Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 November 16
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 16
[edit]
- 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; deleted by Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Office_redbull.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chrislk02 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and deleted this. I dont know the proper closing tags so somebody is welcome to add them. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:20, 17 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Office-Volleyball-Hit.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Whitecloudboy00 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:43, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Online_halo_screens.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Crskub (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 01:47, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Possible Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 01:48, 16 November 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 and tagged for commons move - good free photo of a notable subject it seems - Peripitus (Talk) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Possible COI Nv8200p talk 01:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *blinks* Since when has "COI" been a reason for image deletion? I assume you mean something like "unencyclopedic self-promotion", but given that we do have an article on the guy, it seems to me quite reasonable to have a few free images too. Anyway, I'd say weak keep, though this really ought to be moved to Commons and given a better filename in the process. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:10, 18 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Orfehpicture.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jennamaroney (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:59, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Original_Logo2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Breenwow (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:04, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Original_software_logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Teune (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:05, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:OriginalCheer_trophy.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jbornn (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:05, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:OriginalIllustration14th.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kbuddha420 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:05, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:1lonuestrorebeldepasarela-c.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Martinhernandez (notify | contribs).
- Unused image, summary says "martin hernandez" who i think is the person who uploaded the image. May be the photographer. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Orinuno-water1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Spyanky (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:08, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unused image of a soccer team. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unused image of a soccer team Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:09, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Orion_Solar_Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danthony21 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:11, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:OrionsCloud.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BubbaStrangelove (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:11, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Possible_ojoazules.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thedancingdogs (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:12, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Orlyyarlynowai.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chandler (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:13, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, No evidence of permission for GFDL release Nv8200p talk 02:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: looks like a duplicate of Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg which has the correct attribution. nneonneo talk 01:02, 17 November 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 kept. -Nv8200p talk 03:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:2006 Cat-Deeley face.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Porfitron (notify | contribs).
- Unused image of Cat Deeley. Appears to be cropped from another larger photo to show only her face. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I'm not sure why it isn't being used... I'm putting back into the article, as it appears to have been uploaded by the copyright holder. I can see it was removed by an IP edit last year here[1] --Knulclunk (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP The intent of that photo was for use in that article... was unaware that it had been removed. Porfirio Landeros (talk) 01:52, 17 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:16, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:16, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:16, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:20060805-Retro-On-Roscoe 089 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wcmacwiki (notify | contribs).
- Unused image of a band playing. Shot on stage from stage left Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:21, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:20060805-Retro-On-Roscoe 080 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wcmacwiki (notify | contribs).
- unused image of one of those fair "shoot the water into the clowns mouth" games Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:22, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:24, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:OutRIDErZ.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Montyjagtap (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:25, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Outlookcoversmall.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danetteward (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:25, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Outside_Powells_City_of_Books_at_night.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andrew_Parodi (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:27, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Ov2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moocow22593 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:27, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:OverboardVocals.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scobban (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:27, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:28, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Owldollar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Webucation (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:28, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:29, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Ozram19hi.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HairForceOne (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:29, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:30, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:30, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:P-old_man_teen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonah2461 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:31, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:P.E.W.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sheepman94 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:31, 16 November 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. Tagged as Move to Commons. -Nv8200p talk 21:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:20070401 Killington Mogals 067 Jon Rogers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Oneillds (notify | contribs).
- Unused image of Jon Rogers. Duplicate Image:20070401 Blue Oyster Cult Killington Mogals Jon Rogers.jpg has been CSD'd a few times. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just move to Commons? We don't currently have an article on Jon Rogers, but it's at least conceivable that he might be notable enough to get one some day. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:39, 18 November 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. Tagged as Move to Commons -Nv8200p talk 21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:2008 cuba.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Speedracer05 (notify | contribs).
- Unused image of a "Miss Earth" contestant from Cuba holding a "Save Mother Earth" sign. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If these (there's a whole series of them, some in use at Miss Earth 2008) are indeed free images, surely we should be moving them to Commons rather than deleting them. Anyway, keep — no point in deleting random images from a comprehensive series just because not all of them happen to be in use right now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:35, 18 November 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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
- Image:2008-10 (Oct).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Johnleachphotography (notify | contribs).
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- Unused image of a band. No description as to who it is. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:49, 16 November 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; deleted by Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:20080615-Jade.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vincentkhm (notify | contribs).
Unused image taken from on online fan site Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am officially withdrawing my Noms. Lets just ignore all rules and assume good faith in this matter. This user has made a lot of main space edits so I think it is fine to bend a few rules here. If there is a quesiton about copyright just change the licensing to fair use and add a FUR. It is good for the project. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the webmaster of source website Jade Online. The photographer Dick Ho is one of our member who often takes photos of Jade Kwan for the website. Jade Online reserves all the rights of his photos. Vincentkhm (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::*Comment and notice: Please do not remove PUI, IfD, Copyvio or CSD tags from images you have uploaded yourself as you did with both this image and another. As you have identified that you are not the photographer in either case I have added a {{di-no permission}} tag to both images. Please do not remove these tags until the issue is resolved. Than you. Soundvisions1 (talk)
- The photographer is one of the photography-participators working for Jade Online. Jade Online and I as the main author hold all the rights of his participated photos that he made. Vincentkhm (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is sourced right to Jade Online. Vincentkhm (talk) 21:10, 17 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unused image of a TV Screen taken with a cell phone. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:05, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:2421601587 abaf4e3e81.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Random-fish (notify | contribs).
- Unused image. Unclear if it was taken by Martyn Doherty or if the subject of the image is Martyn Doherty. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:09, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:2608uah.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Slayer sam (notify | contribs).
- Unused album cover Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:21, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:290800305 l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bloomfieldave01 (notify | contribs).
- Unused image of "the Five Second Rule" Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unused logo Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:2killer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SteveAlbert (notify | contribs).
- Unused promo image of wrestler Killer Kowalski Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unused image of the Cheetah Girls. Small image and blurry. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:34, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:3779108977.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Skiboarderx9492 (notify | contribs).
- Unused icon sized image of actress Sarah Chalke Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:42, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:38800364.Lotuspillows.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ShahJahan (notify | contribs).
- Unused picture of feet using "Snoosy" Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unused image of "41 North" Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:49, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Rhodium.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jabotinsky (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, low resolution and quality, not sure of purpose JaGatalk 08:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to depict cyclopentadienyl rhodium bicarbonyl, a "piano stool compound". Badly named and easily replaceable, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:44, 18 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, no encyclopedic value JaGatalk 09:11, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:The cute little big tomato dance.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sassyscouser (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, not useful JaGatalk 09:14, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:4222neutral1-historynyc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Historynyc (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, has URL plastered on it, replaced by Image:4222sepia3-historynyc.jpg. JaGatalk 09:19, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:4222sepia2-historynyc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Historynyc (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, replaced by Image:4222sepia3-historynyc.jpg. JaGatalk 09:21, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Dr nappi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by J mcandrews (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, doesn't give full name of subject, low quality JaGatalk 09:29, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Photo -150.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Accuratehistory (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, low quality, non-notable JaGatalk 09:38, 16 November 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; deleted as I5 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Haughey-Mitterand.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Racconish (notify | contribs).
- A press photo used to identify who wears a brand of shirt ? Fails all parts of WP:NFCC Peripitus (Talk) 10:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Following points of WP:NFCC are respected: (1) There is no free equivalent. This point has already been made about Image:Charles_J._Haughey.jpg; (2)and (3b) The image is a cropped as possible and low res, so unlikely to replace the original market role of the original media; (4): previously published on the BBC website, with no copyright indication; (5), (7) (8)and (9): visual illustration of the article; (6) and (10): fair use rationale presented. Pending the end of this discussion, I removed the controversial image from the page. Racconish (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NFCC2 (we don't ordinarily use news images without an extremely good reason) and WP:NFCC8 (readers can understand who wears a shirt without seeing a picture of it). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 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: delete. Low quality, non-free. Calliopejen1's logic makes sense. -Nv8200p talk 00:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:MichaelCrichton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr. Blofeld (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable fair-use image - fails WP:NFCC#1.
