The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted PROD, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 02:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Photo of some pipes that will be used to build a pipeline being used under a claim of fair use. For one, I doubt that it's irreplaceable - there are plenty of construction workers there, any of whom could snap a picture with a cell phone ... you can see in the picture that they are carried on trucks ... presumably these trucks drive down public roads ... and on top of that, the article says construction is hampered by protesters shooting at construction equipment, so it doesn't sound like security is too tight for someone else to shoot a photo. And surely the pipes exist somewhere on the planet other than the construction site. And even if they were completely irreplaceable, there's no reason to believe that this image satisfies WP:NFCC#8 - that lack of use of this image would damage a user's ability to understand a topic. B ( talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Gif version migrated to commons, where a vector version could be created.
Obsoleted by File:Y-combinator-logo.gif. While gif is strictly speaking a lossy format (IIRC), it clearly shows less artifacts than this file. Not eligible for F8 due to different file formats. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 07:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. There's a lot of kind of junky, non-guideline or policy-based arguments on both sides, but what it boils down to is a concern that the image doesn't meet our non-free content policies vs. the image is useful in illustrating the article. Many assertions were made that removing the image would be detrimental to reader's understanding, for example: "part of the reason [people cared] about the murder trial" was the photo; that her health as evidenced in the photo was an important part of the trial; or that she was a white girl and this was the reason for the coverage; but no secondary and reliable sources have been brought forth to support these assertions. The onus is on the defenders of non-free content to prove why it should remain, and no one in the discussion below did so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 14:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Photo of Caylee Anthony used only decoratively in two articles - Timeline of Casey Anthony case and Casey Anthony trial. In both cases, it fails WP:NFCC#8 - the absence of this photo would not inhibit a user's understanding of the topic. B ( talk) 14:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: The article has been changed back to the Death of Caylee Anthony title, as shown above by Drilnoth. And B said, "If we had an article on Caylee Anthony (which we do not, nor would we, obviously), then an image could be arguably appropriate there." Well, considering the articles Matthew Shepard and the Murder of Adam Walsh have pictures of the victims, then maybe the Caylee image is appropriate as well? As I stated before, these individuals are deceased, and other Wikipedia articles about deceased people have fair-use images used to identify them, such as James Dean. Images of deceased people are the only kind of fair-use images that are accepted when it comes to images of real-life people on Wikipedia. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Certainly an album cover, being used to illustrate Flizzow himself. Replaceable fair use, but not tagged as non-free so no speedy. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 17:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned. Redundant to the more encyclopedic and accurate File:Map of USA JF.png. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 14:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Company/team logo Eeekster ( talk) 17:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
NFCC violation. No rationale given for use. Purely illustrative image in BLP. Previously kept in a poorly argued discussion from 2007 that's not consistent with current NFCC standards. Supposedly demonstrated contrast between the young porn performer and his later sttatus as a convicted murderer (not a valid NFCC use, of course), but the "contrasting" nonfree images have already been removed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brazilian Waxing.jpg. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 22:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 15:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Presumably a non-free logo (not GFDL as stated), and if non-free I can't think of any FUR which would be valid for its current use. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 22:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Surely the contents of the special edition can be described with text, or a free image could be created by someone who owns the special edition. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 22:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-free movie screenshot. Apparently random scene, used in an plot summary section. No explanation of why this particular scene needs to be visually illustrated. Not the object of analytical discussion, except for the mere statement that a certain event happens as part of the plot. – There might well be some analytical commentary to give here, about the production techniques, special effects, visual esthetics etc. seen in this frame, but that would be for a different section, and of course it would have to be sourced; currently there is no content in the article to support this image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted PROD, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 02:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Photo of some pipes that will be used to build a pipeline being used under a claim of fair use. For one, I doubt that it's irreplaceable - there are plenty of construction workers there, any of whom could snap a picture with a cell phone ... you can see in the picture that they are carried on trucks ... presumably these trucks drive down public roads ... and on top of that, the article says construction is hampered by protesters shooting at construction equipment, so it doesn't sound like security is too tight for someone else to shoot a photo. And surely the pipes exist somewhere on the planet other than the construction site. And even if they were completely irreplaceable, there's no reason to believe that this image satisfies WP:NFCC#8 - that lack of use of this image would damage a user's ability to understand a topic. B ( talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. Gif version migrated to commons, where a vector version could be created.
Obsoleted by File:Y-combinator-logo.gif. While gif is strictly speaking a lossy format (IIRC), it clearly shows less artifacts than this file. Not eligible for F8 due to different file formats. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 07:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. There's a lot of kind of junky, non-guideline or policy-based arguments on both sides, but what it boils down to is a concern that the image doesn't meet our non-free content policies vs. the image is useful in illustrating the article. Many assertions were made that removing the image would be detrimental to reader's understanding, for example: "part of the reason [people cared] about the murder trial" was the photo; that her health as evidenced in the photo was an important part of the trial; or that she was a white girl and this was the reason for the coverage; but no secondary and reliable sources have been brought forth to support these assertions. The onus is on the defenders of non-free content to prove why it should remain, and no one in the discussion below did so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 14:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Photo of Caylee Anthony used only decoratively in two articles - Timeline of Casey Anthony case and Casey Anthony trial. In both cases, it fails WP:NFCC#8 - the absence of this photo would not inhibit a user's understanding of the topic. B ( talk) 14:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: The article has been changed back to the Death of Caylee Anthony title, as shown above by Drilnoth. And B said, "If we had an article on Caylee Anthony (which we do not, nor would we, obviously), then an image could be arguably appropriate there." Well, considering the articles Matthew Shepard and the Murder of Adam Walsh have pictures of the victims, then maybe the Caylee image is appropriate as well? As I stated before, these individuals are deceased, and other Wikipedia articles about deceased people have fair-use images used to identify them, such as James Dean. Images of deceased people are the only kind of fair-use images that are accepted when it comes to images of real-life people on Wikipedia. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Certainly an album cover, being used to illustrate Flizzow himself. Replaceable fair use, but not tagged as non-free so no speedy. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 17:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned. Redundant to the more encyclopedic and accurate File:Map of USA JF.png. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 14:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Company/team logo Eeekster ( talk) 17:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
NFCC violation. No rationale given for use. Purely illustrative image in BLP. Previously kept in a poorly argued discussion from 2007 that's not consistent with current NFCC standards. Supposedly demonstrated contrast between the young porn performer and his later sttatus as a convicted murderer (not a valid NFCC use, of course), but the "contrasting" nonfree images have already been removed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brazilian Waxing.jpg. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 22:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 15:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Presumably a non-free logo (not GFDL as stated), and if non-free I can't think of any FUR which would be valid for its current use. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 22:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Surely the contents of the special edition can be described with text, or a free image could be created by someone who owns the special edition. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 22:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-free movie screenshot. Apparently random scene, used in an plot summary section. No explanation of why this particular scene needs to be visually illustrated. Not the object of analytical discussion, except for the mere statement that a certain event happens as part of the plot. – There might well be some analytical commentary to give here, about the production techniques, special effects, visual esthetics etc. seen in this frame, but that would be for a different section, and of course it would have to be sourced; currently there is no content in the article to support this image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply