Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 September 4

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 September 4)
< September 3 September 5 >

September 4 edit

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:Tempe trackplan.png edit

Image:Tempe trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopaedic Endarrt 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the user who nominated this for deletion yesterday vandalised numerous articles, deleting up to 23K of text from each of the articles, claiming they were unencyclopedic. He is imposing his own versions of what is and what isn't encyclopedic, even after Quaidy, who uploaded the images, took care to make sure that the image was verified; and there has been a lot of discussion about these images. I'm starting to get suspicious as to this user's purpose in doing this. The track arrangement at Tempe is complex, and therefore a diagram is much more helpful than a chunk of text which will not add much to the article. While I'm against trackplans myself which are of single lines or where the trackplan is not complicated, this should be an exception, and I'll defend Quaidy's work vehemently in this case. JRG 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Standard content in railway-related pages, including at least one featured article on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 05:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encycolopedic? Of course, it's of interest to anyone wanting info on the rail. WP:Othercrapexists. It's good information for the user (who's actually looking it up -not the "average one"-) to have; I'm voting to keep all trackplans, the wholesale deletion seems arbitrary and and unnecessary (I'm assuming they're all "free" and licensed as per the ones I have checked). They should be placed back in the articles where they have been removed. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "unnecessary" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep - Image is properly in use, does not violate any policy, and might be informative. In short, keep per absence of a deletion rationale. — xDanielx T/C 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sydenham trackplan.png edit

Image:Sydenham trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopaedic Endarrt 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the user who nominated this for deletion yesterday vandalised numerous articles, deleting up to 23K of text from each of the articles, claiming they were unencyclopedic. He is imposing his own versions of what is and what isn't encyclopedic, even after Quaidy, who uploaded the images, took care to make sure that the image was verified; and there has been a lot of discussion about these images. I'm starting to get suspicious as to this user's purpose in doing this. The track arrangement at Sydenham is complex, and therefore a diagram is much more helpful than a chunk of text which will not add much to the article. While I'm against trackplans myself which are of single lines or where the trackplan is not complicated, this should be an exception, and I'll defend Quaidy's work vehemently in this case. JRG 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encycolopedic? Of course, it's of interest to anyone wanting info on the rail. WP:Othercrapexists. It's good information for the user (who's actually looking it up -not the "average one"-) to have; I'm voting to keep all trackplans, the wholesale deletion seems arbitrary and and unnecessary (I'm assuming they're all "free" and licensed as per the ones I have checked). They should be placed back in the articles where they have been removed. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Standard content in railway-related pages, including at least one featured article on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 05:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "unnecessary" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kingsgrove trackplan.png edit

Image:Kingsgrove trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopaedic Endarrt 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the user who nominated this for deletion yesterday vandalised numerous articles, deleting up to 23K of text from each of the articles, claiming they were unencyclopedic. He is imposing his own versions of what is and what isn't encyclopedic, even after Quaidy, who uploaded the images, took care to make sure that the image was verified; and there has been a lot of discussion about these images. I'm starting to get suspicious as to this user's purpose in doing this. The track arrangement at Kingsgrove is complex, and therefore a diagram is much more helpful than a chunk of text which will not add much to the article. While I'm against trackplans myself which are of single lines or where the trackplan is not complicated, this should be an exception, and I'll defend Quaidy's work vehemently in this case. JRG 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Standard content in railway-related pages, including at least one featured article on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 05:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encycolopedic? Why yes! It is of interest to anyone wanting info on the rail. WP:Othercrapexists. It's good information for the user (who's actually looking it up -not the "average one"-) to have; I'm voting to keep all trackplans, the wholesale deletion seems arbitrary and and unnecessary (I'm assuming they're all "free" and licensed as per the ones I have checked). They should be placed back in the articles where they have been removed. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "unnecessary" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:East Hills trackplan.png edit