As the subject is still alive it is possible to create a free replacement....however hard this isI've been reminded that he recently died... I will have a look as it seems unlikely such a well known author was not photographed extensively by people who don't make money from the exercise - Peripitus (Talk) 11:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Michael Crichton is alive and living, you should seriously start reading the newspapers or watching the news. Count Blofeld 11:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He is dead, but I find it hard to believe that no one has a photo of Crichton that they would be willing to license freely. One of the missing-image boxes might generate an upload. It is also hard to ask permission to freely license a photo if we already are using a non-free one. I couldn't find any possibilities on flickr, but there are other places to request from. Several possibilities to contact and request free licensing: Harvard Gazette (unlikely but possible), skeptic.com (seems like a good chance of getting a CC license because they already have a vague statement granting permission for use at the bottom), random apparent amateur photographer (who knows). Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an image from Flickr, which is already licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial CC license [http://flickr.com/photos/ilovechin/3011971210/sizes/o Michael Crichton by Chee Chin]. mohit.ed (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a copyvio - it comes from the Harvard Gazette article linked above. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until replacement is found. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. what the user above said.LoveLaced (talk) 21:31, 9 December 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; deleted as I5 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair-use image used simply as eye-candy in a list of people who wear a certain brand - fails WP:NFCC#8 amongst others Peripitus (Talk) 11:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The caption you have removed was explaining the relationship between the image and the text:"The white open collar Charvet shirt has become part of Bernard-Henri Lévy's visual identity." The article links to a source (Weber, Caroline (September 2008). "Brains of the outfit". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-04.) where you can read for yourself about the "the suavely unbuttoned garment that for his fans and detractors alike has become synonymous with his name". Another source (Ireland, Doug (March 3, 2006). "The lies of Bernard-Henry Lévy". In these times. Retrieved 2008-11-16.), related to an eponymous book, says:"That unbuttoned white shirt, by the way, is an important element of BHL’s TV and public images and it tells a lot about the man. If you tried it with your own shirt, the collar would sag. But BHL’s shirts are specially designed by the famous shirt-maker Charvet, with collars that withstand the unbuttoning and never disappear under his jacket." I could quote more sources but hope you will find these convincing enough. Pending the issue of this discussion, I remove the image from the article. Thank you, Racconish (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If it is so much a part of his identity, we should be able to get a free image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Point made on part of identity, which you seem to accept, justifies it's not "eye-candy" but a visual clarification of the text. It is an argument in favor of fair use, not deletion. Naturally, it would be simpler to get a free image, but there is none, as explained in the fair use rationale. You can check on [2] : the image is used on the flap part of the cover of the book Ce grand cadavre à la renverse, which justifies its choice. Racconish (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that if he wears these so often, there is no reason we can't get a free image. It is unnecessary to address NFCC8 because this also fails NFCC1 (replaceable). Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You convinced me: I revert my Keep to Delete. Racconish (talk) 15:05, 17 November 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; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Penelope ortoni1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EllisD (notify | contribs).
- Copyvio. Claimed as being released to public domain by the copyright holder, but, as also stated in the description, it simply is taken from BirdLife International. Note the "© 2008 BirdLife International." at the bottom of the page. See also section 3 in Terms and conditions. This illustration was originally made for Threatened birds of the World published in 2000 by Lynx Edicions in cooperation with BirdLife International. • Rabo³ • 12:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of note that it appears this user has added little if any non-copyvio to wiki. I've just cleaned up his copyvio contributions to Baudo Guan and El Chocó (the latter now a redirect). A fast check suggests other things added by this user are problematic, too, though some have been modified to an extend where little (if any) true copyvio remains. • Rabo³ • 14:08, 16 November 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: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. There are no referenced articles to support that this image was used to display an obsessive attitude toward firearms. The "keep" discussions fail to establish anything about the image that makes it significant to the article. The text is sufficient to explain that he was exposed to guns as a child. -Nv8200p talk 18:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Whitman as a child.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).
