The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Image fails WP:NFCC#8, contextual significance, as the presence of the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. The article also lacks any sourced critical commentary about the image and is used as illustration. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 01:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The iconic Raiders key art image helps to define for the reader the career of the artist - Specifically his involvement in many of the largest box office films created during his career - The image is referenced twice in the article. The images related to the select illustrations and graphic designs chart provide continuity by showing the development of the visual artist - Reading left to right, from early in his career using caricatures, to working as an art director and hiring illustrators to finalize his concepts/designs as with Gone With The Wind to working as a freelance artist creating concepts, designs and illustrations of films like Lord of the Rings. These images are all referenced in the article.
All of these images significantly increase the readers understanding of the subject - Tom Jung. These images were created by a visual artist/Tom Jung/the subject of the article - These are not images that need to be tied to the subject through commentary - The connection should be/is obvious to readers - Additional commentary would be redundant and just add unnecessary volume to what I believe is a fairly concise article. Note that these images are sourced from online sites as well as The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Library. Jobrjobr —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC). reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Image fails WP:NFCC#8, contextual significance, as the presence of the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. The article also lacks any sourced critical commentary about the image and is used as illustration. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 01:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The iconic Raiders key art image helps to define for the reader the career of the artist - Specifically his involvement in many of the largest box office films created during his career - The image is referenced twice in the article. The images related to the select illustrations and graphic designs chart provide continuity by showing the development of the visual artist - Reading left to right, from early in his career using caricatures, to working as an art director and hiring illustrators to finalize his concepts/designs as with Gone With The Wind to working as a freelance artist creating concepts, designs and illustrations of films like Lord of the Rings. These images are all referenced in the article.
All of these images significantly increase the readers understanding of the subject - Tom Jung. These images were created by a visual artist/Tom Jung/the subject of the article - These are not images that need to be tied to the subject through commentary - The connection should be/is obvious to readers - Additional commentary would be redundant and just add unnecessary volume to what I believe is a fairly concise article. Note that these images are sourced from online sites as well as The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Library. Jobrjobr —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC). reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Image fails WP:NFCC#8, contextual significance, as the presence of the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. The article also lacks any sourced critical commentary about the image and is used as illustration. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 01:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The iconic Raiders key art image helps to define for the reader the career of the artist - Specifically his involvement in many of the largest box office films created during his career - The image is referenced twice in the article. The images related to the select illustrations and graphic designs chart provide continuity by showing the development of the visual artist - Reading left to right, from early in his career using caricatures, to working as an art director and hiring illustrators to finalize his concepts/designs as with Gone With The Wind to working as a freelance artist creating concepts, designs and illustrations of films like Lord of the Rings. These images are all referenced in the article.
All of these images significantly increase the readers understanding of the subject - Tom Jung. These images were created by a visual artist/Tom Jung/the subject of the article - These are not images that need to be tied to the subject through commentary - The connection should be/is obvious to readers - Additional commentary would be redundant and just add unnecessary volume to what I believe is a fairly concise article. Note that these images are sourced from online sites as well as The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Library. Jobrjobr
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, no explicit statement of authorship, very low resolution and no metadata so somewhat questionable copyright status. to the uploader: can you confirm whether you took this image? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, no verification of permission Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, superseded by svg Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value, no verification of permission Calliopejen1 ( talk) 03:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Cover was confirmed as fake a LONG time ago. — Statυs ( talk) 03:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality Calliopejen1 ( talk) 03:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic ( Shyju Mathew) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 03:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic ( Shyju Mathew) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 03:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
orphaned userphoto Calliopejen1 ( talk) 03:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
non-free image, redundant to File:Yi-crest-2010.svg Calliopejen1 ( talk) 03:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic ( Maryse Casol) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 03:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic ( Maryse Casol) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 03:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, i'm somewhat skeptical that this is entirely self-made Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, i'm somewhat skeptical that this is entirely self-made Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, outdated, vague data source Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by SilkTork ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, unclear encyclopedic value Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, image masquerading as article Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, not great quality for generic cat photo Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
orphaned userphoto Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, superseded by standard locator map Calliopejen1 ( talk) 15:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Also nominating: reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic ( Gavalism) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 15:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic ( Gavin Ahern) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 15:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 15:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Supplanted by Commons version (see commons:File:Green Manitoba.png), which has a slightly different tint but is the same image. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 15:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Image in the style of an old miniature drawing, claimed to be PD-old, but of unknown provenance. Source provided is only a random webpage. May be old, but may very well also be a modern pastiche. Nominating here rather than at PFU because deletion is not only a copyright matter: it is also deeply unencyclopedic to include images with the seemingly naive implication that they are old and authentic when we really cannot guarantee anything of the sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphan userpage image. MGA73 ( talk) 17:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphan userpage image. MGA73 ( talk) 17:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Unused. Low res. Does not look usable. MGA73 ( talk) 17:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Unused. Low res. Does not look usable. Perhaps even a unfree derivative work. MGA73 ( talk) 17:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
I took this picture and uploaded it it. It was usefull at the time because there wasn't an equivalent picture around. I have no idea what "unfree derivative work" is supposed to mean. I simply grabbed a few books from my bookshelf, laid them out on the floor and took a picture with my cheap old supermarket digital camera. If a better picture is now available then, of course, obviously this one is not necessary and can be deleted.
-- wayland ( talk) 15:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Unused. What is the focus. The person? MGA73 ( talk) 17:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The purpose just seems to be to show a picture of the women. If so, it fails WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Listing here after the {{ dfu}} tag was removed by the uploader. This image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is not essential to critical commentary. There is no encyclopedic information that could not be conveyed if this image were absent from the article. Mosmof ( talk) 22:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Listing after {{ dfu}} removed by uploader. This image, apparently from a music video, does not convey any encyclopedic information that could not be communicated through text. Fails WP:NFCC#8, #1 Mosmof ( talk) 23:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Kept - this is not an appropriate venue to resolve this content dispute - Peripitus (Talk) 11:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Unreliable source. The file is being used in a very controversial article. I've expressed doubts in its authenticity and proposed to replace it with one from a reliable source, and the ones i've been able to find in reliable sources don't have a watch on the second soldier's right hand. The author of the article objects. For example, this source is not reliable, even if it credits the Library of Congress for the picture. Moscowconnection ( talk) 23:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The file is not available for download on the Library of Congress website: [5]. Moscowconnection ( talk) 00:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, no encyclopedic use. — ξ xplicit 23:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Orphaned. Target article, Martin Mathers, was deleted nearly four years ago via prod. No encyclopedic use. — ξ xplicit 23:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply