and original research in the text, but there have been plenty of sources since 1997 which discuss the (still unexplained) blurriness, and deleting the image won't fix the (currently) unsourced text statements which can be sourced. Firsfron of Ronchester  17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Detailed fair use raitionale provided here. You better believe that if, say, Madonna appeared blurry and unhappy in eight consecutive music videos (and did not sing in them and stood in the background the whole time), that there would be no problem including a Fair Use photo of such behavior. In fact, there are five Fair Use images on Madonna's Wikipedia article.
 * The blurry Linn Berggren image merits inclusion in the article and adds significantly to the article because this blurry photo from the band's third U.S. album (and others like it) and its significance are the object of significant discussion in the article, and was the subject of major press coverage both in the United States (CNN, CBS, etc) and in Europe (Bravo, etc). The image cannot be replaced with a non-promotional photo because the discussion is of the professional photos which were purposely blurred. Further, finding free photos of Linn after 2002 isn't possible either: there aren't any. One fan was able to snap of photo of her backstage in 2002. This photo doesn't (and cannot) address the blurry publicity images. Firsfron of Ronchester  18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, add references to the article. reliable sources only. --Abu badali (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources have already been added, from CNN and the band's official site. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The official site, of not used with caution, is a self-published source or a primary source. Be careful (I haven't checked the article yet).
 * But do you believe you could address the no source concern bellow? We really need a verifiable source for this image... (I can produce "blurred images" of any celebrity you name) --Abu badali (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you also produce a CNN article which claims album covers feature blurry images and silent interviews? :) I understand you want to make sure the article is sourced with reliable sources. Please understand that your contributions are appreciated here, but reliable sources, including CNN, have been provided. The band's site had the press images, which were used for album image inserts, radio promotions, posters, and (obviously) the press. If you look at the CNN article, you can see the same image of blurry Linn was included with the rest of the band (it's the same set of publicity photos; she's even wearing the same outfit). This photo appears in the U.S. album and on the European albums (where it is modified to include blue lines across her face). You could buy the album, check google images, or take CNN at its word. Firsfron of Ronchester  00:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A CNN article is surely a reliable source. I never criticized that.
 * If the photo appears in some album, please list that as the image's source (album's name, release date, etc). Indeed, I would say that an album's image (not necessarily the cover) would be preferred over an image from the website, since it will be always possible to verify the image authenticity examining a copy of the album (while the website may change or go off-line at any moment). --Abu badali (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just checked the article and the CNN source and I have to say that it's not good enough. The CNN article mentions just one image in the album cover that is blurred, but no overall pattern of blurring images. The article correctly mentions that the she avoids publicity. But The "blurred image theory" is still original research.
 * I'll add some fact templates in the article, at sentences I believe need to be backed up. Would you take a look at them? --Abu badali (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a look. It's rare to see citation needed tags on nearly every sentence, but I've added citations where you've requested. I'm actually vacationing out of state, but I have a big pile of journals and magazines which provide additional sources, and will add those, too, when I return on August 9th. In the meantime, if you are still worried about a "blurred image theory" being original research, check out the additional sources, do a google search, check out youtube for post-1997 videos, or buy the Flowers album (which has a half dozen blurry pictures of Linn), Always Have Always Will single, other images from the same photo session, or check out later images like this, this, this, this. The image in question appears both in the album itself and in the press kits of that era. Firsfron of Ronchester  19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Firsfron, I hope not to sound offensive by repeating myself this much but, please, just like user Jheald above, take some time to read No Original Research.
 * Do you understand that, if I watch all Ace of Base clips and then, after noticing that all appearances of Ms. Berggren were blurred, I write an article's section about that, I would be committing original research?
 * Unless some reliable source had discussed this "blurred image theory", we can't discuss it on Wikipedia. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source (and please, make sure you understand the difference between a primary and a secondary souce). --Abu badali (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * CNN discusses Linn's blurry images. CNN is a reliable source. I understand the difference between a primary and a secondary source (and in fact, there are at least ten featured articles which use nothing but primary sources, so that argument holds little weight with me). You've been going round and round, picking apart various things, but that doesn't change the fact that CNN is a reliable source, and has reported on blurred images. (And please do not respond with "image not images"; that's just semantics). Firsfron of Ronchester  22:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The CNN article used in the article just mentions 1 blurred image in one of the band's albums. It doesn't mentions an overall tendency and doesn't serve as a source for the statements that all of her publicity images are blurred.
 * WP:NOR is a policy. That some articles (featured or not) do not follow it doesn't means we can ignore it here. We should fix the broken articles instead. --Abu badali (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would not be original research (although it would not be likely to be relevant to the article) to write an article section stating the fact that all appearances of Ms. Berggren in all Ace of Base clips were blurred using the clips as the (primary) source, as this is something that is readily apparent in the source. It would only be original research to give any motive or reason for this occurrence without additional sources. Even then, a secondary source would not be necessary if there were a primary source giving the reason (e.g. a statement by Ms. Berggren that meets WP:SPS). Anomie 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is original research because it compiles information from various primary sources (the videoclips), plain and simple. --Abu badali (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Compiling information from various sources is what we do here. Not all synthesis is original synthesis, only synthesis that is not supported by the sources. Making an observation of the sources that is clear and unarguable from looking at the sources is not original. Would you also require a secondary source for the statement "All of these cows are brown" when looking at a picture of a herd of brown cows? Anomie 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Compiling information from various secondary sources is what we do here. I would not object calling the cows brown (as long as it isn't being used to push a broader theory), but I do object sentences like "Linn frequently appears unhappy, upset, or even ill in pictures taken of her". --Abu badali (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you clearly haven't seen her pictures. :) I disagree that "what we do here" is compile stuff from secondary sources, and there are WikiProjects which prefer primary sources over secondary ones. Anomie's got the right of it and it seems to me you're niggling over stuff (such as insisting on the article talk page that the references be formatted in WP:CITET template format, when CITET plainly states that's not required). You're going overboard to get this image deleted, and it appears from your arbitration case that this isn't the first time. Firsfron of Ronchester  09:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Wikiprojects that choose to violate policy can't be used as a precedent. The point I made in the talk page was not that we need to use this or that template, but that the sources must be verifiable.
 * I agree, that sentence probably isn't able to be supported by reference to primary sources (very expressive acting of those emotions might make it supportable, but I doubt that is the case). But simply stating the fact that all pictures are blurry doesn't require interpretation of emotional states. Anomie 14:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly! That's why we can't have a sentence like that! --Abu badali (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * no source - By the way, the image is said to be known to have come from a press kit or similar source, but there's no verifiable source information to backup this claim. This, by itself, is ground for deletion. --Abu badali (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. This image has no source, and this photo does not provide any encyclopedic information that a few lines of text wouldn't provide just as well. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:45, 31 July 2007 (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.