- Decorative image showing a future murderer, 2 rifles and a puppy. Not really helpful to the article. Damiens.rf 13:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, photo was widely published by news sources at the time as Whitman displayed obsessive attitude towards firearms, and then became the most prolific criminal sniper in known history -- very relevant, no loss of commercial viability, low-resolution, fits Fair-Use to a tee. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep! I've changed my view. Since the photo was staged by the father, there may be some merit to incorporating it into the article. He obviously didn't shoot the dog. Plus, he didn't kill their pet dog Scochie either before killing his wife and the other victims at UT. He was Pre-Peta!Victor9876 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this vote is placed by the four-time perma-banned troll, and former best friend of the man credited with shooting with Whitman before a falling-out led to a lawsuit against him. He is a sock of User:Subwayjack, who was banned after making death threats, legal threats, removing photographs from the article and disrupting the project to such a degree that Jimbo himself had to intervene. He routinely registers socks to get around his many perma-bans, and is a troll at best, a criminal liability at worst. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does all of this mean you don't like me, Sherurcij?Victor9876 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Image is more than decorative, it is used to illustrate a point made in the article regarding subject's early exposure to guns. Use is in congruence with rationale for illustration in Wikipedia articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm torn. I think it would depend on how widely this photo was published, which isn't entirely clear. If this photo was reprinted everywhere as evidence that he was obsessed with guns as a child, it would be worth keeping. If not, I don't think it satisfies WP:NFCC8. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, more than merely illustrative. Makes a substantive point which cannot be made by equivalent words. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:51, 19 November 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: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. The image is not shown to be significant to the article. The fact that the image was published by news sources does not make it significant to the article by default. Meeting fair use criteria is not the same as meeting Wikipedia's more stringent non-free content criteria. There is no referenced commentary to support any of the points presented in the discussion to keep the image. The image is merely illustrative of the fact that he got married, which text is sufficient to convey. -Nv8200p talk 18:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Whitman-marriage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).
- Decorative wedding picture of a future murderer. Not really helpful to the article. Damiens.rf 13:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, borders on bad-faith nomination as nominator has suggested deleting almost every photo from Charles Whitman, usually saying they're "disgusting" which really isn't relevant in any way to their encyclopaedic value in showing the human, and criminal, side of the subject. Photo was published by news sources at the time, of the most prolific criminal sniper in known history. -- very relevant, no loss of commercial viability, low-resolution, fits Fair-Use to a tee. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, prior publishing may have had permission from photograher or family member. Also, the wife still has family alive and may object. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this vote is placed by the four-time perma-banned troll, and former best friend of the man credited with shooting with Whitman before a falling-out led to a lawsuit against him. He is a sock of User:Subwayjack, who was banned after making death threats, legal threats, removing photographs from the article and disrupting the project to such a degree that Jimbo himself had to intervene. He routinely registers socks to get around his many perma-bans, and is a troll at best, a criminal liability at worst. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- if this is "four-time perma-banned troll", why is the account under which this comments was left still active? 66.168.27.211 (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this vote is placed by the four-time perma-banned troll, and former best friend of the man credited with shooting with Whitman before a falling-out led to a lawsuit against him. He is a sock of User:Subwayjack, who was banned after making death threats, legal threats, removing photographs from the article and disrupting the project to such a degree that Jimbo himself had to intervene. He routinely registers socks to get around his many perma-bans, and is a troll at best, a criminal liability at worst. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Image is more than decorative. It illustrates the subject of the article and his wife, whom he murdered in the spree, and reinforces the change in subject. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete give me a break, bad faith nomination? This is not necessary to understand the article, fails WP:NFCC8. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes NFCC#8. Whitman's wife was a murder victim, so this shows a contrast between Whitman's earlier happy life and what happened later. This is again visual evidence documenting a murder spree and significantly increases reader's understanding of what happened. It should be kept. INTGAFW (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Defintely.Its historical.It tells Whitmans story,like words cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot911 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 23 November 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: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. The fact that the image was published by news sources does not make it significant to the article by default. Meeting fair use criteria is not the same as meeting Wikipedia's more stringent non-free content criteria. There are no objective points presented in the discussion to keep the image to show that the image is significant to the understanding of the article. The image is merely illustrative of the fact he killed his mother, which text is sufficient to convey.
- Image:Whitman's mother.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).
