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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ritual of the Calling of the Engineer Stamp 2000 Zoomed.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PCStuff ( | contribs).

• Delete: All Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years. This 2000 stamp fails WP:NFCC#1 because there are plenty of freely licenced Canadian stamps available to use in Canada Post. Image is incorrectly licenced as CC by sa 2.5. All other uses, even as a non free image would fail WP:NFC#Images because it is used in non-stamp article but to identify the subject on a stamp. ww2censor (talk) 03:52, 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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:File-Alistairdarling.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:File-Alistairdarling.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).

• File seems to be uploaded just to vandalize a page, [1]  Nuβiατεch ^Talk/_contrib 10:43, 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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qom Today.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brightnights ( | contribs).

• Is under a non-commercial license on flickr. MBisanz ^talk 17:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: IMO, the image lacks merit as a statement of where Qom 'is' today.Cmholm (talk) 03:23, 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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SReevesArmy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by D C McJonathan ( | contribs).

• We can't verify this image is a "work of the United States Federal Government". The source is a Wiki (findagrave.com) Damiens.rf 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The identical image is on the Steve Reeves website which claims copyright per this page. It is also on two other websites per tineye, none of which confirms a US federal source so we must assume it is still copyright until a verifiable source is provided. ww2censor (talk) 19:05, 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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Dayan Rhinoplasty.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bhalberg ( | contribs).

• No evidence of model permission; personality rights apply to indoor photography of recognizable persons. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Besides the above, permission claimed to be own work of uploader but obvious copyright violation of this web page and possible conflict of interest per description which says: See our rhinoplasty video featured on YouTube. ww2censor (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, that's condradictory. If it's a copyvio then he's not the copyright holder and there's no COI. If there's a COI, then he presumably has the right to release the photos under a free license. I would take him at his word -- he represents a plastic surgery outfit, there's a conflict of interest, and it's a free photo. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Indeed it is contradictory. The uploader claims the work is his own, but the images come from the doctor's website, so they are copyvios, but the description he placed says "See our rhinoplasty video on YouTube", so maybe he works for the doctor and has permission in which case his uploads are COIs and not copyvios but without any confirmed permission. One way or another there is a problem that need solving or a deletion. Either way the uploader has not been around since he uploaded this on June 18 so it seems we shall have to decide based on what we see. On the commons all his uploads were deleted including an identical image to this. ww2censor (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete COI, advertisement ("See our rhinoplasty video featured on: http..."). --CliffC (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the above reasons given. Shereth 15:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The only valid reason I can see for removal is personality rights issues. (It's clearly a free image, COI is not a reason to delete an image, and inappropriate advertising text can be removed.) If the model's features were obscured, or if the uploader submitted a model release to OTRS, I wouldn't see a problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:45, 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.