Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 28

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

[edit] Image:Black Widow Syndrome.jpg

Image:Black Widow Syndrome.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by PianoKeys (notify | contribs).

• Cover of a book, used only in Black Widow (woman), which does not mention the book or the cover.- – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the book now has it's own article and picture is being used Love, Honor, and Devour: The Black Widow Syndrome. PianoKeys 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the book is mentioned in the "Further Reading" section. PianoKeys 11:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The justification is at the image. In addition, we do not delete images here simply because someone does not like the article it is used at, the image is allowed at Wikipedia even if it is not currently used at an article. PianoKeys 10:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, we do delete images that are not currently used at an article. "Fair use" images that are not used in articles meet the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically I5; it's also criteria 7 at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). As for your fair use rationale, that is disuputed (failing criteria 8 at WP:FUC). Cover art is specifically covered at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images and states Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). The article isn't about the cover art, or even the book in question. The article doesn't mention the cover art, and there is no critical commentary regarding the cover art. I also believe any such commentary, even if it were hypothetically created, would be misplaced at that article. I hope this helps explain why there is concern over this image's use (and it has nothing to do with the subject matter of the article in question). Thanks.-Andrew c 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept but removed from all articles except the book article. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 3 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Nog.jpg

Image:Nog.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Noelgreen (notify | contribs).

• no source to verify the claim that this is source material (Please, we have debated this kind of situation a thousand times rencently, let's avoid repeating ourselves. New facts are welcome. Old arguments, rants, comments about the nominator and unfruitful sarcasm are not. As a good reminder, let's not feed the trolls). Abu badali ^(talk) 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The subject of the image sort of looks like a troll. Isn't this a drawing or painting? It doesn't look like a photograph to me. There could be multiple copyright issues with this one. A screenshot would be much better. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Replaced with an attributed screenshot, fair use rationale for Nog added, old images deleted. Cheers, WilyD 14:14, 28 June 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.

[edit] Image:TheDoctor.jpg

Image:TheDoctor.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by GusF (notify | contribs).

• No evidence this was released as promotional material. "Source info" is a link to a fansite. Abu badali ^(talk) 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Although obviously a promo image, the link is to the wrong fansite, which doesn't have it anyways. Nonetheless, Memory-Alpha.org does have lots of sourced fair-use applicable images that could replace this. I'll look into it. WilyD 13:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've replaced it with a sourced screenshot and added a fair use rationale for the article Doctor (Star Trek). I also boldy went ahead and deleted the old ones, so it seems there's nothing left to discuss. WilyD 13:57, 28 June 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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Travis_Mayweather.JPG

Image:Travis_Mayweather.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Rockitttt (notify | contribs).

• Not enough source info to backup the claim that this is promotional material. "Source" info is a Wikipedia mirror. Abu badali ^(talk) 05:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• As with the other Star Trek images, I've replaced this with a screen shot that probably better captures the character anyhow. I've also added a rationale and deleted the old image. Consider the issue solved. WilyD 15:06, 28 June 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.

[edit] Image:HallThruster 1.png

Image:HallThruster 1.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Keenan Pepper (notify | contribs).

• Obsoleted by Image:Wfm hall thruster.svg — Pekaje 17:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept as an important part of the history of the SVG file. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 3 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:BuriedAlive.jpg

Image:BuriedAlive.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johnnyboyca (notify | contribs).

• Uploader appears to be abscent. Image purports to be of the Nanking Massacre, yet no real evidence has been supplied either by users or on source links as to this fact. Equally originally copyright was claimed to have expired, but after requested detailed proof for this, tag was changed to fair use. There is still no information on copyright status. Picture is of low quality and it is difficult to ascertain whether this was part of the events at Nanking, or took place somewhere else. Just because a source may claim it is from Nanking is hardly conclusive, as websites tend to copy each other without researching any facts themselves. — John Smith's 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - Image qualifies under fair use as no new photo may be produced for the Nanking Massacre. Source provided for the image claims that it is of the Nanking Massacre. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether there is any "new photo" available is irrelevant. The issue is that no firm copyright information has been provided and that the content of the picture is unclear and not directly substantiated by any sources mentioned. John Smith's 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Copyright info has been provided. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say they claim copyright on the picture? It says they claim copyright over the content of the website. We cannot know that they legally have copyright of the picture. Who took the picture? When was it taken? Where was it taken? How was copyright released to them, etc? John Smith's 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It's meaningless to discuss this picture from the view point of the copyright law. Because copyright law is a law for the economic logic. --Hare-Yukai 09:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• KeepThis is the same problem we have with photographs of the holocaust, the photographer is often unknown for good reasons, I will try and find out more about these images, but in any case they are PD-China PD-japan or even PD anonymous since 70 years have passed in most cases. Bleh999

That may be the case, but we need better sourcing information. Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg goes to show that just because a random website says it's from Nanjing doesn't mean it really is. John Smith's 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really a good example because they were still victims of a Japanese attack, such images provide context to the viewers even if they are a related but not identical situation, and if you check the history of that image, someone had already corrected the caption to say it was from a 1941 air attack, but not in nanjing, so it wasn't misleading anyone. Anyway according to the Berne convention we can safely assume any image made available to the public older than 70 years ago can be assumed public domain, if you find any information on the images that contradicts their locale, you can change the caption, but they shouldn't be deleted because you think anonymous works aren't allowed here (they most certainly are, see how many old images lack the name of a photographer). Bleh999 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. The image is being used in Nanking Massacre. If it's not an image of the event, it shouldn't belong there. If we have no idea where it's really from, then it's of no encyclopedic use. howcheng {chat} 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not used in the article anymore but my point was that the caption was already corrected on June 7 by Hare-Yukai see [1] it is unfair for John smith to claim because one image was used in the article and was originally tagged incorrectly, all should be deleted, this deletion request only targeting the Nanjing massacre article seems to be a case of revanchism, that's like some images showing poles or jews being shot during WW2, if it was found on some dead German soldier, or in some abandoned house after the war, we will never know the author of a certain photograph, but that should not preclude its use here. Bleh999 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't start accusing anyone of anything, Bleh. I don't take kindly to allegations of anything like "revanchism". Do you even know what it means? I'm not Japanese if you had bothered to look at my profile.

There are lots of problems with the use of photographs in wikipedia. Unfortunately I don't have time going round finding them all. I did not say that because one image was incorrectly used it meant all of the others are. I said it was a good example of why one must be cautious and the fact a website says "Nanking massacre" does not mean it is automatically true. John Smith's 11:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This is the conclusive evidence of the fabrication of the Nanjing Massacre. So, it should be kept and be shown for the whole world.--Hare-Yukai 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Image cannot be traced to a reliable source. One of the sources is UCSB, which as an academic institution could be considered reliable, but it's really just a student paper. In terms of the authenticity of the image, for controversial issues like the Nanking Massacre, it's important that we know we're actually depicting what we purport to. As an aside, the UCSB source has a slightly different version that doesn't look it was faked. howcheng {chat} 20:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely keep. -161.53.58.135 12:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Image kept. I believe image is public domain and adequate sources are now provided to link image to the article. - Nv8200p talk 12:49, 14 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 debate was

[edit] Image:JapaneseStormNanjing.jpg

Image:JapaneseStormNanjing.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johnnyboyca (notify | contribs).

• Uploader appears to be abscent. Image purports to be of the Nanking Massacre, yet no real evidence has been supplied either by users or on source links as to this fact. Equally originally copyright was claimed to have expired, but after requested detailed proof for this, tag was changed to fair use. There is still no information on copyright status. — John Smith's 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - Image qualifies under fair use as no new photo may be produced for the Nanking Massacre. Source provided for the image claims that it is of the Nanking Massacre. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether there is any "new photo" available is irrelevant. The issue is that no firm copyright information has been provided and that the content of the picture is unclear and not directly substantiated by any sources mentioned. John Smith's 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Copyright info has been provided. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say they claim copyright on the picture? It says they claim copyright over the content of the website. We cannot know that they legally have copyright of the picture. Who took the picture? When was it taken? Where was it taken? How was copyright released to them, etc? John Smith's 19:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• KeepThis is the same problem we have with photographs of the holocaust, the photographer is often unknown for good reasons, I will try and find out more about these images, but in any case they are PD-China PD-japan or even PD anonymous since 70 years have passed in most cases. Bleh999

That may be the case, but we need better sourcing information. Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg goes to show that just because a random website says it's from Nanjing doesn't mean it really is. John Smith's 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really a good example because they were still victims of a Japanese attack, such images provide context to the viewers even if they are a related but not identical situation, and if you check the history of that image, someone had already corrected the caption to say it was from a 1941 air attack, but not in nanjing, so it wasn't misleading anyone. Anyway according to the Berne convention we can safely assume any image made available to the public older than 70 years ago can be assumed public domain, if you find any information on the images that contradicts their locale, you can change the caption, but they shouldn't be deleted because you think anonymous works aren't allowed here (they most certainly are, see how many old images lack the name of a photographer). Bleh999 23:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As said above, just because a picture is from the war does not mean it should be used of the Nanking massacre. One has to be very specific about these things. A photograph only proves what is the visual subject content (and even then that can be manipulated).

What do you mean it has been corrected to say it was from an air-raid?

If we don't know specifically when it was published (not created) we can't know the Berne convention applies. The issue of it being anonymous is not relevant, more that we don't have publication details to verify the content. John Smith's 10:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Image cannot be verified against a reliable source. When dealing with controversial subjects, it's of the utmost importance to make sure that the article and images therein actually depict what they purport to. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The source given does not give any information where the photograph is from or its copyright status (although copyright is asserted for the page which could include the images). Nor is it said that this is a photograph of troops entering Nanking, it just says "Japanese Troops Invade China". In the absence of a reliable source, clear copyright verification or even clear information of what the photograph shows, it should be deleted. DrKiernan 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IwaneRidesIn.jpg

Image:IwaneRidesIn.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johnnyboyca (notify | contribs).

• Uploader appears to be abscent. Image purports to be of the Nanking Massacre, yet no real evidence has been supplied either by users or on source links as to this fact. Equally originally copyright was claimed to have expired, but after requested detailed proof for this, tag was changed to fair use. There is still no information on copyright status. — John Smith's 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - Image qualifies under fair use as no new photo may be produced for the Nanking Massacre. Source provided for the image claims that it is of the Nanking Massacre. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether there is any "new photo" available is irrelevant. The issue is that no firm copyright information has been provided and that the content of the picture is unclear and not directly substantiated by any sources mentioned. John Smith's 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Copyright info has been provided. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say they claim copyright on the picture? It says they claim copyright over the content of the website. We cannot know that they legally have copyright of the picture. Who took the picture? When was it taken? Where was it taken? How was copyright released to them, etc? John Smith's 19:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• KeepThis is the same problem we have with photographs of the holocaust, the photographer is often unknown for good reasons, I will try and find out more about these images, but in any case they are PD-China PD-japan or even PD anonymous since 70 years have passed in most cases. Bleh999

That may be the case, but we need better sourcing information. Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg goes to show that just because a random website says it's from Nanjing doesn't mean it really is. John Smith's 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really a good example because they were still victims of a Japanese attack, such images provide context to the viewers even if they are a related but not identical situation, and if you check the history of that image, someone had already corrected the caption to say it was from a 1941 air attack, but not in nanjing, so it wasn't misleading anyone. Anyway according to the Berne convention we can safely assume any image made available to the public older than 70 years ago can be assumed public domain, if you find any information on the images that contradicts their locale, you can change the caption, but they shouldn't be deleted because you think anonymous works aren't allowed here (they most certainly are, see how many old images lack the name of a photographer). Bleh999 23:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As said above, just because a picture is from the war does not mean it should be used of the Nanking massacre. One has to be very specific about these things. A photograph only proves what is the visual subject content (and even then that can be manipulated).

What do you mean it has been corrected to say it was from an air-raid?

If we don't know specifically when it was published (not created) we can't know the Berne convention applies. The issue of it being anonymous is not relevant, more that we don't have publication details to verify the content. John Smith's 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Image cannot be verified against a reliable source. When dealing with controversial subjects, it's of the utmost importance to make sure that the article and images therein actually depict what they purport to. howcheng {chat} 21:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The fair use rationale is inadequate, you need to defend the use of this particular image in the article, by referring to the part of the article where you describe the historical event depicted, i.e. the review of Japanese troops in Nanking by Iwane. The pd tags are not believable in the absence of proof that the photograph has been published previously or that the photographer did die over 50 years ago. DrKiernan 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nanjingmassacreheads.jpg

Image:Nanjingmassacreheads.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johnnyboyca (notify | contribs).

• Uploader appears to be abscent. Image purports to be of the Nanking Massacre, yet no real evidence has been supplied either by users or on source links as to this fact. Equally originally copyright was claimed to have expired, but after requested detailed proof for this, tag was changed to fair use. There is still no information on copyright status. Picture is of low quality and it is difficult to ascertain whether this was part of the events at Nanking, or took place somewhere else. Just because a source may claim it is from Nanking is hardly conclusive, as websites tend to copy each other without researching any facts themselves. — John Smith's 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - Image qualifies under fair use as no new photo may be produced for the Nanking Massacre. Source provided for the image claims that it is of the Nanking Massacre. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether there is any "new photo" available is irrelevant. The issue is that no firm copyright information has been provided and that the content of the picture is unclear and not directly substantiated by any sources mentioned. John Smith's 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• KeepThis is the same problem we have with photographs of the holocaust, the photographer is often unknown for good reasons, I will try and find out more about these images, but in any case they are PD-China PD-japan or even PD anonymous since 70 years have passed in most cases. Bleh999

That may be the case, but we need better sourcing information. Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg goes to show that just because a random website says it's from Nanjing doesn't mean it really is. John Smith's 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really a good example because they were still victims of a Japanese attack, such images provide context to the viewers even if they are a related but not identical situation, and if you check the history of that image, someone had already corrected the caption to say it was from a 1941 air attack, but not in nanjing, so it wasn't misleading anyone. Anyway according to the Berne convention we can safely assume any image made available to the public older than 70 years ago can be assumed public domain, if you find any information on the images that contradicts their locale, you can change the caption, but they shouldn't be deleted because you think anonymous works aren't allowed here (they most certainly are, see how many old images lack the name of a photographer). Bleh999 23:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As said above, just because a picture is from the war does not mean it should be used of the Nanking massacre. One has to be very specific about these things. A photograph only proves what is the visual subject content (and even then that can be manipulated).

What do you mean it has been corrected to say it was from an air-raid?

If we don't know specifically when it was published (not created) we can't know the Berne convention applies. The issue of it being anonymous is not relevant, more that we don't have publication details to verify the content. John Smith's 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The point of the picture was to show the amount of people who got beheaded, and hence the severity of the Japanese mass murders. Even if this picture was not taken in Nanjing, it was widely believed that similar events did happen in Nanjing. Perhaps until further proofs are found, a note should be added to say that the picture might not have been taken in Nanjing, but similar events did happen there.