- Disgusting non-free picture of a murder victim. Not necessary for reading about the case. Damiens.rf 13:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, borders on bad-faith nomination as nominator has suggested deleting almost every photo from Charles Whitman, usually saying they're "disgusting" which really isn't relevant in any way to their encyclopaedic value in showing the human, and criminal, side of the subject. Photo was published by news sources at the time, of the most prolific criminal sniper in known history. -- very relevant, no loss of commercial viability, low-resolution, fits Fair-Use to a tee. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dead body has no benefit to the article except morbid fascination. Disrespecful of surviving family and friends.Victor9876 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this vote is placed by the four-time perma-banned troll, and former best friend of the man credited with shooting with Whitman before a falling-out led to a lawsuit against him. He is a sock of User:Subwayjack, who was banned after making death threats, legal threats and disprupting the project to such a degree that Jimbo himself had to intervene. He routinely registers socks to get around his many perma-bans, and is a troll at best, a criminal liability at worst. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia is not censored and "disgusting" is a POV assessment of a non-graphic image the use of which does not violate copyright since it was released evidence in court case. The image is low resolution and presented in small thumbnail. There is no valid reason for removal from article or deletion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NFCC8 - not necessary to see the victim to understand the murder. To my knowledge, there is no surprising/uniquely visual evidence presented in this image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this article documents a murder and shooting spree. Of course some visual evidence of what happened significantly increases reader's understanding. Wikipedia is not censored and "disgusting" is not a valid reason for deletion. INTGAFW (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not necessary to see this to know that she was murdered. Inappriate and disrespecful to the victim. I haven't seen photos of the dead victims in other pages involving murders - I don't think it's a good practice. Gwyka 16:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is part of the article and not overwhelming. I think the negative comments throughout all of the Whitman photos here should be refractored, WP:NPA and all that by Sherurcij. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:30, 25 November 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; deleted as I5 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Charles Whitman's corpse.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PNG crusade bot (notify | contribs).
- Disgusting picture of a dead body used in a bio. Completely unnecessary. Damiens.rf 13:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, borders on bad-faith nomination as nominator has suggested deleting almost every photo from Charles Whitman, usually saying they're "disgusting" which really isn't relevant in any way to their encyclopaedic value in showing the human, and criminal, side of the subject. Photo was published by news sources at the time, of the most prolific criminal sniper in known history. -- very relevant, no loss of commercial viability, low-resolution, fits Fair-Use to a tee. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rationale in the photo upload is wrong. The photo is a crime scene photo, it was never used as evidence in a court.Victor9876 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo does not clearly show that it is Whitman. Appears the supplier has a morbid curiosity instead of encyclopedic intentions. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this vote is placed by the four-time perma-banned troll, and former best friend of the man credited with shooting with Whitman before a falling-out led to a lawsuit against him. He is a sock of User:Subwayjack, who was banned after making death threats, legal threats and disprupting the project to such a degree that Jimbo himself had to intervene. He routinely registers socks to get around his many perma-bans, and is a troll at best, a criminal liability at worst. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia is not censored and "disgusting" is a POV assessment of a low resolution non-graphic image the use of which does not violate usage. It is a unique image from an historical event, of the subject in a biography of a spree killer. The image is low resolution and presented in small thumbnail. There is no valid reason for removal from article or deletion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NFCC8 - not necessary to understand artilce. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this article documents a murder and shooting spree. Of course some visual evidence of what happened significantly increases a reader's understanding (that is the required standard, not whether it is "necessary to understand" - let's not let Calliopejen push the boundaries here). It passes NFCC#8 for this reason. I call upon the closing moderator to assume good faith and let us fix the rationale if it is not sufficient, but there is a good case for significant understanding if visual evidence of a crime is established by the photos in the article. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored and "disgusting" is not a valid reason for deletion. INTGAFW (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any good attorney will tell you INTGAFW, that a "Reasonable and Prudent" rule will win most arguments. The issue here is, does the displaying of dead bodies further the article, or diminish it to gory details? I could upload the photos of Whitman and his victims from the Cook Funeral home in Austin where most of the bodies were taken. However, I do not feel inclined to do so because some readers (or lookers), would take great offense to seeing the death stare, gaping mouths, positions they are in and damage done to some of the bodies. Also, there are still victims families, friends and loved ones still alive who may stumble upon the photo's, causing them great emotional harm since there are no "Warning" labels to prevent them from such harm. I've already cast my vote, I hope this helps others to consider the harm the death photos may do.Victor9876 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP THIS It's evidence. Grow up. If people are worried about their children seeing something, they should monitor their children's computer time. People who are taking Crime Classes can find this Crime Article with it's Criminal Pictures Educational.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.199.92 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who mentioned anything about children exclusively!? But hey, you're right, in fact, we should upload a bunch of kiddie porn so people who are taking courses in Crime Classes and Deviant Behavior can see what it is all about!!! Is that what you are saying? Also, let's upload every concievable, abhorrent picture dealing with every murder case since the beginning of photography, so that people who are taking photo courses, can see how to angle and adjust the lens. Is that grown up enough for ya? I doubt it!Victor9876 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your Straw man argument about uploading "kiddie porn" etc. is completely irrelevant and inappropriate, as is your attitude. Is Sherurcij correct that you have a personal stake or conflict of interest here? Your misguided passion seems to suggest as much. These family members you speak of reading Wikipedia articles about their loved ones' murders should expect some discomfort (anyway, the images are pretty poor, I can't even see definitive wounds or evidence that these people are dead). The argument for or against these images should be based on the threshhold set by WP:NFCC#8, not whether a handful of editors think they are "disgusting" or the potential for sensitive readers to come across them. I don't hear you complaining about the images at penis and vagina, which would surely make my grandma faint. — TAnthonyTalk 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who mentioned anything about children exclusively!? But hey, you're right, in fact, we should upload a bunch of kiddie porn so people who are taking courses in Crime Classes and Deviant Behavior can see what it is all about!!! Is that what you are saying? Also, let's upload every concievable, abhorrent picture dealing with every murder case since the beginning of photography, so that people who are taking photo courses, can see how to angle and adjust the lens. Is that grown up enough for ya? I doubt it!Victor9876 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this unnecessary, undiscussed image. It is neither the subject of critical commentary per the NFC acceptable use guideline, nor is the specific subject of the image discussed in the article at all so as to have any understanding to increase (WP:NFCC#8). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is VISUAL evidence of a crime spree which is described in detail in the article. Media is visual by nature - there is no other way to better understand it. Why can't you understand this? INTGAFW (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I'm missing some detail of the article, there is no discussion of this copyrighted media. If there's no discussion thereof, then there's nothing for which the imagery is increasing understanding. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I see no compelling argument that these images should be deleted per policy. — TAnthonyTalk 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Show the "Penis" and "Vagina" photos to your Grandmother, if she faints, that's a compelling argument! If you can't tell the people are dead, that's another argument against keeping them, they serve no purpose.Victor9876 (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means, nominate the penis pics for deletion, perhaps those people can make my argument for me. The fact that you and my grandma are sensitive to a photo is completely irrelevant; those photos remain there because they are encyclopedic and violate no policy. I'm sorry if murky images of dead people make you squeamish, but perhaps then you shouldn't read articles about spree murderers.— TAnthonyTalk 02:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no interest in penis or vagina pictures, that's your relevancy, you can argue that better than me, and according to your bio, totally in favor of the penis. If those photos are encyclopedic and violate no policy - why is everyone discussing it here? I didn't bring it up, I'm just participating in a discussion, while you vent your perfectionism. I like your Grandma by the way, she's relevant!Victor9876 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means, nominate the penis pics for deletion, perhaps those people can make my argument for me. The fact that you and my grandma are sensitive to a photo is completely irrelevant; those photos remain there because they are encyclopedic and violate no policy. I'm sorry if murky images of dead people make you squeamish, but perhaps then you shouldn't read articles about spree murderers.— TAnthonyTalk 02:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Show the "Penis" and "Vagina" photos to your Grandmother, if she faints, that's a compelling argument! If you can't tell the people are dead, that's another argument against keeping them, they serve no purpose.Victor9876 (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't really understand why this debate has become so heated, but I don't see any reason for the photo to be deleted either. It is history and fact. Just because it isn't the most pleasant photo to see doesn't make it irrelevant. It is an article about a sniper shooting spree.. it isn't any more pleasant to read without the photo.--Wilbury311 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Wilbury311 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I see no problem with this photo and the death is mentioned in the article along with the letter Whitman wrote. But I put a note on the talk page. In my opinion there are way too many photos in this article that the photos are overwhelming the article and are disorganized. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:51, 21 November 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. —Angr 16:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Whitman-Chronicle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).
