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

Image:Dave-Newc 70s promo shot.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jazzbacks ( notify | contribs).

• Summary says, "The owner of this photo in the David Van Kriedt estate. Permission is granted by David's wife, Margot Van Kriedt and his heirs, to use this photo for non commercial purposes." Noncommercial-only licenses are not free enough for Wikipedia. This condition also probably negates the licensing tags on the image. — Bkell ( talk) 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note that this is a photo of a person who is no longer living. If someone feels that this image can satisfy WP:NFCC and will write a non-free rationale for it, maybe we can keep it as a non-free image. — Bkell ( talk) 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I've added a non-free rationale, but I'm no expert so I don't know if this is sufficient. I know that the user who added the photo is also the owner / co-owner of it, if that helps, though I doubt he took the photo himself. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 01:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Kept, license changed, rationale provided. MECU≈ talk 13:38, 11 March 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. (non admin close)

--
Undeath (
talk) 
02:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Theodore Roosevelt Coat of Arms.gif ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Michael A. White ( notify | contribs).

• I am the uploader. It is a duplicate of Image:Roosevelt coat of arms.png. -- Michael White ^{T· C} 14:40, 4 March 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

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

• Private picture without encyclopedic use. Tilman Piesk ( talk) 15:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This picture is of my late wife (LLLL = LinuxLad's Lovely Lass!)and has been on my user page for some 18 months. It relates (clearly) to both to my interests and work on WP. It's unfortunate the 2nd poster didn't spot & resolve the name conflict when he posted a conflicting image with the same title a year later - but the onus is clearly with him.. If there is a way to have the picture on my WP page without this conflict then I shall be happy to oblige, but I will need to be informed of a route because I don't know one. Tread carefully please. Bob aka Linuxlad ( talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep, image name usurping is not a valid reason for deleting. MECU≈ talk 13:43, 11 March 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. (non admin close)

--
Undeath (
talk) 
02:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply

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

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - It was on the conical straw hat page when there was no other picture of someone wearing a conical straw hat. As the uploader, I have no objection to deleting it now that has been replaced there with a much better picture. However, what do you mean by "absent uploader?" -- Bkkbrad ( talk) 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Ooops. My mistake about the absent uploader. Sorry - Nv8200p talk 17:28, 5 March 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. (non admin close)

--
Undeath (
talk) 
02:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply

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

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Go ahead and remove the file I initially uploaded as long as the newer pictures in its place remain: they have a much cleaner look to them; provided they are free to use, the cleaned up edited look is nice. Zaphraud ( talk) 07:01, 5 March 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.(non admin close)

--
Undeath (
talk) 
01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply 

Image:Palm_Sugar_2007_dt.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eatfood ( notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 21:55, 4 March 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

Image:Stdavidsbeach.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Buzytom1995 ( notify | contribs).

• This image is orphaned, and was used solely for the speedily deleted article (CSD G11) St davids park, which is a non-notable location. I believe it will have no further use now or the near future. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 ^TALK 22:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - and transfer to commons. It is still a useful picture of a beach, and the can still illustrate the general location. 64.178.99.125 ( talk) 23:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Moved to Commons. MECU≈ talk 13:45, 11 March 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. (non admin close)

--
Undeath (
talk) 
02:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply

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

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 22:12, 4 March 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

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

*Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 22:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Just a note: the page that the file originally was used on was marked as a copy vio a few days ago, and the author of the page and I are currently trying to work the problem out. The image itself is not a copy vio and will probably be used on the page once the copy vio problem is solved, hopefully within a couple of days. 青い(Aoi) ( talk) 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• The dispute is now resolved and the page is back online. The image is no longer orphaned. I have no comment on whether this image is encyclopedic or not; if you feel the need to delete the image on these grounds, I will not argue. 青い(Aoi) ( talk) 20:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Nomination withdrawn. - Nv8200p talk 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Kept, useful image. MECU≈ talk 13:47, 11 March 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 discussion was: keep. No consensus to prefer text over the image. - Nv8200p talk 03:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Comint-switzerland.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Schutz ( notify | contribs).

• This non-free image consists entirely of text. Anything relevant to the articles where it's used can be quoted in the text of the article. There is no reason for us to have a scan of the report. — An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep (note that I am the original uploader). This image is used in particular in the article Onyx (interception system); it is the only public example of an interception report by this system, and so is of encyclopedic interest in this article. In addition, it was the topic of a widely-publicized court case in Switzerland (see description and refs in the article); while most of the text has no encyclopedic value, the copy of the full report as an image is important in terms of understanding what was the subject of the court case. As such, it justifies fair use for the image and its presence here. Schutz ( talk) 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I should probably also mention that I have spent a lot of time trying to get this image released under a free licence (PD); I have talked to many people involved, they are all happy about the idea, but none of them feels that he has the power to do it. I am optimistic, but since I am dealing with a large public administration, everything takes time. Schutz ( talk) 14:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep I was about to close this as Keep, but figured I should give my support and hope another admin would do the same with more support. I think the image is more meaningful than simply copying the text. One could read the text of a letter, but seeing the original is perhaps more meaningful. It is properly licensed and rational'ed. MECU≈ talk 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Meaningful how? What does looking at the image of this letter tell us that quoting the text of the letter doesn't? — An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:19, 11 March 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.