Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 7

< August 6	August 8 >

August 7 edit

Image:RicOimage.jpg 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 debate was

Deleted by Kevin (talk · contribs) LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned, Absent uploader, probable Copyright violation Bigr Tex 01:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Copyvio. Proof: Lead image in the album's article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:00, 7 August 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:Jtc Narvacan.jpg edit

Image:Jtc Narvacan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bobot313 (notify | contribs).

Advertising. Image is non-encyclopedic. Xeltran (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom + also orphaned — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Miss jtc mall 2007.jpg edit

Image:Miss jtc mall 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bobot313 (notify | contribs).

Advertising. Image is non-encyclopedic. Xeltran (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom + also orphaned — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sam_Davies.jpg edit

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

Unencyclopedic edited photo. O sama K 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any feasible encyclopaedic usage of an image of a kid with Mr. Bean's faced cropped on. Delete. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sam20061123.jpg edit

Image:Sam20061123.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kurt_Riegel (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal image. O sama K 10:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sam6.png 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 debate was

Deleted by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sam6.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Romanlion (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal image. O sama K 10:39, 7 August 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:Sam00walters.jpg edit

Image:Sam00walters.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sam00walters (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal image. O sama K 10:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sam2bz9.jpg edit

Image:Sam2bz9.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danksank44 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal image. O sama K 10:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:32, 11 August 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 debate was

- Keep - also used in the article Butterfly kick now - Peripitus (Talk) 01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sam_bkick_wiki.gif edit

Image:Sam_bkick_wiki.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pactio_kiss (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal image. O sama K 10:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep demonstrates in motion what is not easily captured in text. Now added to an article too, so it's no longer orphaned. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, image does do a great job of demonstrating a butterfly kick in a simple and clean manner. Although there is already an image demonstrating the kick, the animation truly shows the manoeuvre and hence is encyclopedic in nature.

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:Cern666.jpg 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 debate was

Deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cern666.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by James Frankcom (notify | contribs).

This image serves to associate the CERN logo with the satanic 666 symbol. It's essentially an image version of an attack page, with no possible article use that isn't original research. For further information, see Talk:Large Hadron Collider. Phenylalanine (talk) 10:41, 7 August 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:Sam_and_SJ.jpg edit

Image:Sam_and_SJ.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Goshikku-samu (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal image. O sama K 10:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sam_Archer.jpg edit

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

Orphaned personal image. O sama K 10:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TRK03.jpg edit

Image:TRK03.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rodrigoangel (notify | contribs).

Image used to contain newspaper scan, uploader replaced. Most likely unencyclopedic. Q ^{T C} 10:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TRK08.jpg edit

Image:TRK08.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rodrigoangel (notify | contribs).

Image used to contain scan of something, uploader replaced. Most likely unencyclopedic. Q ^{T C} 10:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TRK09.jpg edit

Image:TRK09.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rodrigoangel (notify | contribs).

Image used to contain scan of something, uploader replaced. Most likely unencyclopedic and taken from somewhere. Q ^{T C} 10:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Salt-Tea_Bumper_Sticker.JPG edit

Image:Salt-Tea_Bumper_Sticker.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thomas.salter (notify | contribs).

Orphaned; Looks an advertising. O sama K 10:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:36, 11 August 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 debate was

- Keep - image is no longer orphaned. seems to have found a useful home - Peripitus (Talk) 04:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SameEyes4.jpg edit

Image:SameEyes4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wiki_edit2 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal image. O sama K 10:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a use for it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:48, 11 August 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:Samasmagnus.jpg edit

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

Orphaned personal image. O sama K 10:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sama_Sadeghi.JPG edit

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

Orphaned personal image. O sama K 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Samhanging.jpg 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 debate was

Deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Samhanging.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Majsharpe86 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal image. O sama K 10:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Derivative of copyrighted image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:49, 11 August 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:Saminbathroom.jpg edit

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

Orphaned personal photo. O sama K 10:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Samanndy.jpg edit

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

Unencyclopedic Orphaned personal photo. O sama K 10:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Audrey E Smith.jpg 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 debate was

keep, license fixed, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Audrey E Smith.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eckre (notify | contribs).

Stated as 'released for wikipedia use'. This is not allowed. Asenine 16:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is, it's one of the options, they suggest you put it under a difference licence, but the pull down menu has an option that says "user releases this for use on wikipedia" but I'll change the verbiage slightly to appease the beast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckre (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the upload script allows you to select "for Wikipedia use only", but it then automatically applies a speedy delete tag. So Asenine is correct - it's not allowed. That said, the change to the CC license is appropriate, so the image is now within Wikipedia copyright specs. --Ipoellet (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What's with the weird masking of the background. Seems to me if you just cropped your original upload so that the wall was no longer visible, that would look best. howcheng {chat} 04:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we trust that this web resolution image belongs to you (complete with the strange masking) when you've apparently lied about being the owner of images before? J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal Keep There is no direct evidence of this image being inappropriately uploaded nor any reference to its copyrighted status. As such, I'm going to default to a keep, but I have my doubts (doubts are not proof). If anyone finds another version of this image, don't just nominate it for deletion, please speedy it! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Image now appears to meets policy and speedy deletion is no longer applicable. No reason to delete. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:31, 11 August 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.

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:

- No Consensus - defaulting to keep on the basis of...if you are unsure don't delete. IT is clear that there is no clarity on the two photo's copyright status in regards to the freedom-of-panorama problem. Is this taken from a public or a semi-public place and does that make a difference. Are the photo's of a unique architectural element or is the element incidental to the image. These images probably (though not certainly) would get deleted on commons, depending on what is regarded as the subject of the photo, but here (under US laws) it is not clear. If they are renominated I suggest that better considered and argued nomination statements would assist greatly. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Insidelouvrepyramid2.jpg edit

Image:Insidelouvrepyramid2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GrahamColm (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in France. ViperSnake151 18:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the problem here. How can a picture of me, owned by me and uploaded by me be a copyright violation? Graham Colm ^Talk 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's effected by something called freedom of panorama, a generic term for copyright law provisions allowing two dimensional reproductions of copyrighted sculptures and buildings to be owned by the photographer and not the copyright holder of it, allowing it to be licensed under a free license. But France does not have these provisions. A copyrighted building in France can only legally be in a picture if it is an "accessory in relation to the rest of the picture". This means that pictures of non public domain buildings in France are subject to the copyright of the subject, and may not be used without permission of the copyright holder, or as fair use per WP:NFCC. Since the pyramid here is the main subject of the image, the copyright is owned by the designers of the pyramid. ViperSnake151 22:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gotta agree with ViperSnake151 here - it's not a free image. As nonfree, it fails to meet a whole mess of the NFCC; 4, 5, and 9 stand out to me. --Ipoellet (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's free in the US- that's all that matters on Wikipedia. On Commons, it must be free in the country of origin and Florida. Here, only in Florida. Sure, it's not publishable in France as free, but if we deleted any image that wasn't publishable somewhere, I think we would have a problem uploading most things. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the point is that the image is indeed copyrighted in the country of origin (France). The location of the image's storage is irrelevant in this matter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn is right that an image is acceptable on Wikipedia if it's PD in the US, even if it is copyrighted in its country of origin (see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights). However, even then, I doubt this image is PD in the US, since freedom of panorama in the US requires that the photo be taken from a public place. And just because a place is open to the public (such as the Louvre) doesn't necessarily mean it's a public place for freedom of panorama purposes. What I have stated so far is quite the limit of my expertise, but I generally assume the US FOP requirement to be that the photo must be taken from a public right-of-way, such as a sidewalk, plaza, park, or street, which this isn't. --Ipoellet (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. copyright law does not apply in France any more than French copyright law applies in the U.S. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see comments below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Insidelouvrepyramid.jpg edit

Image:Insidelouvrepyramid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 97198 (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in France. ViperSnake151 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't take pictures in France? I've never seen anything to justify this. Please elaborate. If I'm wrong, then delete. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright laws in France ridiculous restrictive. Architectural works are copyrighted, making this a derivative work. See Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama for more information. howcheng {chat} 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite example of France's restrictiveness is that you can take a picture of the Eiffel Tower during the daytime no problem, but at night you're violating copyright. Why? Because the tower itself is PD due to its age, but the nighttime lighting display on the tower is current and copyrighted. --Ipoellet (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Like I said, I hadn't seen that. However, it seems rather complicated and other images of the Louvre are not only allowed but celebrated on Wikipedia and the Commons. These images have been featured. If it is indeed copyrighted, a fair use exception could certainly be made. Even though works of art are copyrighted, an image showing detailed features criteria can certainly be used on Wikipedia. In short, the tag may simply need to be changed and a fair use rationale made. In that case, make the modifications and keep. If it isn't, then keep as a free image. I'll research this some more. & get back to you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you don't understand the basic tenets of Wikipedia's image policy, why do you vote so often in IFD? It would seem somewhat irresponsible to me for you to continue voting here while simultaneously acknowledging your lack of understanding of the NFCC and copyright policy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CC, I understand Wikipedia policy just fine, but the intricacies of law in the U.S. vs. the law in France vs the laws in other countries (256 of them!) vs. Wikipedia policy is complicated and I'm sure some lawyers well-trained in the field would have varying opinions on application. It is not easy to boil down to a simple sentence or two.
In an attempt to be more clear. This image is useful in Wikipedia as it displays the internal architecture of the structure. It has no free alternative (any other image that could be made would have the same issues) and cannot be replaced by any known image. Copyrighted or not, this image should stay. IMHO, the only matter for debate is the manner in which it should be labeled. Other images of the same structure (and presumably under the same laws) have been featured as free images on the commons, so, if the image is to be considered copyrighted, there is a severe lack of consistency at the very least. Let's hear what others have to say. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Gonna stick with Keep. This image is not replaceable as no free alternative is possible. The image in question must contain a reference to the copyrighted architectural work and what it features. If it does not, it should be deleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It shoudl be labeled accordingly as a copyrighted image, but should stay. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's free in the US- that's all that matters on Wikipedia. On Commons, it must be free in the country of origin and Florida. Here, only in Florida. Sure, it's not publishable in France as free, but if we deleted any image that wasn't publishable somewhere, I think we would have a problem uploading most things. J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above for a response to the same comment. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:41, 11 August 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:Silver_Appleyard_Ducks.jpg 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 debate was

