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 debate was: - Delete both without some sort of definite identification to make them useful here. Neither image is currently used by the editors of the related articles - 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:033.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SiJa2007 ( notify | contribs).

• Orphaned personal photo. Doubtful use to the encyclopedia. Does not identify the subject with any information we could use to place it in an article. rootology ( C)( T) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: image appears to depict Hemsby. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:093 93.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sallyrob ( notify | contribs).

• Orphaned personal photo. Doubtful use to the encyclopedia. Does not identify the subject with any information we could use to place it in an article. rootology ( C)( T) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: image appears to depict Sharp Park district in Pacifica, California. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 14:19, 11 October 2008 (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 debate was: moved to Commons as Image:Bear in a tree 049.jpg, local copy deleted per CSD I8. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 14:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:049.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Astral939 ( notify | contribs).

• Orphaned personal photo. Focus and quality isn't totally great, nothing of great value to save it. Doubtful use to the encyclopedia. rootology ( C)( T) 03:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• And just how many free images do we have of bears in trees? Yeah, the quality is crap, the title awful and the image description worse, but I'd still suggest keeping this and moving it to Commons, at least until and unless a better free image depicting the same subject is found. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 17:57, 10 October 2008 (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 debate was: - Delete - image has no real use in an encyclopaedia except to attract prurient interest - Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:OzoneMaximSFXNG.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by OzoneGriffox ( talk · contribs)

• The only place where this picture would be appropriate is the Furry fandom article, and possibly not even then. This image does not befit an encyclopedia; surely there are more tasteful images that could be used should the article require an image (which is debatable). seresin (  ¡? )  03:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Obvious Keep The image has lasted here for many years interestingly only put up for deletion shortly after I put it up on my userpage. WP:CENSORED and wikipedia does not delete free license images just because they are old or unused or anything. If it is free license, it is kept. Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 04:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

No, that's not true. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. — Bkell ( talk) 14:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

That is not true. People are allowed to use images purely for their userpage or non-article space. Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This image serves no purpose on Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Your argument is not true as if it was true than wikipedia should delete the billions of free license images that exist purely for non-article space like userpages. Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Just because we haven't doesn't mean we shouldn't. And we're not discussing those images; just this one. seresin (  ¡? )  20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Note: It was moved to commons but deleted by now: [4] -- m: drini 00:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- This was a tough decision for me. It is based more on WP:User Page then anything. I think it would be tough to find any enecylopedic use for this image in any article (current or future), even in the furry fandom one mentioned above. A fair amount of leaway is given to how users make use of their user page -- and that leaway is (right or wrong) flexable based on the time the user has been around and the contributions made. Also, the fact this image is the only thing on the user page is problamatic too. This image use borders on a WP:Point issue. User pages are ment to assist with building an encyclopedic -- the freedom to add non WP stuff is designed to "put a human face" to a user and help build a community. This image does not do that, in fact because it has the real potential to offend, it actually hinders community building. So, based on the convergence of the above along with WP:IAR I think it needs to go. -- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 01:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Are we joking? Delete this. Wikipedia isn't a host for furry porn. If it doesn't have encyclopedic merit, toss it. Protonk ( talk) 03:33, 12 October 2008 (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 debate was: moved to Commons as Image:Archmere Academy St. Norbert's Hall.jpg, local copy deleted per CSD I8. Pre-existing Commons image with same name showing through. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 14:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:100 0722.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Desmash ( notify | contribs).

• Orphaned personal photo. Does not identify the subject with any information we could use to place it in an article. Doubtful use to the encyclopedia. rootology ( C)( T) 04:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, was used in Archmere Academy until recently, when it was removed by an IP who also introduced a large chunk of copyvio. I've reverted the article to the last non-copyvio version, coincidentally de-orphaning the image. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 15:23, 11 October 2008 (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 debate was: - Commons'd - Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Fatimid Islamic Caliphate.png ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yenemus ( Talk)

• Fatimid did not conquer all this land, This map is not even based on a relible map. It's a user's interest  A M M A R  08:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

This image is used in the Fatimid Caliphate article. If it's factually incorrect, that should be discussed at Talk:Fatimid Caliphate. Nominating the image for deletion is not appropriate until it has been decided by consensus that this image is unsuitable for the article. — Bkell ( talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (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.