Image:East Hills trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopaedic Endarrt 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the user who nominated this for deletion yesterday vandalised numerous articles, deleting up to 23K of text from each of the articles, claiming they were unencyclopedic. He is imposing his own versions of what is and what isn't encyclopedic, even after Quaidy, who uploaded the images, took care to make sure that the image was verified; and there has been a lot of discussion about these images. I'm starting to get suspicious as to this user's purpose in doing this. The track arrangement at East Hills is complex, and therefore a diagram is much more helpful than a chunk of text which will not add much to the article. While I'm against trackplans myself which are of single lines or where the trackplan is not complicated, this should be an exception, and I'll defend Quaidy's work vehemently in this case. JRG 01:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Standard content in railway-related pages, including at least one featured article on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 05:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is encycolopedic anyone wanting info on the rail. (Has anyone ever heard of WP:Othercrapexists/) It's good information for the user (the "average one" who is actually looking it up) to have; I'm voting to keep all trackplans, the wholesale deletion seems arbitrary and and unnecessary (I'm assuming they're all "free" and licensed as per the ones I have checked). They should be placed back in the articles where they have been removed. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "unnecessary" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glenfield trackplan.jpg edit

Image:Glenfield trackplan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopaedic Endarrt 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the user who nominated this for deletion yesterday vandalised numerous articles, deleting up to 23K of text from each of the articles, claiming they were unencyclopedic. He is imposing his own versions of what is and what isn't encyclopedic, even after Quaidy, who uploaded the images, took care to make sure that the image was verified; and there has been a lot of discussion about these images. I'm starting to get suspicious as to this user's purpose in doing this. The track arrangement at Glenfield is complex, and therefore a diagram is much more helpful than a chunk of text which will not add much to the article. While I'm against trackplans myself which are of single lines or where the trackplan is not complicated, this should be an exception, and I'll defend Quaidy's work vehemently in this case. JRG 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Standard content in railway-related pages, including at least one featured article on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 05:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encyclopedic. per multiple comments above/elsewhere. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "unnecessary" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Holsworthy trackplan.png edit

Image:Holsworthy trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopaedic and oprhaned image Endarrt 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encyclopedic, keep. per multiple comments above/elsewhere. Add back to article where appropriate. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "unnecessary" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image explains track layout even if it is simple. See more discussion at Talk:Holsworthy railway station, Sydney. Nisselua 07:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JudeaBandpic.jpg edit

Image:JudeaBandpic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hurrakaingvc (notify | contribs).
  • Useless image, doesn't give any information. seems like test upload. Dreamy \*/!$! 02:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted, Commonsbleed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg edit

Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zscout370 (notify | contribs).
  • User:Zscout370 uploaded Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg as public domain. It is, however, an svg version of the Canadian Coat of Arms Image:Bigcancoat.png which is protected by Canadian Crown copyright (which was in Image:Bigcancoat.png which has since been deleted). Since the original image is protected by copyright, an exact copy (regardless of format) cannot be made free. For example, take the NHL logo. If someone was to redraw it as an SVG, it doesn't make it public domain, it is still a copyright of the National Hockey League. Jeff3000 02:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, the Canadian flag also falls under Crown Copyright, since it has not been fifty years since the flag was adopted. But if it needs to be relicensed under fair use, just do it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • HUMONGO KEEP It fits fair use. -FlubecaTalk 23:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment but the user released it as public domain which is a copyright violation. -- Jeff3000 23:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then a relicense is in order. Anyways, I been checking Google, so this is what I found out; the Canadian symbols, including the arms and flag, are protected under the Trade Marks Act. There is no copyright claim from what I am seeing, but we still need to ask if we wish to use it. [1] Other than that, I don't see Crown Copyright claimed for the coat of arms at all (just like with the Canadian flag and other state symbolics). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and kudos to Jeff per fair use rationale. — xDanielx T/C 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately. It's beautiful, and you've all worked hard at it, but it's replaceable. Someone could create a new drawing of the coat of arms (as is frequently done for coats of arms on Wikipedia), without it being a derivative image of Mrs. Cathy Bursey-Sabourin's drawing. I put in a request [[2]] for it to be recreated. The description of the coat of arms is a trademark and not copyrighted, but any given drawing has individual creative content (e.g. details in the look of the lion) which are copyrighted. Sorry to rain on anyone's parade. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a depiction of the official coat of arms that has been adopted. For instance, the article shows what the different arms looked like over time; all the same "coat of arms" but different depictions of them. This is a non-trivial part of explaining the history, and nature of the coat of arms and is not replaceable. --Haemo 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't find the reasons for deletion valid. Avala 18:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Arncliffe trackplan.png edit

