Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 12

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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mere depiction of the artist. Alecsdaniel (talk) 19:35, 12 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2052.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wehwalt (notify | contribs).

• Delete: this non-free stamp is bring used in the article Bicentennial Series when a freely licenced stamp is already included and several others are also available, so this one fails WP:NFCC #1 & #3. Besides which there is no fair use rationale to justify its inclusion. ww2censor (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As File:Stamp US 1977 13c Saratoga.jpg exists and is being used in the article, the above non-free image is unnecessary and fails WP:NFCC#1. — Σxplicit 00:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:55, 12 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 as failing WP:NFCC#8 in that the image does not significantly add to reader's understanding. While there is contention that the stamp is PD, it is not clear and in such a case we must assume that the image is copyrighted - Peripitus (Talk) 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crayola.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dougie WII (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1998 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence displaying the product is described quite well in the prose and the image does not add to the reader's understanding of the topic and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. ww2censor (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Although the article, Crayola is not a stamp article the section the image is used in is about the commemorative issue of a Crayola stamp. Therefore the image is used in context and as a pictorial way of giving the reader more information about the stamp. The image is used correctly and that usage is well within WP's fair use criteria. --WebHamster 08:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but because it's PD. The packet depicted on the stamp was published in 1903 and is therefore {{PD-US}}, as is a reproduction of it, and the text "Crayola crayons 1903" and "32 USA" doesn't pass the threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not certain that the placement, angles, lighting, and arrangement of the crayons is ineligible for copyright, and I think it's safest to assume it's copyrighted. As such, it's certainly not needed to fully understand the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The image on the stamp is immaterial as far as copyright and WP goes. The stamp is copyrighted by the stamp issuer. They obviously have permission from the copyright holder of the crayola image so only one copyright holder is material to this, i.e. the issuer of the stamp. The text opposite informs about the stamp but not what it looks like, the image shows what it looks like, so how does that not add to the understanding of the reader? Seems to be an awful lot of c&p going on from this editor. --WebHamster 15:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way: A photo of a public domain statue still has a copyright on the photo itself. Even though the crayon box is PD, the photo of it is not, because there is the specific creative choice of taking it an angle, along with arranging the crayons to form that shape. If the stamp was nothing but a faithful reproduction of the box, then it would be PD-US + PD-ineligible. howcheng {chat} 16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting one, but if I understand Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. correctly, if this stamp showed the Crayola packet as a simple 2D reproduction of an old, out of copyright, box then the photo on the stamp would not be copyright but this is a photo of an old box with crayons arranged sticking out of the box, so this is a photo of a 3D image and has significant creative content. Therefore a new copyright applies and though I respect Stifle's view I think he is wrong concerning the Crayold packet itself. ww2censor (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we're not party to the copyright agreement between the original photographer and the stamp issuer then the copyright of the stamp issuer takes precedence. It's reasonable to assume that the copyright holder of the photo was aware at some point that it was going to end up on a stamp, therefore they've agreed for its inclusion on something that is public domain. Or are people here saying that the US Postal Service is screwing over the photographer on copyright? --WebHamster 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, the stamp is not in the public domain because all post-1977 stamps are still copyright and it makes no difference if the photographer retained the copyright to the photo or released it to the stamp issuing authority, as is most often the case, the Crayola image, independently or as part of the stamp is copyright as a creative 3D photo no matter who retains the copyright to it. ww2censor (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean it can't be used under a fair use rationale. Though the resolution could do with being reduced. Either way though, there's only one copyright issue at hand, which is the one retained by the stamp issuer. --WebHamster 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as long as the stamp is necessary for reader comprehension. Right now, it's really superfluous. howcheng {chat} 02:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is used in a section of the article about the stamp, not simply to show what a crayola crayon looks like. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That stamp section, as written currently, only proves the exists. Knowing the stamp exists, what it shows and that is had cultural impact is not sufficient to pass WP:NFC#Images. Was there any debate about the choice of the old box and the actual crayons chosen for the photo? Unfortunately there is no reliably sourced commentary about the stamp itself which could support the use of the stamp with a fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is being used to illustrate the stamp, not as a primary means of identifying the subject. Perhaps the text could be expanded, but that's reason to expand the text, not delete the image. The use here is clearly educational and not violating the copyright of the USPS. To assert so is pretty silly. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can expand the text discussiing about the stamp itself, not just identifying the stamp, what is illustrated and/or production details, with verifiable critical commentary supported by reliable sources, not blog entries, it may well be possible to pass the threshold for fair-use but right now the stamp is just being used to show the stamp exists showing a Crayola package with no discussion about the stamp. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added more details and linked to Wiki article on stamp series. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your efforts, there is still no critical commentary about the stamp itself. Just production information that can we well understood by any reader without the stamp being illustrated. We need more than the fact that the stamp exists, what it shows, how it was printed. I am still not convinced there is anything significant being said that would allow us to keep this image. Try harder and I will support you. In Timeline of Crayola under the 1904 paragraphs there is an unverified statement that there is: a misconception that the famous box shown on the postage stamp and in numerous other historical articles and web pages is "the" actual first design of their Crayola boxes because the box shown in all of those pictures has that Gold Medal on the front. Now if you could verify this statement with some reliable sources specific to the stamp itself I think the threshold for keeping could be met. ww2censor (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did this. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:05, 23 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DC stamp 2003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Autopilot (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 2003 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate a stamp with no direct relationship to the article Pierre Charles L’Enfant but also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is described quite well in the prose and the image does not add to the reader's understanding of the topic and its omission not would be detrimental to that understanding. ww2censor (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The stamp is commemorating Pierre Charles L'Enfant's design for the district. The cited USPS announcement of the stamp discusses his plan for DC and the posthumous honor that the stamp represents. -- Autopilot (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article is not about the stamp, and everything in the article can be fully understood without reproducing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:54, 12 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flapperstamp-celebrate the century.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jengod (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1998 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the stamp on which is an illustration by the subject of the article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described in the prose and the image does not add to the reader's understanding of the topic and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Besides which there is no fair-use rationale and the image should be replaceable by finding a freely licenced image from 1923 or earlier during which time Held was already active. ww2censor (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An example of his work would be useful in the article, but he was publishing before 1923, so it's replaceable. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:57, 12 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:James P. Jhonson Stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Morahman7vn (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1995 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 is described quite well in the prose. Besides the fair-use rationale "To use in Article" is not a suitable justificiation. ww2censor (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article is not about the stamp, and everything in the article can be fully understood without reproducing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:58, 12 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jgstamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Otto4711 (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1990 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp list article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is described quite well in the prose and does not add anything to the reader's understanding because its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Besides the fair-use rationale "For illustration of the stamp as discussed in the article" is not a suitable justification. ww2censor (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - given that the article in which the image is being used is a featured list. It seems odd that a list could be promoted to featured status if there were any question about the status of the image. Otto4711 (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because the image may have slipped through the WP:FL review, without being noticed or corrected by reviewers who may not be very familiar with copyright, does not make its retention correct or better justified. ww2censor (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, since the article isn't about the stamp. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article is not about the stamp, and everything in the article can be fully understood without reproducing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:00, 12 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Linksstamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bearly541 (notify | contribs).

