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: Delete; deleted by Infrogmation (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Big Jack Jackson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nubiatech ( | contribs).

• Could somebody with proper privileges delete this file? I made a mistake in the file name, and now can't move or correct it.  Nuβiατεch ^Talk/_contrib 01:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted. Uploader request; unused duplicate of File:Big Jack Johnson - Chicago Blues Festival 2009.jpg on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foxtrotfarscape.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot ( | contribs).

• We only need one FoxTrot strip showing its use of pop culture-related gags, and I think the one pertaining to Wikipedia is far more relevant than this one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's used in Farscape as well, and does a good job of exemplifying the cultural impact surrounding the show. SharkD (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We need to be very careful reproducing comic strips, because UA charges to reprint them, so there are significant NFCC#2 concerns. In Farscape, it fails NFCC#8, since the same encyclopedic information is conveyed just fine in text. (The strip is not needed to fully understand the article. In Foxtrot it fails NFCC#3. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we can stomach only one strip in the FoxTrot article, this one is a superior example to the Wikipedia strip. Powers ^T 14:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be fine with me. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure we need examples of the strip at all—two is absurd. It's not justified in the Farscape article either, so it should be deleted. ÷seresin 08:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8 in Farscape. One or other of the comics fails WP:NFCC#3a in Foxtrot; pick one and delete the other. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BusterKeaton-postage-stamp-AlHirschfeld.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Binksternet ( | contribs).

• • Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1994 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose and its removal would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding on the topic. Besides the fair-use rationale "To show that Keaton was influential enough to merit a US Postage stamp" only proves the stamp exists and there is no verifiable discussion about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep: I reworded the "Purpose" section of the image page, and I introduced text describing the artist/subject relationship into the Buster Keaton article alongside the image. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article is not about the stamp, and the entire article can be fully understood without reproducing this non-free image. Fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that Hirschfeld is quoted saying that silent film comedians such as Buster Keaton "looked like their caricatures?" The "entire article" can not be fully understood if the reader is not able to see what Hirschfeld was talking about. The visual element is important in this case. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that, but I believe that the words alone convey the meaning adequately. We may have to agree to disagree on that. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:04, 17 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stoyan Zagorchinov stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Visor ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Bulgarian stamps are copyright for 70 years and this 1989 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article specifically to identify the person and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose. ww2censor (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article is not about the stamp, and the entire article can be fully understood without reproducing this non-free image. Fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:02, 17 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Surfer Boy Stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1998 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the reader's understanding will not be diminished by its omission. ww2censor (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Real Thing Stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1998 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the reader's understanding will not be diminished by its omission. ww2censor (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turn Up Your Radio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1998 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the reader's understanding will not be diminished by its omission. ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wild One (JO'K).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1998 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the reader's understanding will not be diminished by its omission. ww2censor (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shakin All Over.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1998 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the reader's understanding will not be diminished by its omission. ww2censor (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eagle Rock Stamp.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1998 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the reader's understanding will not be diminished by its omission. ww2censor (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Col Joye Stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1998 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the reader's understanding will not be diminished by its omission. ww2censor (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Most People I Know.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1998 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the reader's understanding will not be diminished by its omission. ww2censor (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruben Dario.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jamespeterka ( | contribs).

• • Delete: This 1967 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the reader's understanding will not be diminished by its omission. Besides which there is no fair-use rationale of any kind. ww2censor (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LiYuchun-2006Stamps.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arsonal ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Chinese stamps are copyright for the life of the author plus 50 years and this 2006 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose of both current articles it is being used in and the reader's understanding will not be diminished by its omission. The "cultural impact" mentioned in the fair use rationale needs to be verified with reliable sources but none are provided to back up the claim. ww2censor (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annamacharya.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dora.tella ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Indian stamps are copyright for 60 years and this 2004 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article specifically in the info box to identify the subject and with no other mention of the satmp in the article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose and the reader's understanding will not be diminished by its omission. ww2censor (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp savarkar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jon Ascton ( | contribs).

