Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 June 9

< June 8	June 10 >

June 9

Image:Modern ginger male.jpg

Image:Modern ginger male.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ridley276 (notify | contribs).

Unused, low-quality image. Suspected of being used in a disparaging manner. (See Talk:Red hair#picture of the redheaded male) Rmhermen (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete washed-out by flash; no information on source ~~or personality rights.~~ --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:21, 13 June 2008 (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: Keep - Absent uploader (AU) is a concern about being able to confirm copyright status of free images and doesn't apply here. Since it is unusual, it likely does increase the user's understanding. ~ Bigr Tex 18:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

AU a novelty note in reality never in general circulation, and does nothing to increase the users' understanding of any of the subjects it is included it wp:nfc#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have argued for keeping this as an NFC image at Talk:Ulster Bank. In short: though certainly a collector's issue rather than in general circulation, it is legal currency and very unusual in numismatics, and the image enhances the reader's understanding of the issue and the bank that issued it over that which could be given from prose alone. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (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:Forest Of The Dead.JPG

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

The result of the debate was image changed per consensus on article talk page, thus IfD closed. _Talk Islander 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Forest Of The Dead.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Der lektor (notify | contribs).

Not fair use. This is illustrative but not informative and the precise description of the scene portrayed is not essential to the reader's understanding of the subject. Unjustifiable. If this was permitted, one could equally argue for a screenshot of every location used in the episode.Troikoalogo (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails wp:nfc#8, by a long way Fasach Nua (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2008 (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:Redacted report (waterboarding ).jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep - Nominator admitted that opposition case was convincing, no other suport for deletion

Image:Redacted report (waterboarding ).jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chendy (notify | contribs).

Is that really a reliable source for such a controversial image? I think an image such as this would have to come from the American government itself, or an independent source like the NYT, not some biased blog. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE If you look into the source the realise that it is a sample from an official government report hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union - which is surely a realiable source. The reason why it is hosted as opposed to distubuted by the governement is that the info is a result a Freedom of Information Act (United States) request. I provided a clear link to the source, which explains this instantly. PLEASE LOOK INTO SOMETHING A LITTLE BEFORE CASUALLY DECIDING TO DELETE Chendy (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I casually decided to delete, the image would be deleted. Instead, I brought it here for discussion, with the knowledge that you would present your case. As it happens, your case is convincing. J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be snappy - I just I get fustrated about the deletion issue, but I can understand the pressures on your side as well :) Chendy (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2008 (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:7things.jpg

Image:7things.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Unwrittendrew700 (notify | contribs).

Unable to find a web source for this cover. A number of fan made covers have been created. Can't find this cover image at the stated source - the label site. Suspect this is a made up cover that is not issued by the stated source. I would like to see a URL to a reliable source to back this cover up. I have tagged the image as non-free use disputed but tag keeps getting removed. NrDg 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]