• Delete: This 2006 Zazzle stamp is copyright and fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp list article. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is described quite well in the prose and does not add anything to the reader's understanding because its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Besides the stamp issues, the photograph on the cover has no indication of any permission and is likely under copyright, so we cannot keep this image either. ww2censor (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The stamp is certainly notable in itself, and is mentioned in the article. However, I don't think that seeing the stamp itself adds enough to the understanding of The Links, Incorporated to justify using a non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:03, 12 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lou Gehrig stamp.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JGHowes (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Fails minimal use per WP:NFCC#3a because there are three non-free images in the article about Lou Gehrig. All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1989 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp list article and it also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose and does not add anything to the reader's understanding because its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. ww2censor (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This 20-year old stamp is long out of circulation and NFCC is met because its fair use in the article is not merely trivial or decorative, nor as a substitute for a free image of the person depicted. Quite the contrary. The stamp's use is part of a significant portion of the article discussing Gehrig's lasting impact on U.S. culture and the continued recognition his memory evokes. The heroic pose depicted by the stamp's artwork cannot be adequately conveyed by mere prose alone to the reader. Because of the extraordinary interest in Gehrig (voted by American baseball fans as their favorite player, 60 years after he last played), my view is that this falls within the "occasional exception" of the NFC guidelines.  JGHowes  ^talk 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lou Gehrig is certainly important, but the stamp is not. It's barely even mentioned in the article. Reproducing this non-free image is not needed for the reader to fully understand the article, so it fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:05, 12 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KatherineVonBora.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hlodynn (notify | contribs).