• • Delete: Indian stamps are copyright for 60 years and this 1970 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose without the reader's understanding being diminished by its omission. ww2censor (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jack Benny Portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:PhantomS ( | contribs).

• Non free publicity photo of Jack Benny with fair use rationale, to show what Jack Benny looks like for the Jack Benny article. Well and good. But since this was uploaded in 2007, a number of free licensed photos of Jack Benny have been identified and uploaded to Commons. We don't need an unfree photo just to show what he looks like. Wikipedias in other languages mostly use either File:Harry Truman and Jack Benny.jpg or File:JackBenny1958Cropped.jpg, either of which would do the job fine here. Infrogmation (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - replaceable/replaced. The article uses a ton of other nonfree images, most of which should also be removed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2009 (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 discussion was: delete. I just can't close this any other way: virtually all of the keep !votes exhibit clear and explicit misunderstandings of WP:NFCC right in their arguments. One such !voter says that the motivation behind not using copyrighted images is the fear that Wikipedia will be sued (which is wrong on at least three levels), while another says, in his/her keep !vote, that it is likely replaceable by a free image. I counted the !votes, and I see what an unintuitive close this is, but going by strength of arguments this isn't even close. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DPRK rally.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Midway ( | contribs).

• What this protest looks like is of little or no importance, and the protest is not even mentioned in one of the articles in which the image is used. J Milburn (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• But the protest is being held in Kim Il-sung Square which is the subject of the article in which this image resides. Bonewah (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rally and hence the picture are referenced in the article under North Korean Response. As such, the picture should stay in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrask (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The content in the article UNSC Resolution 1874 states that there was a "100,000-strong protest". It is my belief that the image reflects the North Korean response and is of great value to help readers understand the gravity of the situation. If there is not enough content in the above-mentioned article to support the picture, then a solution could be to add more content to the article pertaining to the "100,000-strong protest". Davidyz (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly relevant to UNSC Resolution 1874 and should remain. 66.152.209.34 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No one has actually addressed the issue. I am not arguing that the subject is not important, I am arguing that an image is not reuqired in the article on the Resolution (it clearly isn't required in the article on the square, and anyone saying it is really should be ignored- the rally isn't even discussed, and we have free images of the square itself). Just because the rally is mentioned, doesn't mean we need to include a non-free image to illustrate it. Maybe in article on just the rally, but the article is about the Resolution, not the rally. J Milburn (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the rally is in response to the resolution it is appropriate in the article on the resolution. It should stay. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I really found no point for the image. The resolution has nothing to do with the rally. It should be deleted. 70.64.116.180 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In our coverage of the resolution, the aftereffects (such as the rally) are very important. We should keep the image. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The image doesn't really enlighten the reader any further on the subject; anyone can imagine what a rally looks like. And given that it's a non-free image, there's no reason it would be needed.--LeoEvilsbane (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Relevant to the DPRK's response to Resolution 1874. Although I do think a free alternative could be found, seeing as this image was probably released by the state run Korean Central News Agency, and as such {{PD-North Korea}} might apply.--SelfQ (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a delete, then? If a free alternative can be found, it is replaceable, and clearly violates the non-free content criteria. Where are you getting your belief that the DPRK releases its state-media images into the public domain? J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe the above rationale are strong enough to keep, at least until a suitable free alternative could be found. Gigs (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Your right... its a non-free image from a country that no one even cares about. By even having an article about North Korea- we are breaking North Korean Law- and I really can care less whether some country no one cares about thinks its illegal. That and- it does show a protest. --Rockstone35 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The image shows not only the size of Kim Il Sung Square, but also serves to show the severity of the passing of the Resolution; with 100,000 people showing in P'yongyang to protest its passing. Aang-kai (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Background to article and as as Rockstone35 said, No one cares about breaking North Korean law when they hate us all :) Gsp8181 07:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly this image does not comply with WP:NFCC#8 (in either article) which states that: its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Readers can quite clearly comprehend the prose without the use of this image. While we may not really care what N Korea thinks, we do follow policy and unless all 10 points of the Non-free content criteria are met, the image must be removed. ww2censor (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI think this image improves the aesthecity of the article, and any photograph from a regime that is notoriously difficult to surveil should be treasured. Racooon (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you're saying it looks nice, and it's unusual. Which of the non-free content criteria are you referring to there? J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only real motive behind the vast majority of file deletion proposals is a paranoid fear of Wikipedia being sued for Copyright infringement. In practice, most or all other alleged motives, justifications, and arguments are just rubbish. C'mon, the world (and especially the WORLD out there, behind U.S. borders) is not a hostile jungle full of evil lawyers! Some people would prefer this to be a text-only encyclopedia, in this media-rich era!. Shame on them! --AVM (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps, I believe a conclusion has been reached. I am thus request the deletion of the 'this image has been filed for deletion' caption. I am a too retarded Wikipedian to be able to get rid of the caption myself so I'll leave it to someone who is more skilled than I to do so. Racooon (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We normally wait, for a full 7 days, until an administrator makes a determination of the facts, not just the keep comments, after which the deletion notice would be removed if the image is kept. However, they may still delete the image if policy is violated no matter what the opinions of the keep comments are. ww2censor (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially as most of the comments here are utter tripe. No one has said we should not report on the rally, no one has said that the image should be deleted because it is in violation of North Korean law, and no one is scared Wikipedia is going to get sued for this- we're talking about the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was released by the NK Government- how can it be non-free? The only one who would claim Copyright is them, and I really dont care. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence NK released in into the Public Domain? ww2censor (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, as far as I'm aware, we don't have a policy of ignoring copyright claims from people we don't like. In any case, as I've said, this isn't about being scared Wikipedia is going to get sued, this is about our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and once again- the copyright claim is by North Korea- who has no say over the public Domain. We ignore the copyright claim because they have no say anyway- why should we bother finding a free image? Even if we did- we would wait forever- North Korea would never release something into the public Domain. --Rockstone35 (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not based on any policy at all, and is clearly a legal nightmare. We do not chop and choose who we respect the copyright of and who we do not. In any case, the Government of the DPRK are not the only people who take photos there- you can visit, they're very welcoming- they just tell you where you can and can't go. Free images of DPRK do crop up. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The picture is obviously relevant to both articles. There is a section covering the protest, so that point is moot. WP:NFCC#8 is irrelevant because the picture does contribute to at least one article's (United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874) understanding, helping readers visualize the protests of a historic event. Int21h (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why do we need to do that? So, any article that mentions a(n) historic event is entitled to an image? Try again. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The image fails NFC8—the subject of the image can be adequately understood without the image. As such, it is an unjustified FU image. As a side note, I'd like the closer to take note that most of the above is absurd—"Nobody cares about North Korea so we can ignore its copyright" and "improves the aesthecity of the article" aren't legitimate arguments. ÷seresin 08:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clear violation of WP:NFCC#8 in the UN resolution article, and WP:NFCC#1 in the article about the square. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faroe Map Stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Seanwood ( | contribs).

• Delete orphaned, bad quality stamp. ww2censor (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, amazing quality [/sarcasm] 70.64.116.180 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oneonone.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FamicomJL ( | contribs).

• Excessive non-free screenshot. The article already have a similar one. Damiens.rf 14:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use of non-free images. ww2censor (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robinward.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FamicomJL ( | contribs).

• Seeing this non-free screenshot of a man in a suit with a microphone does not increases the readers understanding of "To Tell the Truth". There's nothing special about this scene. Damiens.rf 14:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NFCC#3 violation if nothing else. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:03, 17 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joegaragiolatttt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FamicomJL ( | contribs).