Image:Bone Thugs.jpg

 * Image:Bone Thugs.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Blackdragon6 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Previously speedily deleted 8 times, DRV consensus was to overturn. Procedural nomination only. --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 12:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - This isn't quite the open/shut case it looks to be. The uploader said that the members of this band are in jail, though I haven't verified this. However, should the claim be true, finding a free image may in fact not be as easy as it looks. The Evil Spartan 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only free image i could find that promotes the whole group with Flesh-N-Bone is this one--Blackdragon6
 * Very weak keep - I do believe that the incarceration of Flesh-N-Bone impedes upon the replacability of the image. However, I'm unsure whether BT&H is more notable and recognisable with or without him. See also Pink Floyd, where the "classic look" is used in the infobox rather than the current (and less-recognisable) lineup. Will (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

the group is however known as a five man group,despite flesh-n-bone's incarceration he is generally recognized.perhaps not as much as the others, but nevertheless he's recognized as being part of the group.--Blackdragon6
 * Delete. They were a 5-man group. Now they're a 3-man group. We still only need an image of the group for the infobox. A free photo of the band, along with a free photo of each of the (now) removed members, would provide the same info. FNB will be eligible for parole next year. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

the group is STILL considered a 4 man group despite Flesh's incarceration--Blackdragon6


 * 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. 

Image:Martha's_superphone.JPG or Image:Superphone.jpg
If it were up to me, I would delete both, but certainly the two cant be justified, can they? 86.12.249.63 15:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two different phones, used in two different articles, with two different accompanying texts.  Why not?  Jheald 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment What is the point of either of them? and if there is a point why can't the Image:Superphone.jpg be used for both articles?


 * Keep Martha's Superphone, since it's being used in a list of items, and the phone itself is the subject of the section. Delete Superphone, since it's barely mentioned in the article (fails NFCC #8), and is included in a section on the character's personality. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Martha's superphone.JPG kept; Image:Superphone.jpg deleted.  howcheng  {chat} 16:36, 2 August 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Sharukh_Khan.jpg

 * Image:Sharukh_Khan.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Rohitjindal85 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unlikely to be PD-self Abu badali (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:IIFA_Award.jpg

 * Image:IIFA_Award.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Bunty02 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * No source, tagged as GFDL but description says that a "proper license" is necessary for "copy/redistribute". Abu badali (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Iifaawards.jpg

 * Image:Iifaawards.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Parihav ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image is said to be known to have come from a press kit or similar source, but source site is not such source. It actually forbids any copy or redistribution of its material Abu badali (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

General Alcazar images

 * Image:Alcazar 02 as Ramon Zarate in Seven Crystal Balls.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Alcazar 02 as Ramon Zarate in Seven Crystal Balls.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])


 * Image:Alcazar 03 in the Red Sea Sharks.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Alcazar 03 in the Red Sea Sharks.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])


 * Image:Alcazar 04 and a guerrilla in Tintin and the Picaros.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Alcazar 04 and a guerrilla in Tintin and the Picaros.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])


 * Image:Alcazar 05 and Tapioca in Tintin and the Picaros.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * Image:Alcazar 05 and Tapioca in Tintin and the Picaros.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])

These four images are all superfluous to the article. I did not nominate one image which shows the reader what the character looks like.  howcheng  {chat} 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The appearance of the character does appear to change rather a lot from outing to outing. That might justify more than one image, though probably not all of these.  Jheald 20:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:B4G1-1-.jpg

 * Image:B4G1-1-.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Bunkkk ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned — Oli Filth 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Newport green copy.jpg

 * Image:Newport green copy.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Deolivr ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned -- Oli Filth 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Acciodeathlyhallows.PNG

 * Image:Acciodeathlyhallows.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by 8217.LIZA ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned — Oli Filth 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-free and non-useful. --Anakin (contribs, complaints) 11:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Logo-RECORDS & PROMOTIONS.jpg

 * Image:Logo-RECORDS & PROMOTIONS.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Illuminarecords ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned — Oli Filth 20:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Andy_Gray.jpg

 * Image:Andy_Gray.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Gjt6 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Low quality, replaced by Image:Andy Gray 2004-10-23.jpg.  howcheng  {chat} 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flynight.jpg

 * Image:Flynight.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Libyan Head ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned — Oli Filth 22:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are plenty of other pics that are similar and better quality. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Image uploaded by user now blocked, purely for vandalism. Jheald 09:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete We are NEVER gonna find a suitable use for that image. Anakin (contribs, complaints) 14:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Skynight.jpg

 * Image:Skynight.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Rickydrambin44 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned — Oli Filth 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Conch chatting.jpg

 * Image:Conch chatting.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Charie Allnut ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Copyvios, as he isn't the author of the image, Nickelodeon is. —  JONJONBT  talk • homemade userboxes  22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete as nom.  JONJONBT  talk • homemade userboxes  22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Image licensing changed to non-free web screenshot but it's not even really necessary for the text, thus violating WP:NFCC #8.  howcheng  {chat} 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tina1985.jpg

 * Image:Tina1985.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Salmoria ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Uploader has history of copyright problems. No proof this image was released under cc-by-2.5 and GFDL. — -Nard 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the source says "© Helge Øverås, Must not be used without permission" – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)