• We have better-quality versions of this painting on Commons in Commons:Category:Katharina von Bora. howcheng {chat} 04:26, 12 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⚡ 04:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:0JohnXIIIVCstamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pastor Theo (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Fails WP:NFCC#1 because there are freely licenced Vatican stamps for use in Postage stamps and postal history of Vatican City available that are 70-years old and in the public domain. Here are some links [1] and [2] and there are plenty of others to be found. This stamp should only be used if it is illustrating a particular aspect of Vatican philately that cannot be described in prose alone otherwise it also fails WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The file in question is from a 51-year old commemorative stamp issued by Vatican City. It is, to the best of my knowledge, a public domain image. I would invite the nominator to clarify the 70-year-old citation in regard to Vatican philately and copyright laws; for the record, the Vatican began issuing stamps 80 years ago. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As detailed at List of countries' copyright length, the Vatican City respects copyright for 70 years after the death of the author. Official VC law says that VC simply applies the same copyright laws as Italy, and it explicitly says that VC government works are eligible for copyright. Any stamp first published before 1939 should be PD though. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify that you are talking about the copyright of philatelic imagery. There are countries that allow the free reproduction of their philatelic issues, but not the free reproduction of other media. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The VC law listed above says (my translation): "The provisions regarding copyright protection shall apply to legal texts and the official acts published by the Holy See and Vatican City." It's a very brief document, but it sounds like they want to claim copyright on everything. – Quadell ^(talk) 05:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a highly subjective intepretation -- I've never heard of commemorative stamps referred to as "official acts." It does not appear the PDF has anything to do with copyright issues relating to Vatican philately. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as replaceable. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please provide confirmation that running this image is not a violation of Vatican regulations regarding the reproduction of images on postage stamps. Considering the Vatican makes a nice profit on its philatelic sales, it seems illogical that they would not allow the reproduction of the philatelic images -- especially for a stamp that is a half-century old. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:11, 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1994Mandela STRIP Wikipedia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Philatelicum (notify | contribs).

• Delete: This stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in the non-stamp article Nelson Mandela and there is already a freely licenced stamp in the article so fails WP:NFCC#3a minimal use too. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence can be described quite well in the prose and does not add anything to the reader's understanding because its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Besides the fair-use rationale "item is described in article" is not a suitable justification. ww2censor (talk) 04:43, 12 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eric krumins.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by I_love_ghost_is_dancing (notify | contribs).

• I uploaded this photo in error. I love ghost is dancing (talk) 05:10, 12 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: - Kept and tagged to move to commons - Peripitus (Talk) 02:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:EasternKingbirdOKCZoo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mitternacht90 (notify | contribs).

• Orphan, Lot of net, bird's features not very prominent, close-ups of the bird already available at kingbird and eastern kingbird articles. Jay (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Commons. Still could be useful for somebody. It's a free image with all relevant information needed for a move, and it isn't orphaned (used in userspace). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:12, 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; deleted by Jclemens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RESINcoated1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kiranisht (notify | contribs).

• Credits in the file itself imply that this is not in the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 12 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 07:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2000 Pacific Coast Rain Forest stamp sheet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Premkudva (notify | contribs).

File:2001 Great Plains Prairie stamp sheet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Premkudva (notify | contribs).

File:2002 Longleaf Pine Forest stamp sheet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Premkudva (notify | contribs).

File:2003 Arctic Tundra stamp sheet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Premkudva (notify | contribs).

File:2004 Pacific Coral Reef stamp sheet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Premkudva (notify | contribs).

File:2005 Northeast Deciduous Forest stamp sheet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Premkudva (notify | contribs).

File:2006 Southern Florida Wetland stamp sheet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Premkudva (notify | contribs).

File:2007 Alpine Tundra stamp sheet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Premkudva (notify | contribs).

• Nature of America has 9 non-free stamp images, which violates WP:NFCC#3b. I think the article should have one image of the stamps, so I'm not nominating File:1999 Sonoran Desert stamp sheet.jpg for deletion, but the rest are all used in a gallery. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will it be of any help [for keeping] if they are moved out of the gallery? Or is that just a statement?--PremKudva^Talk 05:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Fails minimal use per WP:NFCC#3b. Agree to keep and not nominate first stamp per nom. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The only reason I had uploaded these images is because each sheet depicts a unique part of the Nature of America landscape. Further I had reduced the resolution of the uploaded images substantially after another editor had brought that to my notice. The article makes better sense when the images of all the sheets are depicted. Keeping one image doesn't make any sense at all. If however the consensus is on delete then all the images including the one that is proposed to be kept for illustration purpose should be deleted.--PremKudva^Talk 04:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is a pretty strange justification for keeping the images; you would prefer to violate the policy of minimal by keeping all the images use rather than having one image which complies with minimal use policy per WP:NFCC#3b. ww2censor (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may look strange, but a stamp collector who is coming across this page, will be expecting to see images of all the issued sheets. Keeping one image will for illustration purpose is not necessary here. Either keep them all or remove them all. I have no problem is all of them are removed.--PremKudva^Talk 03:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the fair use be replaced with the {{Attribution}} tag as per Uses Not Requiring Permission ?--PremKudva^Talk 11:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not, because all the uses that don't require permission; Educational Use, News Reporting or Philatelic Advertising Use, do not fit with any Wikipedia's fair-use criteria or policy. Sorry ww2censor (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: -- The article is about these stamps. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to keep the images even though they contravene minimal use policy of non-free images per WP:NFCC#3b? Apparently so. ww2censor (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are following the letter of the law then they have to be deleted, but if you are following the spirit of the law then they should be retained. These are stamp images, marked with the correct attribute, low rez, correctly inserted in an article about the said stamp series. Since they are in a series it is essential that all the images are shown. For that matter when it is not essential even free images are deleted if too many are shown on a page. Eg multiple images of the same bird or animal.--PremKudva^Talk 11:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all images: I have changed my keep stand above. I wrote to the USPS and they have written back saying "There is no "fair use" of USPS postage stamps as all postage stamps are copyrighted and owned by the United States Postal Service. In order to use a stamp the following application needs to be filled out and returned for review." This means all images have to be removed, including the one proposed to be kept for illustrative purpose. Do remove the images from the article after image deletion.--PremKudva^Talk 03:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fair use is a doctrine in US law that can only be claimed when things are copyright as US stamps are since 1978. We can make a fair use claim for US stamps under the fair use doctrine no matter what USPS says. Their statement: "There is no "fair use" of USPS postage stamps as all postage stamps are copyrighted and owned by the United States Postal Service" is not accurate, even though they make it, because in law they have no control over any fair use. They are trying to intimidate you into not using any of their stamps by that wording. Of course if US stamps were freely licenced, then fair use would be irrelevant and could not be claimed. ww2censor (talk) 04:49, 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 by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marie brenner bio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emayo314 (notify | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCC #1. Free image available. Summary says permission was granted but does not specify that it was GFDL or CC. No OTRS ticket to confirm claim. Image is tagged as a Non-free web screenshot. Image must be free to use for any purpose. -Nv8200p talk 13:29, 12 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: - Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 02:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ECHA logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ssolbergj (notify | contribs).

• Reproduction is authorised provided written notification is given to the ECHA Communication Unit. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use. See http://echa.europa.eu for additional information. Echadigital (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fair Use of the organization's logo in the article discussing that organization is in accordance with NFCC. It would also appear that the nom, Echadigital (talk), has a COI, based on diff.  JGHowes  ^talk 14:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, valid use, passes all our WP:NFCC. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:31, 12 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⚡ 04:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brad Pitt Full page.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tvanwinkle (notify | contribs).

• One of the most blatant pieces of advertising I've seen on WP to date - An actual advert that was placed on Lee (jeans). Non-free use is clearly incorrect. Smartse (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this serves no encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not an advertising portfolio.  JGHowes  ^talk 14:27, 12 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⚡ 04:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LeePSA lowresFINAL.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tvanwinkle (notify | contribs).

• Similar to the above but this time placed on Lee National Denim Day.Non-free use is clearly incorrect. Smartse (talk) 13:52, 12 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Image Place Holder.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shinerunner (notify | contribs).

• Horribly tacky image that violates WP:SELF. When will this madness cease? Kaldari (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it necessary violates WP:SELF, but we already have enough placeholder images in Commons:Category:Image placeholders that we need another. howcheng {chat} 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Horribly tacky image" & "madness" - Hmm, whatever happened to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Attack? If the image isn't required, please delete. Shinerunner (talk) 21:55, 12 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PoPOldMan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deblopper (notify | contribs).