• Seeing this non-free screenshot of a man in a suit with a microphone does not increases the readers understanding of "To Tell the Truth". There's nothing special about this scene. And it shouldn't be used as the main image of Joe Garagiola, Sr. since a free alternative is available at File:Joe_Garagiola-Gerald_Ford.jpg Damiens.rf 14:08, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Franktttt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FamicomJL ( | contribs).

• Excessive non-free screenshot. The article already have a similar one. Damiens.rf 14:12, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joealaskey.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FamicomJL ( | contribs).

• Non-free image used to illustrate a living actor. Damiens.rf 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NFCC#1 violation. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:04, 17 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hrdice.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FamicomJL ( | contribs).

• This non-free screenshot showing 2 dices does not increases the readers understanding of the article about High Rollers Damiens.rf 14:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NFCC#3 vio if nothing else. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:06, 17 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LitMenOriginal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IndianCaverns ( | contribs).

• Replaceable: There sould be some PD cover for a 1871 book. Damiens.rf 17:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-free photo of free book, replaceable. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:19, 17 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LitWomearlyed.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IndianCaverns ( | contribs).

• Replaceable: There sould be some PD cover for a 1888 book. Damiens.rf 17:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a non-free photo of a free book, so it's replaceable. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:18, 17 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Travers and McKenna 02.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IndianCaverns ( | contribs).

• This non-free screenshot of a couple starring something does not increases the reader's understanding of the topic of Born Free. Damiens.rf 18:01, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drapht.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( | contribs).

• Orphan picture of an unknown entity. Damiens.rf 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orphaned photo of wikipedian. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guy McDonough.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( | contribs).

• This image not found on the source url, which seems to be a Wiki and with no reference to CC-BY-SA-3.0 Damiens.rf 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

• It appears the source url has been reorganised by the webpage designer(s). A new address for the image is:

url=http://guy-mcdonough.gonetoosoon.org/file/resize__500x600/5bec24ce2d8552d6f092d76ff44542c3/201692.jpg

This address for the image does not have any reference to CC-BY-SA-3.0.

A new non-free use rationale may be required for this image of a deceased person (died in 1984). If this is supplied I do not believe the image should be deleted.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless a proper license validation or non-free rationale is added. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cradle Of Faith - The Early Years (Screenshot from the short film).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Guywithoutaname ( | contribs).

• Possibly hoax image, very low quality either way. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think it's a hoax. I don't see these guys putting south park characters on their album cover. Gigs (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I own a screener of the film. This image is legit. Even if it's low quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guywithoutaname (talk • contribs) 02:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but you need to come up with some kind of verifiable evidence that this whole thing even exists. Gigs (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly, as a band who still exists, this is a replaceable image so fails WP:NFCC#1 besides which screenshots are usually used in articles about the film and certainly not to identify the subject in an infobox. ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2009 (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 discussion was: keep. Image is from a web site claiming to be the official site for Jean-Claude Forest.

File:Jean-Claude Forest.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Roaring Siren ( | contribs).

• Copyright is unknown. Image was grabbed from some random fan's website. Damiens.rf 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Forest himself are extremely hard to find online and most websites only contain pictures of his illustrations. It must be remembered that Forest died in 1998 and alternate images would prove to be hard to find,let alone their copyright status. And the image was not " grabbed from some random fan's website" as you have stated. --Roaring Siren (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At first I thought "Why don't we just use the image on JCF's official website instead?" Then I realized, this is the image from JCF's official website. I don't think we could find a less "random" portrait. A Google image search finds no other pictures of the guy. I believe this passes all our NFCC. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Quadell's assessment. Note: I was asked to comment here. ÷seresin 18:49, 27 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luigi Capello.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Roaring Siren ( | contribs).

• Copytight holder is unknown. Image was grabbed from a website that does not claims copyright on everything it uses. In any case, there should be some public-domain images of this Italian notable man died in 1948 (maybe even this one, if we can track the copytight holder). Damiens.rf 19:28, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: delete. I do not believe that the replaceability arguments of either Calliopejen1 or Damiens.rf were rebutted. While it's not reasonable to ask people to prove a negative, it is reasonable to expect efforts to find a free image to be undertaken, and the keep !voters did not make the case that such efforts were. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph pres roxas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCoffee ( | contribs).

