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 Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:GlasgowAirportattacks2007.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sixtyplace9472 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

I had previously tagged this image as having no source and no rationale. Both tags were removed without fixing either problem. The given source is "TV Screenshot". (Any particular TV station or program? Did they all collectively create the image?) In any event, no critical commentary regarding this TV program is offered - it's just used decoratively in the infobox because it happens to show the subject of the article. There is no legitimate fair use claim for using a random TV show screenshot for something other than critical commentary regarding the program itself, actors, etc. This isn't an article about news coverage. B ( talk) 02:58, 5 March 2011 (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 Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Kisorsavillage.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kalervo ( notify | contribs | uploads).

Altered version of an image at this page (under 5th April 2008), which is presumably under copyright. Image is used to illustrate an article which is currently up for deletion as a hoax; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kisorsa. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 10:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• • wow, how did you manage to find the original? I tried with tineye, but nothing came up. – Alensha  ^talk 17:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I did a Google image search for "Hungary village hall" and it came up. Either that was the uploader's method too, or I just got lucky. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 22:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fake picture of the nonexistent village hall of a nonexistent village (see also Talk:Kisorsa). -- Antissimo ( talk) 14:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete, hoax. – Alensha  ^talk 17:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete: stolen property used to support a lie. -- Malatinszky ( talk) 18:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete: the picture depicts the village hall of community Halogy in Hungary. Csigabi ( talk) 12:29, 6 March 2011 (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 SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Nire.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

The image is used to identify Provide relevant example for article subject, a notable product or service. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the product or service, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrate branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey. There is commentary in the article about the logo itself as follows: "used in relevant article section"

I don't think this rationale applies to this image. If anything, someone should make their own shot of KLC or daiads or whatever. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Obviously delete - all of the other images in that article should be deleted too. -- B ( talk) 23:09, 5 March 2011 (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: speedy delete as G7. The nominator is also the uploader, and they appeared to have had no clue. I consider it most likely that this file was uploaded in error. Additionally, as the item was orphaned anyway, I saw no reason not to speedy delete this for them. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 03:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Christi Daugherty2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by rpoj ( notify | contribs | uploads).

image mistakenly listed as public domain, image is in copyright and permission is not given for usage. Please delete from server. Thank you. Rpoj ( talk) 19:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply

This nomination doesn't square with your comments on the image talk page. Some more explanation is needed here. -- B ( talk) 02:07, 6 March 2011 (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 redundant. Big Dom 18:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:James Hamilton, Earl of Arran aged 17. Daniel Mytens 1623.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Calsicol ( notify | contribs | uploads).

Replaced by a higher-quality image on Commons from the Google Art Project. Replacement image: File:Daniël Mijtens - Portrait of James Hamilton, Earl of Arran, Later 3rd Marquis and 1st Duke of Hamilton, Aged 17 - Google Art Project.jpg Xover ( talk) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (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 all. One should, however, use caution with using the Flickr images to show knockoff products. It is likely that one will still need to fair-use the Flickr images on here because it would be a derivative work of a copyrighted (albeit illegally-produced) product. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 03:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Nikie shoes.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

File:Nokla.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

File:Bucksstar.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

File:Spaderman.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

Photo allegedly from businessinsider.com, although I can't find two of the four in their gallery. (Note that the two that are from there, they credit both as being from another site). The photos are being decoratively used to show knock-off products. The are all considered replaceable on Wikipedia as surely there still exist knockoff products somewhere in the world. flickr gives us plenty to choose from, for example. B ( talk) 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply

"Decoratively"? I'm not sure that Nike, Spiderman, Starbucks, or Nokia would call it decoration. They might be more inclined to call it evidence, IMHO. Photos such as these are available, but not usually PD. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 00:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Why do we need to store the "evidence" here as opposed to just linking to the Business Insider gallery? In any event, see the flickr link I posted - there are plenty of knockoffs right there that are licensed with terms acceptable to Wikipedia that you can choose from. -- B ( talk) 02:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I support both deletion of these images and using the flickr pics as replacement. Whether it's decoration or evidence is not related to the matter. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:24, 6 March 2011 (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.