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 ⚡ 10:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• Textbook case of WP:NFC#UUI, point nine. Book cover being used in a biography of an individual with no sourced critical commentary on the book cover itself. Fails WP:NFCC#8. — ξ ^xplicit 03:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• However, the subject is primarily notable for the diary, and the diary is discussed in the article. If the diary warranted a separate article, the cover would be acceptable for identification of the book. By extension, then, the cover should be permissible where it is placed currently, in the section of the article that discusses the diary. — C.Fred ( talk) 06:01, 19 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 Courcelles ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Confessionsleeyran.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by DoctorMaster2010 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• This clearly isn't an official album cover. Fixer23 ( talk) 05:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete, way better than the official cover ;) Reh man 07:18, 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 SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• While I can't find a smoking gun link that says copyright infringement, I did find it's a copy of an image in a LiveJournal posting that's a collection of Top Model pics. [1] Also, I deleted a number of images uploaded by Thamerr yesterday that were blatant copyright infringements. All of those were tagged with a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, just like this one, so I suspect this is another infringement. — C.Fred ( talk) 05:54, 19 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 SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Khataba killings.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• Image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 12:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though " Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn ( talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• The "greater goal we have" is to use free content rather than non-free content. Were you aware? Stifle ( talk) 12:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb ( Talk) 13:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The image is being used as decoration only, and thus fails non-free content criterion #8—i.e., the visual depiction of relatives at the victims' graves does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The image also is non-specific, which further undermines the case for non-free use—i.e., nothing in the image specifically or clearly links it with the Khataba raid. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 17:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8 at a minimum, per Black Falcon. Stifle ( talk) 12:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per nom. Reh man 07:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete absolutely per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^{( Contact)} 13:12, 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 SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Wech Baghtu wedding injured children.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• Image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 12:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though " Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn ( talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb ( Talk) 13:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The image is being used as decoration, and thus fails non-free content criterion #8—i.e., the visual depiction of victims in hospital does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The article already indicates via text that the victims included children and the image is also non-specific, which further undermines the case for non-free use—i.e., nothing in the image specifically or clearly links it with the Wech Baghtu wedding party attack. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 17:50, 19 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 SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Injured-girl-hydarabad-airstrike.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• Image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 12:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though " Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn ( talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb ( Talk) 13:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The use of the image in the articles " Hyderabad airstrike" and " Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" is decorative in nature, and thus fails non-free content criterion #8—i.e., the visual depiction of one victim of an attack which caused tens of casualties does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". A stronger case for non-free use could be made if this particular victim was somehow more noteworthy than the other victims (e.g., if she was taken to the US for medical treatment as a good-will gesture, was visited by President Karzai, gave a speech). -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 17:56, 19 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 SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Kunduz bombed victim.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• Image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 12:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though " Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn ( talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb ( Talk) 13:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The use of the image in the article " Kunduz airstrike" is decorative in nature, and thus fails non-free content criterion #8—i.e., the visual depiction of one victim of an attack which caused tens of casualties does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". A stronger case for non-free use could be made if this particular victim was somehow more noteworthy than the other victims (e.g., if he was taken to the US for medical treatment as a good-will gesture, was visited by a national leader, gave a speech), but there is no indication that this is the case. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 18:03, 19 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 SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Kunduz airstrike destruction.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Iqinn ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• Image is not uniquely historical as there has been no critical commentary of the image; unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8. Swarm ^X 12:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Strong keep (speed close) - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though " Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" would be highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn ( talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb ( Talk) 13:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The use of the image in the article " Kunduz airstrike" is decorative in nature, and thus fails non-free content criterion #8—i.e., the visual depiction of one victim of an attack which caused tens of casualties does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The image also is non-specific, which further degrades the case for non-free use—i.e., nothing in the image itself specifically or clearly links it with the Kunduz airstrike. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 18:04, 19 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 Courcelles ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Mukhil Sundararaman.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Mukhil4all ( notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, unencyclopedic. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 17:08, 19 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 all Courcelles 00:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

These files have been superceded by more detailed maps at Commons (see Category:Maps of Illinois) and are currently unused. I proposed here and at Commons ( here and here) that they be moved to Commons, but there does not appear to be any interest in getting them—they are, after all, lower-quality versions of content which is already on Commons. A trial nomination ( here) to determine whether there is consensus on Wikipedia to delete all similar files ended with a result to delete. To avoid accidentally nominating images which are still in use, I will check and nominate the 1,000+ affected files over the course of multiple nominations; see parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

• Note: File:China Township Lee.PNG is excluded from this nomination as it is currently in use and no replacement exists yet. I already have requested that a replacement map be created and uploaded to the Commons.

-- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 19:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete if replacements exist in the same file format, as different editors prefer different formats for many reasons. Reh man 07:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The replacements are SVG files, but all can be rendered as PNG ( example). -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 07:31, 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.