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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metrobus720.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by DaveofCali ( | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Commons, image demonstrates the new design of bus stops on the Metro Rapid system in Los Angeles. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 16:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Image is no longer an orphan. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 16:48, 27 May 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NICKIROGERS.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Grepnork ( | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Commons, image is of a singer of a Dove Award-nominated group, no longer an orphan. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 16:45, 27 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Police-winnie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Amberrock ( | contribs | uploads).

• News(?) non-free photo used simply for illustrative purposes - the image is not necessary to understand the hunt for the animal Winnie. Peripitus (Talk) 03:57, 27 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orlando Regional Medical Center Campus 1980's.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Mjschmidt715 ( | contribs | uploads).

• No evidence of why this photo is unique or exactly why it is historic, thus invalid license. Terrillja _talk 04:10, 27 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orlando Regional Medical Center - 1960's.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Mjschmidt715 ( | contribs | uploads).

• No evidence of why this is a unique historical file, thus the license is invalid Terrillja _talk 04:11, 27 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The nice photo of a great monk of India 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Tanmaya cs ( | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned file: not used anywhere. Was uploaded by SPA for promotion. (Also seems reminiscent of a screen grab, so suspicious of the claim of authorship.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:File-Swami Satyaprajnanada Saraswati in Asharam 1998 gurupurnima.jpg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Tanmaya cs ( | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned file: not used anywhere. Was uploaded by SPA for promotion. (Also on the basis of other files uploaded by same editor, suspicious of the claim of authorship. Most of these files have now been deleted.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Comint-switzerland.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Schutz ( | contribs | uploads).

• So poor quality as to be unusable; the text is in any case already reproduced, and fails WP:NFCC#10c as not have a fair use rationale specific to its use on black site. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per the quality, this is not the version I uploaded originally (I guess the original version can not be accessed anymore, since I cannot see it, but I can reupload it) -- this one is indeed not very useful. As for the rationale, it should indeed be updated; I'll try to take care of it. Schutz (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oldgalaxylogo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by JonBroxton ( | contribs | uploads).

• Previously-deleted material (File:LosAngelesGalaxyTwoStar.png) that should be taken to deletion review, not re-uploaded. Furthermore, another logo is already in use on the page, thus this image fails WP:NFCC#3a. TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 15:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose deletion Had I know this was being proposed for deletion in the first place, I would have strongly opposed it then, too. This is the original logo of a major sports franchise in the United States, and is used as part of a gallery showing the progression of logo usage throughout the franchise's history, in exactly the same way as the logo gallery on Los Angeles Dodgers, for example. It's an important part of the club's history. It doesn't contravene the non-free image copyright regulations as is it not being used in a way which could misconstrue the logo's purpose. The logo does not fail WP:NFCC#3a as one non-free logo cannot convey the history of a club's logo. I can see absolutely no reason to delete this. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Would there happen to be any type of guideline which addresses the use of non-free logos in galleries? I'm leaning delete per WP:NFG. There are exceptions, but I'd like more insight on this. — ξ^xplicit 00:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is no discussion of the logo change anywhere in the article, and certainly no sourced discussion. The logo is rather peripheral to the article's subject and I cannot see any significant understanding it adds for readers. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does there need to be a discussion about the logo change? It's a visual representation, not a narrative one. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Angry Concern - Why has this been deleted before proper consensus has been established and before the discussion is over? Very bad form on the part of the person who deleted this. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Symbol of Christ.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Rejimissac ( | contribs | uploads).

• Missing permission, and not sure why this falls under fair use. The Ichthys, afaik, is not copyrighted. —fetch·comms 20:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not really sure how this image is being useful — it's a column, not an ichthys. The latter definitely isn't copyrightable, since it's been used for nearly 2,000 years. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, never seen this as a symbol of Christ. i think this might be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.106.33 (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carben carving.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Kendrick7 ( | contribs | uploads).

• Not a copyrighted statue, replaceable fair use. —fetch·comms 21:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, easily replaceable by any nearby editor. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This carving dates to the 15th century. Copyright has long since expired. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rank Grid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Flans44 ( | contribs | uploads).

• A discussion occurred regarding the overuse of non-free images on Starfleet ranks and insignia, which contained dozens of non-free images prior to the discussion. The implemented resulted of that discussion was removal of a majority of the ranks insignia from the article. In the discussion, Flans44 asked if he could use one file that contained all the copyrighted images [1]. This was part of some confusion that wasn't fully communicated. Black Kite responded that it would be ok if the original was one file, but at the time did not reference the prohibition on user created montages mentioned at WP:NFLISTS #1 [2]. Subsequently, Flans44 uploaded this image and another below believing that these two files, containing 24 rank insignia, resulted in having 24 copyrighted works being displayed in 2 files, having 2 or no copyrights. I removed the images from the article [3] and informed Flans44 of his misapprehension of the issue. Discussion ensued on his talk page, with Flans44 maintaining that none of these ranks insignia are copyrighted or can be copyrighted. Yet, in his own upload he marked them as copyrighted. Strange. Regardless, Paramount holds rights to these works of art used to depict ranks in the Star Trek universe. Putting them together in one image doesn't clear them of copyright, and using them in a single image doesn't mean there's one copyright to be concerned about, but multiple copyrights. The images still fail WP:NFCC #3a, and at a minimum if kept would require a fair use rationale for every single rank insignia. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Admiral Braids.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Flans44 ( | contribs | uploads).

• See above arguments regarding File:Rank Grid.jpg. The issues are identical. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2010 (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.