• Replaceable drawing: Some Wikipedian could make a drawing of this man and release it under some free license.^{[citation needed]} Although this is the "Official presidential portrait", it's only used to show how Manuel Roxas looks like (in four articles!), and not to discuss how the Philippines officially portrait their heads of states. Damiens.rf 19:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Philippine copyright in photos lasts only 50 years from creation, so photos from shortly before his presidency would be PD. Replaceable - we just have to dig up a photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  But we don't know that any such photos exist, do we? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The burden is on those wanting to keep a non-free photo to show that free photos do not exist. He was a major Filipino politician during a period in which any photos created would now be PD. It is very likely a free photo exists, so it is silly to ask for proof that a photo does not exist. Once we have word that someone has looked through Philippine newspaper archives and found nothing etc, maybe then a nonfree photo would be justified. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. "What if someone could..." arguments should not be used here. The fact that the person is deceased makes almost impossible to find a free-image photo. Unless someone could provide a replacement, the pic should stay.--23prootie (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This picture is obviously relevant to the articles at hand, and deleting would be detrimental to the articles. On another note, it is better than the current, poor quality, barely discernible picture (w:File:Manuelroxas.jpg) on the Manuel Roxas article. Int21h (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm personally inclined to support keeping, since I'm not entirely confident a PD image exists. Regardless of the outcome, however, having both two non-free images of the same subject (this one and File:Manuelroxas.jpg) is not acceptable. If this is kept, the other must be deleted. ÷seresin 08:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The image is only used in Philippine general election, 1946, where its use is decorative and not in compliance with WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph pres quirino.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCoffee ( | contribs).

• Replaceable drawing: Some Wikipedian could make a drawing of this man and release it under some free license.^{[citation needed]} Although this is the "Official presidential portrait", it's only used to show how Elpidio Quirino looks like (in five articles!), and not to discuss how the Philippines officially portrait their heads of states. Damiens.rf 19:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete already have a free photo of him in the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. "What if someone could..." arguments should not be used here. The fact that the person is deceased makes almost impossible to find a free-image photo. Unless someone could provide a replacement, the pic should stay.--23prootie (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, replaceable. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is the only usable picture for Philippine general election, 1953, and removal would remove the only picture available for the article, even though the article is missing the other candidates' pictures already. These articles are in poor shape at the moment with respect to media, and removing them would be detrimental to these articles, and any other articles that might use the President's portrait. The horribly granulated, extremely poor quality crop from a low quality picture to begin with is not a replaceable image. The fact that a Wikipedian could draw a replacement is moot: a Wikipedian could make a drawing of anything and release it under a free license, but that has no effect on any non-free image. It has not been shown that some Wikipedian could create a freely-distributable usable drawing of his likeliness, something to which I do not think is possible (for the sake of this argument.) If this is your opinion, it has no more weight than my opinion (that it is impossible) so is irrelevant to a deletion discussion. If it is fact, cite your sources. Int21h (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We have a free image of the subject already. This is clearly unjustified fair use. ÷seresin 08:16, 22 June 2009 (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 discussion was: delete. I probably would have closed this as keep per the arguments raised by Calliopejen1 and Quadell, but it is no longer used in what is (in my view) the only article in which WP:NFCC #8 was met. Its use in the election articles seems purely decorative, and the WP:NFCC are therefore not met. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph pres garcia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCoffee ( | contribs).

• Replaceable drawing: Some Wikipedian could make a drawing of this man and release it under some free license.^{[citation needed]} Although this is the "Official presidential portrait", it's only used to show how Carlos P. Garcia looks like (in six articles!), and not to discuss how the Philippines officially portrait their heads of states. Damiens.rf 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Should be removed from non-main-bio articles (overuse isn't really an argument for deletion). Yes in theory portraits are replaceable by talented artists but as a practical matter it would be impossible to get a decent drawing to replace every non-free portrait in Wikipedia. I think that fact is reflected by our longstanding practice of allowing a single non-free image in a biography of a deceased person. I think if we obtain a free drawing this should be replaced but for the moment its use is unobjectionable. (Esp because it is an official presidential portrait likely intended for redistribution, as opposed to some random news shot.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we have is a longstanding practice of ignoring our non-free content policepolicy. The fact that it was not enforced before should not prevent us for enforcing it now. There's nothing impractical about making such a drawing, but none is likely to be made as long as we keep using these replaceable non-free drawings-from-the-internet. --Damiens.rf 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean policies? :) That's why I wrote weak keep. I guess I view this as at least arguable and a battle not worth fighting. There has been a fair amount of discussion about this on WT:NONFREE and people don't seem too excited about having unprofessional drawings. I guess my comment/vote is more a matter of an expression of what I believe the community as a whole thinks about these things than a view totally personal to me. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Since he's dead, a non-free photo would be acceptable (so long as it complied with our other policies. It stands to reason that a non-free painting could too. I could paint what I imagine he looked like, but he can't pose for any more portraits, and if I painted a portrait based only on this painting it would be a derivative work. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But our rule is not about "images replaceable by Quadell", but about replaceable images in general. Some Philippine wikipedian, or some Wikipedia with with experience in Philippine televesion/documentaries/news-photographies could be familiar with his face a make a drawing. We don't need him to pose. --Damiens.rf 13:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I know what NFCC#1 says. This was a posed portrait, and a posed portrait can no longer be created, by me or anyone else. A painting based on a copyrighted image in a "televesion/documentaries/news-photographies" would be a derivative work. That's why I believe it would be impossible for anyone to create a work that would fill the same function as this painting. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not quite true - someone's general appearance can't be copyrighted. A good artist should be able to look at several source images to figure out what someone looks like, and draw their own portrait (copying only uncopyrightable elements). We have a number of portraits like this in wikipedia, e.g. File:SusanBoyle 2.jpg. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wouldn't that argument prevent us from using any non-free photo of a deceased person to identify that person? Someone could conceivably draw the person, after all. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that's what Damiens.rf would argue, and what may be the better view. The idea generally has not been well-received in the community, though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. "What if someone could..." arguments should not be used here. The fact that the person is deceased makes almost impossible to find a free-image photo. Unless someone could provide a replacement, the pic should stay.--23prootie (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm slightly inclined to support keeping, since I'm not entirely confident a PD image exists. Regardless of the outcome, however, having both two non-free images of the same subject (this one and File:Presidentcarlospgarcia.jpg) is not acceptable. I'm personally inclined to support keeping the other one, since I think it's more informative (which would result in this one's being deleted). As a side note, I'm not convinced that the FU rationales for the election articles are valid. The image (and what appears to be numerous others) is not necessary for understanding the subject of those articles. ÷seresin 08:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The image is now used only in the articles about the elections, where it fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Used only decoratively now in election articles. We have another non-free image of this subject, this one is now unjustified - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 29 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph pres macapagal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCoffee ( | contribs).

• Replaceable drawing: Some Wikipedian could make a drawing of this man and release it under some free license.^{[citation needed]} Although this is the "Official presidential portrait", it's only used to show how Diosdado Macapagal looks like (in six articles!), and not to discuss how the Philippines officially portrait their heads of states. Damiens.rf 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Should be removed from non-main-bio articles (overuse isn't really an argument for deletion). Yes in theory portraits are replaceable by talented artists but as a practical matter it would be impossible to get a decent drawing to replace every non-free portrait in Wikipedia. I think that fact is reflected by our longstanding practice of allowing a single non-free image in a biography of a deceased person. I think if we obtain a free drawing this should be replaced but for the moment its use is unobjectionable. (Esp because it is an official presidential portrait likely intended for redistribution, as opposed to some random news shot.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete replaced. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. "What if someone could..." arguments should not be used here. The fact that the person is deceased makes almost impossible to find a free-image photo. Unless someone could provide a replacement, the pic should stay.--23prootie (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, replaceable by File:DiosdadoMacapagal.jpg. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We have a free image that can replace this one. Textbook unjustified fair use image. ÷seresin 08:24, 22 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph pres osmena.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCoffee ( | contribs).

• Replaceable drawing: Some Wikipedian could make a drawing of this man and release it under some free license.^{[citation needed]} Although this is the "Official presidential portrait", it's only used to show how Sergio Osmeña looks like (in four articles!), and not to discuss how the Philippines officially portrait their heads of states. Damiens.rf 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is another free photo in the article already. (Yes, I know it's a bad photo.) Because in the Philippines copyright over photos only lasts 50 years, most photos from during his presidency should be in the public domain. We just have to dig one up. Therefore replaceable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. "What if someone could..." arguments should not be used here. The fact that the person is deceased makes almost impossible to find a free-image photo. Unless someone could provide a replacement, the pic should stay.--23prootie (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, replaceable. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We have a free image that can replace this one. Textbook case of unjustified nonfree image. ÷seresin 08:25, 22 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph pres laurel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCoffee ( | contribs).

• Replaceable drawing: Some Wikipedian could make a drawing of this man and release it under some free license.^{[citation needed]} Although this is the "Official presidential portrait", it's only used to show how José P. Laurel looks like (in three articles!), and not to discuss how the Philippines officially portrait their heads of states. Damiens.rf 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Philippine copyright in photos lasts only 50 years from creation, so photos from during his presidency (1943-1945) would be PD. Replaceable - we just have to dig up a photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it plausible that no such photos exist? (Genuinely asking, looking for opinions.) – Quadell ^(talk) 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In a country where many people have disappeared, it is very plausible. Int21h (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Come on! This is ridiculous. No one has even tried to find a free photo. You're trying to claim that no photos of the president were created during his presidency????????? That is patently absurd. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. "What if someone could..." arguments should not be used here. The fact that the person is deceased makes almost impossible to find a free-image photo. Unless someone could provide a replacement, the pic should stay.--23prootie (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree, these opinions (which I dispute) have no standing. There is no reason to believe free replacements exist, or are even create-able, given he isn't alive. (It is extremely difficult to make a correct image of a deceased person.) Int21h (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm slightly inclined to support keeping, since I'm not entirely confident a PD image exists. Regardless of the outcome, however, having two non-free images of the same subject (this one and File:Laurel Jose.jpg) is not acceptable. I'm personally in favor of keeping this one, since I think it's more informative (which would result in the other one's being deleted). As a side note, I'm not convinced that the FU rationales for the election articles are valid. The image (and what appears to be numerous others) is not necessary for understanding the subject of those articles. ÷seresin 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as far as I can tell philippines photos published before 1959 are mostly free from copyright. From this memorial website there are many published photos of him from before this date that would be public domain. Image is replaceable with a (admittedly not as pretty) free image. Plenty of free images....just take some effort to get a nice looking one - Peripitus (Talk) 11:55, 29 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph pres quezon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCoffee ( | contribs).

• Replaceable drawing: Some Wikipedian could make a drawing of this man and release it under some free license.^{[citation needed]} Although this is the "Official presidential portrait", it's only used to show how Manuel L. Quezon looks like (in four articles!), and not to discuss how the Philippines officially portrait their heads of states. Damiens.rf 19:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Other free portraits of Quezon already in article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. "What if someone could..." arguments should not be used here. The fact that the person is deceased makes almost impossible to find a free-image photo. Unless someone could provide a replacement, the pic should stay.--23prootie (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, replaceable. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not replaceable. He is long since deceased and there is no reason to believe free images can be found, or are create-able in his absence. Int21h (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There already are free images of him in the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:14, 20 June 2009 (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 discussion was: - Delete - lacking a source and proof we cannot assume this image is PD ( I note that it is used on the cover of a book at Amazon). As a copyright image there are no arguments as to why we need this image, when there is a free image here and more available of the subject. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph pres aguinaldo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCoffee ( | contribs).

• Replaceable drawing: Some Wikipedian could make a drawing of this man and release it under some free license.^{[citation needed]} Although this is the "Official presidential portrait", it's only used to show how Emilio Aguinaldo looks like (in five articles!), and not to discuss how the Philippines officially portrait their heads of states. Damiens.rf 19:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and mark PD-US. He was in office 1897-1901, and an official portrait surely would have been published at that time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed! --Damiens.rf 20:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. "What if someone could..." arguments should not be used here. The fact that the person is deceased makes almost impossible to find a free-image photo. Unless someone could provide a replacement, the pic should stay.--23prootie (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There already exists a free image in the article—this one is highly unjustified. If the above is correct, and the image is indeed PD, then this FfD is not needed. ÷seresin 08:30, 22 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ph pres marcos.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCoffee ( | contribs).

• Replaceable drawing: Some Wikipedian could make a drawing of this man and release it under some free license.^{[citation needed]} Although this is the "Official presidential portrait", it's only used to show how Ferdinand Marcos looks like, and not to discuss how the Philippines officially portrait their heads of states. Damiens.rf 19:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Other free photos of Marcos in the article. No need to use the non-free portrait as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. "What if someone could..." arguments should not be used here. The fact that the person is deceased makes almost impossible to find a free-image photo. Unless someone could provide a replacement, the pic should stay.--23prootie (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, replaceable. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Honorees takemoto painting.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SportsAddicted ( | contribs).

• Replaceable drawing. Some talented wikipedian should make a drawing of Mr. Takemoto and release it under some free license.^{[citation needed]} Damiens.rf 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bc of japanese copyright law (see Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto) there should be free images available from his early-ish career (early 1950s) Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khatami-shiraz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Malezgerd ( | contribs).

• Copyright notice on image and on source website. I can't read farsi but there doesn't appear to be any CC indication anywhere on source page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alice shrugged wiki world color.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GeeAlice ( | contribs).

• Orphan LQ UE. Only ever once used on the userpage of a sockpuppet that is now permanently banned. Bovineone (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice that the image history shows that it was originally another image, but was replaced with this line-art version. License status is questionable due to the image editing history. Appropriate image format for this line-art would be SVG anyways. -- Bovineone (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Appears to be a derivative of File:Alice par John Tenniel 30.png—which seems to be PD, so there are no FU issues. However, the image has no imaginable encyclopedic value, so it has no place here. ÷seresin 08:32, 22 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flying Tiger 50th anniversary stamp.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arilang1234 ( | contribs).

• Non-free stamp used largely to illustrate its own existance. Adds nothing significant to the related article (Flying Tigers). Fails WP:NFCC#8 in not significantly adding to reader's understanding of the article's topic. Peripitus (Talk) 21:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Well spotted. The stamp also fails WP:NFC#Images #3 because it is being used in a non-stamp article without even being commented on, not just identified as existing, in the prose. ww2censor (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image shows the co-operation between AVG pilots and Chinese pilots training together, also shows the beginning of military co-operation between Republic of China and USA in their joint fighting against the Imperial Japanese Army. Arilang ^talk 21:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your claim may be correct but there is no verifiable discussion about the stamp itself and nothing to confirm the cooperation claimed to be shown on the stamp. These claims could easily be described in prose but the inclusion of the stamp would still fail WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freddy Krueger.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by I Seek To Help & Repair! ( | contribs).

• Image no longer needed. This was upload with the intent of use as the main infobox photo. Since then we've found a better one, non-free image no longer needed ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 23:00, 16 June 2009 (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.