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 - original version was uploaded with the note "promo photo of this band called murder mystery" with no mention of self made - given the information we have Isee that the image is not-free, has no fair-use rationale, has the incorrect licence and is orphaned - 
Peripitus 
(Talk) 
12:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Murdermysteryband2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adamvelvetu ( notify | contribs).

• orphaned image, recently absent uploader, the image was removed from the article on the subject here but the image it was replaced with was deleted. This image depicts the members as they were in 2006 (according to the old image caption) and not reflective of the current makeup of the group - not sure it has an encyclopedic use within the article. Jordan 1972 ( talk) 00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Why would it not be "encyclopedic" to picture the band at some earlier point in time even though the members have since changed? Surely that would be historical information about the band. Incidentally, I'm taking the image at face value in terms of the claim that the photo was released in to the public domain by the uploader. Do you have some reason to doubt this? Otherwise, why not just put the picture back in the article with the original caption? Crypticfirefly ( talk) 02:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I don't believe anywhere in my comments I indicated that I questioned the PD claim in the least. In regards to re-adding it back into the article, I do not think that the image should be added into the article because (a) in the info box it would be misleading when the makeup of the group has changed drastically (from memory, 2 of the 4 in the image are gone and a new member was added) (b) the article is not long enough to be capuring the images of old members of the group (c) I personally do not feel that the group is truly notable but not nominating it as I also believe it would survive an AfD discussion.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 10:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Sorry, I was merely making an incorrect inference about the image regarding its copyright status. As for the group, presumably if they are "notable" enough to be in Wikipedia, the past make-up of the group is relevant-- especially since according to the article they recorded two albums with those members. (I have no opinion on the notability of the group, though I notice that there seem to be two completely different bands with the identical name.) Crypticfirefly ( talk) 02:44, 25 September 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: - Keep - license and source fixed - confirmed that this is cc-by-sa-2.0 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:A443_at_Hallow.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre ( notify | contribs).

• author is not the same as uploader. this may be licensed CC because some (all?) photos on that site are, but he hasn't provided a link for verification Calliopejen1 ( talk) 12:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • See comment for image listed four further down. [1]

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: - Keep - license and source fixed - confirmed that it is cc-by-sa-2.0 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Hallow_C.E_Primary_School.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre ( notify | contribs).

• author is not the same as uploader. this may be licensed CC because some (all?) photos on that site are, but he hasn't provided a link for verification Calliopejen1 ( talk) 12:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • See comment for image listed three further down. { http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/77306] Crypticfirefly ( talk) 03:03, 26 September 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: - Keep - license and source fixed - confirmed that it is cc-by-sa-2.0 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Hallow_Church.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre ( notify | contribs).

• author is not the same as uploader. this may be licensed CC because some (all?) photos on that site are, but he hasn't provided a link for verification Calliopejen1 ( talk) 12:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • See comment for image listed two further down. [2] Crypticfirefly ( talk) 03:02, 26 September 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: - Keep - license and source fixed - confirmed that it is licensed under CC-by-sa-2.0 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Hallow_Gren.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre ( notify | contribs).

• author is not the same as uploader. this may be licensed CC because some (all?) photos on that site are, but he hasn't provided a link for verification Calliopejen1 ( talk) 12:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • See comment for image listed below. [3] Crypticfirefly ( talk) 02:59, 26 September 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: - Keep - licence fixed and source link added to image - confirmed that this is CC-by-Sa-2.0 licenced - Peripitus (Talk) 04:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Hallow_Pst_Office.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashereyre ( notify | contribs).

• author is not the same as uploader. this may be licensed CC because some (all?) photos on that site are, but he hasn't provided a link for verification Calliopejen1 ( talk) 12:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • On the other hand, typing the title of the image into the search box on the photograph every grid square website pulls up just one hit: the image in question. [4] And it is correctly identified here by creator and the fact that it is under cc license. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 02:57, 26 September 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.