As I have tirelessly said, you can't use this picture as evidence of something that happened at Nanjing if it didn't happen there! John Smith's 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Image cannot be verified against a reliable source. When dealing with controversial subjects, it's of the utmost importance to make sure that the article and images therein actually depict what they purport to. howcheng {chat} 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Either way, can we add this to the bad image list? It's pretty disturbing displayed inline even if its historical value is significant. I know the bad image list is typically used only for nudity but certainly a pile of disembodied heads is more disturbing than a macro shot of a vulva. 170.140.210.108 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I can not read the source page (which is Chinese) and so cannot assess this image fully. However, I think a fair-use rationale along the lines of "provides context of events occuring at the time" may find greater favour than claiming something for the image that cannot currently be proven. DrKiernan 14:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

After much commentary and exhaustive investigation, I deem these images to be in the public domain as they were obviously taken on de facto Japanese territory more than 50 years ago. Since they are free images, they do not have to undergo the strenuous image criteria to which non-free images must adhere. I do not know whether these photographs show what they purport to show or not, but that is (thankfully) not a task I must determine in judging the suitability of these images. This judgment does not say whether the images are accurate, or whether they should be used in any given article. (That's a decision that should be made on article talk pages or an RFC.) But I am confident that these images are in the public domain, and as they are not orphans, I find no reason to delete. Kept. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:21, 16 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 debate was

[edit] Image:David Gill.jpg

Image:David Gill.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jefrank (notify | contribs).

• Orphan, no description to indicate what is depicted therefore limited encyclopedic value. — Madmedea 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - orphaned, no evidence of copyright release. ~ BigrTex 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image on commons. howcheng {chat} 20:20 3 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.

[edit] Image:US Army OF11.gif

Image:US Army OF11.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Yomar (notify | contribs).

• UE (unencyclopedic) - this is a fake image. This rank is not in use since 1919! and there has never been made an insignia, so the image is just one users imaginative creation of "One of conjectural Design for General of the Armies" as he write shimself. I'm in favour of speedy deletion, as the user is trying to push this completly fabricated image into articles about the US Army Ranks and Chinese Army Ranks articles. noclador 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedied under CSD G4. Next time you see this image again, just tag it with {{db-repost}}. Uploader has been warned to refrain from repeatedly uploading the image. howcheng {chat} 21:26, 28 June 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.

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.

[edit] Image:Lesbians_Folsom_Fair_2004.jpg

Image:Lesbians_Folsom_Fair_2004.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Pretzelpaws (notify | contribs).

• absent uploader, not used in any articles, unencyclopedic Bleh999 20:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Commons Copyright seems reasonable, could be used in Folsom Street Fair. Might have other uses outside the street fair article. ~ BigrTex 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Commons Besides, uploader is not absent at all. I will give him a warning about this nomination. Garion96 (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Move to Commons - Not sure it would add very much to the street fair article really, but it is linked to user page. It definatly should not be deleted.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Commons I originally uploaded the picture to illustrate the Lesbian article - however both of the pictures I added to the article were soon removed though the other one has subsequently been replaced. I believe the women in the picture to be representative of younger members of the "leather dyke" subculture and if this subculture is covered in a future article or perhaps in a section within the Lesbian or Leather subculture articles, the picture may again be useful. Pretzelpaws 04:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Inappropriate comment: Mmmmmmmmmm. . . – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept pending Commons move. howcheng {chat} 20:23, 3 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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.

[edit] Image:Sos&s_logo.jpg

Image:Sos&s_logo.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Coz 11 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, unclear licensing BigrTex 22:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it is clearly stated on the image page that the logo is used with the permission of the Save Our Sonics and Storm group. If there is ANY questions regarding that permission you are free to contact them at info at saveoursonics.org --Coz 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I could contact them, but it is generally better to attach permission to the discussion page or file it with WP:OTRS. But since it isn't being used anywhere, and I couldn't find anywhere that it would be used, I don't think it makes sense for us to continue to host it. ~ BigrTex 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. --Ben 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - no longer orphaned: [2]. Used by active contributor. The Evil Spartan 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 20:25, 3 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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.

[edit] Image:Candy_Ravers.jpg

Image:Candy_Ravers.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Alkivar (notify | contribs).

• orphaned image, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Originally added to Rave to replace copyvio... was replaced in Candy raver by copyvio... now back in article. So its not orphaned.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Kept - image is no longer orphaned. Note that this is a non-administrator close. The Evil Spartan 17:21, 3 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.