• No rationale provided for inclusion. Image completely unnecessary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:04, 12 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⚡ 03:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A-allele table.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Uconngaryd24 (notify | contribs).

• Should be wikitext, orphaned, failed to initialize usage. ZooFari 18:44, 12 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vid-lwiw-mb-june98.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bwmoll3 (notify | contribs).

• NFCC #8. Song is barely even discussed in article, and video isn't discussed at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:10, 12 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: - Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 02:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Census Bureau map of Washington, New Jersey.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alansohn (notify | contribs).

• Source information is incomplete and unverifiable. Damiens.rf 21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: url has been added, though for some reason, maybe because the url is too long, it does not display correctly in the saved mode, but in the edit made the full url works. ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All necessary source information as product of United States Census Bureau has been added, and link to source web page has been provided if there is any reasonable doubt as to the licensing of the image. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per updated source info. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 15 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nazi Boycott April 1, 1933 in Berlin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alansohn (notify | contribs).

• Not used, unverifiable source information. Damiens.rf 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image is being used and was obtained from the National Archives and records Administration via the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum at this link, demonstrating the US government ownership of these images. Alansohn (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the Museum is not a federal department so its images are copyright unless they specifically carry a free licence notice, especially per this page. The actual image source is here and credited to "Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz" but I cannot find it there. Is this image free or nor? The burden of proof is on you to provide that proof. ww2censor (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless evidence is give that BPK's copyright claim is spurious. The picture isn't old enough to automatically be PD in the US. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no real source or author, and it could well still be copyrighted if the photographer lived into the 1904s. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:41, 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: - Keep - now adequately sourced - Peripitus (Talk) 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Census Bureau map of Ocean Township, Ocean County, New Jersey.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alansohn (notify | contribs).

• Source information is incomplete and unverifiable Damiens.rf 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All necessary source information as product of United States Census Bureau has been added, and link to source web page has been provided if there is any reasonable doubt as to the licensing of the image. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per updates source info. ww2censor (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per updated source info. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 15 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 - now adequately sourced - Peripitus (Talk) 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Census Bureau map of Plumsted Township, New Jersey.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alansohn (notify | contribs).

• Source information is incomplete and unverifiable Damiens.rf 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All necessary source information as product of United States Census Bureau has been added, and link to source web page has been provided if there is any reasonable doubt as to the licensing of the image. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per updated source info. ww2censor (talk) 04:55, 14 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 - now adequately sourced - Peripitus (Talk) 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Census Bureau map of Stafford Township, New Jersey.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alansohn (notify | contribs).

• Source information is incomplete and unverifiable Damiens.rf 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All necessary source information as product of United States Census Bureau has been added, and link to source web page has been provided if there is any reasonable doubt as to the licensing of the image. Alansohn (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per updated source info. ww2censor (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per updated source info. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 15 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 - now adequately sourced - Peripitus (Talk) 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Census Bureau map of Mannington Township, New Jersey.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alansohn (notify | contribs).

• Source information is incomplete and unverifiable Damiens.rf 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All necessary source information as product of United States Census Bureau has been added, and link to source web page has been provided if there is any reasonable doubt as to the licensing of the image. Alansohn (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per updated source info. ww2censor (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per updated source info. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 15 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 - now adequately sourced - Peripitus (Talk) 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Census Bureau map of Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alansohn (notify | contribs).

• Source information is incomplete and unverifiable Damiens.rf 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All necessary source information as product of United States Census Bureau has been added, and link to source web page has been provided if there is any reasonable doubt as to the licensing of the image. Alansohn (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per updated source info. ww2censor (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per updated source info. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 15 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 - without a clear source the licensing for this cannot be assumed to be correct. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morristown Map 1776.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alansohn (notify | contribs).

• Image not found on source. Damiens.rf 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is always the possibility of an assumption of good faith given the complete and thotough details provided. This link from Archive.org does not provide the image itself, but does provide a text with a detailed description that matches the image uploaded. The current site seems to have eliminated the image. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just clicked through the link given, and the current site seemed to have it just fine.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - source says "Origin unknown". Why does wikipedia says "...it is a work of the United States Federal Government"? --Damiens.rf 13:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no source. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:43, 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bosdari.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ragusino (notify | contribs).

• Blatant watermarking renders unusable. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:41, 12 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⚡ 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bona.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ragusino (notify | contribs).

• Blatant watermarking renders unusable ViperSnake151  Talk  23:52, 12 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.