Image:Arncliffe trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Standard content in railway-related pages, including at least one featured article on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 05:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this and all subsequent trackplans. Free, useful, and informative. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic content. per multiple comments above/elsewhere. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest ot a general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Banksia trackplan.png edit

Image:Banksia trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic content. per comments above/elsewhere. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Rockdale trackplan.jpg edit

Image:Rockdale trackplan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic content. per comments above/elsewhere. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kogarah trackplan.png edit

Image:Kogarah trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic content. per comments above/elsewhere. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Carlton trackplan.png edit

Image:Carlton trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic content. per comments above/elsewhere. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Allawah trackplan.png edit

Image:Allawah trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, encyclopedic content. per comments above/elsewhere. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hurstville trackplan.jpg edit

Image:Hurstville trackplan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, encyclopedic content. per comments above/elsewhere. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Penshurst trackplan.png edit

Image:Penshurst trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic content. per comments above/elsewhere. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Mortdale trackplan.png edit

Image:Mortdale trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic content. Quite a spree! Keep per comments above/elsewhere. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oatley trackplan.jpg edit

Image:Oatley trackplan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This image is replaced by Image:Oatley.png and can be deleted. It is not used in any article, but the PNG-version is used. Nisselua 08:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. per nisselua. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above. aliasd·U·T 22:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as superceded by Image:Oatley.png but noting that that imnage has also been listed for deletion. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this image, and rename Image:Oatley.png to this name, per above. We should have consistency in naming trackplans if we are going to keep them. JRG 12:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find the IfD section here for Image:Oatley.png aliasd·U·T 13:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sutherland trackplan.png edit

Image:Sutherland trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic content. per comments above/elsewhere. R. Baley 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Loftus trackplan.png edit

Image:Loftus trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic content. per comments above/elsewhere, what a phenomenal waste of bytes. R. Baley 09:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Engadine trackplan.png edit

Image:Engadine trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic content. . .tired. . .wearily vote to keep all diagrams of trackplans. per comments above/elsewhere by myself and aliasd and nisselua. R. Baley 09:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Heathcote trackplan.png edit

Image:Heathcote trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Waterfall trackplan.png edit

Image:Waterfall trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marrickville trackplan.jpg edit

Image:Marrickville trackplan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 03:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Penrith trackplan.png edit

Image:Penrith trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader Endarrt 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kingswood trackplan.png edit

Image:Kingswood trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader Endarrt 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Werrington trackplan.png edit

Image:Werrington trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader Endarrt 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:St Marys trackplan.png edit

Image:St Marys trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader Endarrt 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mount Druitt trackplan.png edit

Image:Mount Druitt trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader Endarrt 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rooty Hill trackplan.png edit

Image:Rooty Hill trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader Endarrt 03:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Reyn Yeager 1.jpg edit

Image:Reyn Yeager 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thiura22 (notify | contribs).

Image:Bret and Jemaine.jpg edit

Image:Bret and Jemaine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thiura22 (notify | contribs).
  • Copyvio, uploader has a history of claiming public domain on promotional photographs ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reel Big Fish.jpg edit

Image:Reel Big Fish.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thiura22 (notify | contribs).
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:Lewisham trackplan.png edit

Image:Lewisham trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Diagram would not make sense to the casual reader. Endarrt 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Town Hall trackplan.png edit

Image:Town Hall trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).
  • Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Diagram would not make sense to the casual reader. Endarrt 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. For any visitor to the station this image will clarify the level and platform layout. Nisselua 11:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Legitimate Content I don't understand why this is being nominated for deletion, this image generally improves the quality of the linked article, is in context and is informative and useful. aliasd·U·T 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Image represents the clearest way to illustrate a key part of the article subject, is discussed in and directly related to the text, and is free content. An argument that the image is "not of interest to the general reader" should initially be pursued as a content dispute on the talk page, rather than seeking the deletion of the image. Euryalus 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Concordia University at Austin Aerial View of Northwest Campus 1.JPG edit

Image:Concordia University at Austin Aerial View of Northwest Campus 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).


Image:Queen Elizabeth High School.jpg edit

Image:Queen Elizabeth High School.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gabrielsleitao (notify | contribs).

Image:Studentstouringnewcampus.jpg edit

Image:Studentstouringnewcampus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).
  • Likely CV, but taking it here instead of PUI because they're OR, anyway. -- RG2 06:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about CV, as a couple of these pics contain metadata from a camera, suggesting they haven't been formatted for a website or such? aliasd·U·T 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goldencheekedwarbler.jpg edit

Image:Goldencheekedwarbler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).
  • Likely CV, but taking it here instead of PUI because they're OR, anyway. -- RG2 06:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goldencheekedwarbleroncampus.jpg edit

Image:Goldencheekedwarbleroncampus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).
  • Likely CV, but taking it here instead of PUI because they're OR, anyway. -- RG2 06:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Studentswalkingoncampus.jpg edit

Image:Studentswalkingoncampus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).
  • Likely CV, but taking it here instead of PUI because they're OR, anyway. -- RG2 06:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Studentstudying.jpg edit

Image:Studentstudying.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ECPR823 (notify | contribs).
  • Likely CV, but taking it here instead of PUI because they're OR, anyway. -- RG2 06:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Season5promocast.jpg edit

Image:Season5promocast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Preppyboy9016 (notify | contribs).
  • Same as other Dawson's Creek publicity images, no proof the image has been released for promotional use. Ejfetters 11:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, contrary to what someone has tagged the photo with, it's clearly NOT a screenshot-- it's clearly a publicity photo meant to promote the show or some aspect of it.--Gloriamarie 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need to have evidence that it is released to promote the show, we have discussed this for Dawson's Creek and Star Trek images. If we can find this proof, then it should stay. Note that the Star Trek images questioned were clearly publicity images, but we couldn't locate any proof that they were intended for promotional use, even though they almost definitely seemed to be for that use. Ejfetters 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The O.C. publicity images edit

Various studio publicity images, no verification they have been released for promotional use, same as discussed in prior listings for other TV publicity shots. Better replaced with screen caps. Ejfetters 12:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep those with fair use rationale, delete the rest. Fair use inherently does not depend on what rights/restrictions the copyright holder asserts. — xDanielx T/C 03:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need proof that the claim that these have been released for promotional use is correct. Most of the character pages for these have images of screen captures which is more appropriate because the tag doesn't say they've been released for promotional use. This has been the discussion for several television show publicity images. I can try to help find screencaps of these if you wish, as I have been finding screencaps for Star Trek and Dawson's Creek and tagging them appropriately. Just say the word if you'd like my help. Ejfetters 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from. If I understand correctly, you say that it is problematic to use the promotional release tag without evidence - this much I understand. But why would screen captures be superior? If we just remove the unevidenced promotional release tags and retain the images that are equipped with fair use rationales, wouldn't that be just as good as getting a screen capture and giving it its own fair use rationale? Slightly confused; please explain. Thanks — xDanielx T/C 05:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't know the true intent of the images, no matter how obvious it may be. I never said screen caps would be more superior, they would be of inferior image quality, but screen captures don't claim to be released for promotional use, they have a different copyright tag. If the tag is removed, then which tag do we place on it instead, as we don't know the true nature, so we don't know what to tag them as. Screen captures would have a definitive tag to use. I know another has requested I don't cite other discussions, but, I must point out that it was discussed at length for several television shows' publicity images, and in the end, they were replaced with screen captures as the admins deleted the images. If an admin decides that these images should stay, then by all means I won't argue it, but I must point out that the reasoning behind the deletion of the other images seems to fit these as well.Ejfetters 11:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't agree that images under fair use should be deleted because a similar alternative could be created with a more specific tag. If the image is under fair use, the tag is essentially superfluous -- the tags do a nice job of explaining what fair use means to unfamiliar viewers, but that's about it. These images are all used in one page, so deletion would remove the important visual element from those pages. Since they aren't high-traffic images they aren't likely to be replaced any time soon, and if they are replaced chances are it will be with another picture of this sort instead of a screen capture by editors unaware of this IfD. If you or another editor were to upload similar quality screen captures of these individuals, I wouldn't object to the old ones being deleted, but I really don't like deleting useful and non-orphaned images where there isn't a policy violation.
          • Of course, if there is a strong precedent (substantial participation, few dissenting opinions) in favor of deleting images of this sort then the closer would probably be justified in ignoring my opinion. But is this really the case? IfDs tend to get little participation, so strong precedents pertaining to images tend to be formed on policy pages but not the IfD forum. And are you sure there are no relevant circumstantial differences? If you could link to the page(s) illustrating the precedent, it would be helpful, at least for my understanding. — xDanielx T/C 18:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here are some of the discussions I was referring to - here, here, here, and here. Ejfetters 05:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hm, I see where you're coming from. Still, I don't think the precedent is clear: on one side editors have argued that a screen capture is a less substantial portion of some work than a posed picture (debatable IMO, especially when dealing with low-res copies, but reasonable), on the other side editors have argued that posed photos are more along the lines of promotional material (though still perhaps in the gray area). I'd agree that screen captures are somewhat preferable based on substantiality, but I still wouldn't support deletion in cases like these where an alternative is possible but does not currently exist and isn't likely to exist in the near future. I agree that the discussions you cited are relevant, but I don't think there's really a precedent -- the DRV was borderline with strong opposition from Perón, Jenolen, and Badagnani, and to a lesser extent from JulesH and DES. The closure of the big subsequent AfD, which leaned toward keeping the images, was essentially a statement that the DRV happened. All reasonable closes, but all borderline and without consensus in either direction, except for the last link which was a special case since the alternative was readily available. — xDanielx T/C 04:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should keep these. See my comments here for further details. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, violates NFCC#2 Ejfetters 08:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HumanNatureVideo2.gif edit

Image:HumanNatureVideo2.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jayque (notify | contribs).
  • The tag is wrong, the image was previously deleted, it is unencyclopedic and a copyright violation. It was deleted, but now it is re-uploaded and being used again. Maybe warn the user about this too, or block them if they keep uploading it? Ejfetters 13:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide evidence of a copyvio? If so, delete; if not, keep. I can't find a record of a previous deletion -- the user has uploaded no other images and the image log doesn't have a deletion recorded. Links please? — xDanielx T/C 03:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Changed my !vote, sort of. See below. — xDanielx T/C 05:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The copyright violation is it is claimed that the copyright holder has released the image for free use, but they are several screenshots of a music video, which is copyrighted, along with song lyrics, that are copyrighted. I looked it up a while back for the old discussion, give me a few minutes and i'll find it again and post a link here to it's discussion, maybe it was reuploaded by another user. Ejfetters 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a fair use rationale is added, per Ejfetters's explanation. — xDanielx T/C 05:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CGAi P1010334.JPG edit

Image:CGAi P1010334.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre (notify | contribs).

Image:CGAii P1010333.JPG edit

Image:CGAii P1010333.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre (notify | contribs).

Image:CGAiii P1010332.JPG edit

Image:CGAiii P1010332.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre (notify | contribs).

Image:CGAiv P1010331.JPG edit

Image:CGAiv P1010331.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre (notify | contribs).

Image:Agent Head.jpg edit

Image:Agent Head.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Secretagentclan (notify | contribs).

Image:Ks homepage.jpg edit

Image:Ks homepage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bitboy (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, unencyclopedic. Keb25 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Commons and could be used to illustrate articles. aliasd·U·T 22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:101455504 cfe28bb081 o.jpg edit

Image:101455504 cfe28bb081 o.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 75pickup (notify | contribs).
  • Image is released under CC-BY-2.0 on Flickr, but the image's page on Flickr clearly states that the source of the image is the Drudge Report. It's not a free image, and since Alec Baldwin is alive and well, this would be replaceable as well. fuzzy510 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A link to the Flickr page in question: here. It seems the Flickr user mis-licensed this shot. Also, this user has a lot of copyrighted work from external sources in his account. aliasd·U·T 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_September_4&oldid=1084311296"