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 (see below)

Longish closing note: At the original (and then relisted) discussion, currently at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 31#File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg, there was a clear consensus to delete. At the second (irregularly) relisted discussion, currently at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010_October 23#File:Dale_Robertson_Racist_Sign.jpg, there was a clear numeric preponderance of "keep" votes, but several of these lacked clearly articulated rationales and/or were from new/single-purpose editors/IPs. The case for keep was most convincingly stated by the (implicitly) conditional vote of Xenophrenic, saying keep on the basis that the article not only mentioned the fact of the sign as such, but also discussed further details such as forgery allegations. This was a serious argument, but no longer fits the content of the article, because for the last several weeks the content has indeed been reduced to the mere fact of quoting the text of the sign. Votes based on the perceived necessity of showing visual details of the sign and its context are therefore no longer countable. (Xenophrenic himself said: "When it is used in an article to illustrate simply that "a man held a sign that said 'yada yada'", then yes, that qualifies as replaceable.") The third nomination, at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 8, again resulted in a delete consensus, though between fewer voters. At the present, fourth, nomination, several votes were concerned only with the question of renaming versus non-renaming (which is off-topic and should not be decided at FFD). Other keep votes either contained no argumentation at all or merely pointed to the 23 October discussion, but without specifying the exact arguments they were based on. Finally, the delete vote by Schuminweb rightly points out that under F7 the image currently must be deleted, since it is in fact not used in the article. The counter-argument by Xenophrenic, to the effect that it was only removed because it was subject to a deletion discussion, doesn't stand up to this argument, because the fact that the article section has remained in a stable (rather brief) state and without the picture for several weeks since demonstrates that the article in fact can live well enough without it.

On balance, and taking into equal consideration the useable parts of all four deletion discussions, this therefore comes down to a renewed closure as delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by CartoonDiablo ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 18. Primary concerns appear to be WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. T. Canens ( talk) 05:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Move if kept to less problematic title-- File:Dale Robertson Sign.jpg would work fine. No comment on deletion. Chick Bowen 06:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Move if kept, per Chick Bowen. Reh man 00:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep IFF moved. Jonathunder ( talk) 16:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename per arguments at this previous Ffd discussion. TMCk ( talk) 16:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep and "no comment on renaming". WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2 do not apply here, per arguments at FfD discussion previously held. Xenophrenic ( talk) 19:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep and "no comment on renaming" There is obviously fair use. Dylan Flaherty 01:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok, I'll bite: what's wrong with calling it a racist sign? Is there any question about it being racist? Dylan Flaherty 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply

What's wrong is what is always wrong when someone mentions the 'R'-word. People balk, without rational reason or explanation. The source was titled, "Analysis: Was The Notorious Racist Tea Party Sign Forged? We Believe Not." Xenophrenic ( talk) 06:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC) reply

There is nothing wrong with calling it a racist sign, and it was obviously racist. I have no objection to the use of the word within the article. But it creates an awkward problem as a file title, since it not only describes the content but places it within a particular context that itself requires explanation. File titles should be neutral. Chick Bowen 00:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This entire nomination puts me off quite a bit - enough that I refuse to close it. It very much seems like a case of placing a file through as many processes as possible until it produces the desired result. First we had an FFD listing. Then it was relisted and moved to the relisted date per WP:Deletion process. Then someone reopened discussion out of process on the old page. The properly relisted file resulted in a delete result, while the out-of-process reopening came up with a different result. After it was realized that things got screwed up, the file was closed neutrally, and then immediately relisted, where the result was to delete. That was assuming good faith - there was a mistrial, so to speak, and this was the new trial. The fact that it didn't produce certain people's desired result was not a good reason to take it to Deletion Review, despite that process was followed completely on the renomination. Add to that the fact that for all the complaining that certain users did about not being notified about the renomination, that involved parties in the second nomination (the one that ended as delete) were conveniently not notified of the Deletion Review. I didn't find out about that until I saw the file at FFD again (much to my surprise). Now this file is likely to be kept despite that it currently fails WP:NFCC#7, mainly because certain editors have learned that if they whine and complain long enough, they can game the system and get whatever they want. This file absolutely should be deleted, and the fact that this entire ordeal has gone on for a month and a half is an embarrassment. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 07:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC) reply

The only fact in the above rant is that this whole process "seems like a case of placing a file through as many processes as possible until it produces the desired result," so I'm sure we will see this listed for deletion again, and yet again, until it is gone. The previous result in discussions including more than just a couple participants was self-evident, as is the result of this present discussion. The image meets and passes the criteria in WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and even the newly cited WP:NFCC#7 (the image is in the Tea Party movement article, and was only deleted pending the outcome of this FfD — pretending it is now an orphan image is disingenuous). Are there any legitimate grounds to delete the image file? "Off-putting" is the above editor's insinuation that a deletion review was requested because previous process didn't produce a desired result, and the further accusation that "editors have learned that if they whine and complain long enough, they can game the system and get whatever they want." Someone is treading very close to learning about "process", indeed. Xenophrenic ( talk) 10:44, 5 December 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 as G7 by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Aplt.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Anikingos ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• Unused and unencyclopedic file Reh man 14:04, 25 November 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, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Logo of VINCCI.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Fookjian95 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• Delete: orphaned image dependent on previously deleted article Vincci; Wikipedia is not an orphanage. ww2censor ( talk) 15:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC) ww2censor ( talk) 15:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete if unused. Reh man 00:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete orphaned. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^{( Contact)} 16:07, 1 December 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Lowe's Motor Speedway.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Chrisg21090 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphan, and name conflict with a file on Commons Lvi56 ( talk) 21:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename The article can be added to the Charlotte Motor Speedway article. Nascar 1996 22:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• The nominator agreed to a rename instead at Wikipedia:Help desk#Different image, duplicate name on Wikipedia and Commons. I have renamed it to File:Lowe's Motor Speedway, outside.jpg but I don't have experience closing discussions here. PrimeHunter ( talk) 22:58, 25 November 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, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Abhaya.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Supran ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• Possible copyright violation. Uploader says he created the work "entirely by myself." He says he uploaded it on November 26, 2008. The subject died in 1992. How did he take the picture? When? The picture appears on a news website in an article dated November 19, 2008. See here. It also appears on other places on the web. Bbb23 ( talk) 21:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• comment - it does seem doubtful that the uploader is the owner of the copyright. It has no meta data and is at multiple locations around the web. There is perhaps a fair use rationale but no evidence for Commons licensing. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:59, 25 November 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.