speedied at request of uploader. Please contact owners to determine permission to use. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

no documentation of permission (see WP:COPYREQ), no CC indication at source Mangostar (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source page says "if you would like to use any images on this page PLEASE add the link: http://www.silverappleyard.co.uk - thank you" and I added that link to the photo. I apologize if I have uploaded the pic in error. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have to license it to copyright with attribution then, not CC. Asenine 20:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Would you please change the copyright as you described so I'll have an example to follow for the future? I'm not too savvy about the tags. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To do what Asenine suggests, you would replace the CC template with:

{{attribution|text=All instances of reuse must include a link to http://www.silverappleyard.co.uk.}}

However, since the source web site doesn't specifically state the conditions under which the images may be reused (i.e. Wikipedia requires license to redistribute, commercial use, derivative works, etc.), then can we assume that the image is licensed for all those conditions? --Ipoellet (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we cannot. Where copyrights are concerned, all uses are disallowed unless they are specifically permitted. Thus, delete as not free enough. howcheng {chat} 04:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I'll remove it from the article and from my user space in anticipation of its deletion. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative would be to contact the owners of the web site and ask if they are willing to explicitly release the image under the {{cc-by-3.0}} (see [1]) or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} (see [2]) licenses. If they are willing to, then the image need not be deleted. I would guess that it was their intent to do so (or the functional equivalent) when they put that attribution notice on their web site. It's just they didn't state it explicitly enough for Wikipedia policy. --Ipoellet (talk) 17:42, 9 August 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:PhotoAhmedabadBlast.jpg edit

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

Clear fail of WP:NFCC #8. A photo of some mopeds (which is in the infobox) doesn't help the reader understand 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts any better. This is also likely a news agency photo (see similar photo at [3], and [4] indicates these are PTI photos, thus making this a prime example of WP:NFC#Unacceptable use: Images #6). howcheng {chat} 20:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object Firstly, the image is of one of the blast sites and not of some random mopeds. So, it does not fail WP:NFCC #8. Secondly, the first version of the image was a screenshot of a television news channel, and now it is back to that version. One can clearly notice that the two images are different by observing the angle of shoot. So, WP:NFC#Unacceptable use: Images #6 does not apply. Thirdly, a free image of the blast site which still has smoke and fire coming out is not available. It adds to the encyclopedic value of the article because 1) It shows that the blast were low intensity as they were not able to damage nearby object significantly (in this case mopeds). 2) The press media seems to have reached the blast site before the police closed the blast area signifying the apathy of Ahmedabad's police force. Keep all these points in mind before taking any decision. Thanks --Emperor Genius (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "Many blasts were set off, including one site where several mopeds were destroyed" needs a picture to be understood. howcheng {chat} 03:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One can use the same argument for most of the images including the Tank man image. I don't see how "A man standing in front of a column of Chinese tanks preventing them from advancing towards Tienanmen Square" needs a picture to be understood? Flawed logic. However, if you are so adamant on deleting the image, please go ahead. --Emperor Genius (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the Tank Man photo was notable in and of itself -- we have a whole article just about the photo and the possible identity of the person. If there's such commentary about this moped photo, then it should be included in the article (sourced, of course). In such a case, then use of this image would easily qualify under our rules. howcheng {chat} 01:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This image clearly meets NFCC#8 - the scene of a violent incident showing the effects of that violence is both germane and increases the reader's understanding. That's the very reason the TV editors elected to use it in the first place. However, even though it may not necessarily be from a news agency, it is a journalistic image distributed through journalistic networks documenting a current event - and therefore runs against the spirit of WP:NFC#Unacceptable use: Images #6. In this context, use of the image seems to step on NFCC#2. --Ipoellet (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original nom and Ipollet's comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PSolis recitation.jpg edit

Image:PSolis recitation.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Munapa (notify | contribs).

Wikipedia is not a webhost. This picture has no encyclopedic value, is not being used on any pages, including userpages. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 21:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IPod Touch 2.0.png 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 debate was

Keep (non-admin closure) The image's FUR has been fixed LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 03:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IPod Touch 2.0.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gyrferret (notify | contribs).

Malformed usage rationale. Does not contain rationale for 2nd use. ViperSnake151 23:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have fixed the rationale, and it is only being used on one page anyway. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 04:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me out with that LegoktmGyrferret (talk) 14:01, 8 August 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.