- Non-free scan of a non-notable newspaper article. Damiens.rf 13:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, borders on bad-faith nomination as nominator has suggested deleting almost every photo from Charles Whitman, usually saying they're "disgusting" which really isn't relevant in any way to their encyclopaedic value in showing the human, and criminal, side of the subject. Photo is down-scaled to NOT show the newspaper article, only the headline, and is very relevant, no loss of commercial viability, low-resolution, fits Fair-Use to a tee. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chronicle could be contacted and asked for permission to use. No evidence exists to show that has happened. Delete.Victor9876 (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this vote is placed by the four-time perma-banned troll, and former best friend of the man credited with shooting with Whitman before a falling-out led to a lawsuit against him. He is a sock of User:Subwayjack, who was banned after making death threats, legal threats and disprupting the project to such a degree that Jimbo himself had to intervene. He routinely registers socks to get around his many perma-bans, and is a troll at best, a criminal liability at worst. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While in fact it is a scan of a notable newspaper edition of an historic event, the scan doesn't serve to clarify any points in article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NFCC8 - readers could understand incident perfectly well without seeing this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think it adds to the article plus it is tacky looking. I had to zoom in on it to see what it was. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:47, 21 November 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; deleted as I5 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:ClaudiaJennings-June70.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MutterErde (notify | contribs).
- Playboy magazine cover used just to reinforce the information that the model did appeared on the Playboy magazine cover. Damiens.rf 13:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and restore to Claudia Jennings, which otherwise has no images. (This image seems entirely appropriate too, in the context of the article.) Occuli (talk) 20:08, 16 November 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; deleted as I5 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Playboy magazine cover used just to reinforce the information that the model did appeared on the Playboy magazine cover. Damiens.rf 13:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and restore. It is not just to prove that she appeared on the magazine. It was her highest achievement in her career to date, a major turning point for her. Her modeling/acting career was changed by this singular achievement as outlined in the rest of the article. Mineros (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can still explain this all to the reader without this picture. --Damiens.rf 13:39, 17 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Ltjcover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhythmnation2004 (notify | contribs).
- Playboy magazine cover used just to reinforce the information that the model did appeared on the Playboy magazine cover. Damiens.rf 13:22, 16 November 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. There is a brief mention of the magazine in the article but nothing significant that needs the image to understand. -Nv8200p talk 14:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Playboy 2004-09.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MJBurrage (notify | contribs).
- Playboy magazine cover used just to reinforce the information that the model did appeared on the Playboy magazine cover. Damiens.rf 13:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The image and related text is not simply about a random appearance in Playboy but that this appearance was a highly visible example of 2004 Olympians appearing nude in magazines and calenders. (As noted in the ESPN source.) —MJBurrage(T•C) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the reader would be incapable of understanding that text without seeing this image. --Damiens.rf 17:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image shows context, marketing, and the inclusion of other Olympians (the point of the ESPN article) in a way that text alone would not. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the reader would be incapable of understanding that text without seeing this image. --Damiens.rf 17:05, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Playboy August 1987.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tony619 (notify | contribs).
- Playboy magazine cover used just to reinforce the information that the model did appeared on the Playboy magazine cover. Damiens.rf 13:24, 16 November 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; deleted as I5 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Playboy May 1980.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Postdlf (notify | contribs).
- Playboy magazine cover used just to reinforce the information that the model did appeared on the Playboy magazine cover. Damiens.rf 13:25, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Playboy October 1991.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tony619 (notify | contribs).
- Playboy magazine cover used just to reinforce the information that the model did appeared on the Playboy magazine cover. Damiens.rf 13:26, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Playboy November 1997.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tony619 (notify | contribs).
- Playboy magazine cover used just to reinforce the information that the model did appeared on the Playboy magazine cover. Damiens.rf 13:26, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Lindy lifemag.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Will.i.am (notify | contribs).
- Non-free Life magazine cover showing a couple dancing "lindy hop", used just to reinforce the information that Life featured a couple dancing "lindy hop" on its cover. Damiens.rf 13:30, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:BusinessWeek Cover Rick Wagoner.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JoeWiki (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine used to illustrate a bio. Damiens.rf 13:31, 16 November 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 - discussed in commentary and participants feel it meets NFCC - Peripitus (Talk) 11:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:BusinessWeek cover 14 Aug 2006.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Remember the dot (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover used just to reinforce the information that this guy was on the cover. Damiens.rf 13:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's used to reinforce two paragraphs of prose. Read on: "On the August 7, 2006, edition of this WEEK in TECH, Rose stated that he was not told that his picture would definitely be on the cover, and had asked that they not use the two-thumbs-up pose. John C. Dvorak stated that the cover and the article were insulting because of the unprofessional way they portrayed Kevin..." If we don't show the actual cover in question, it's pretty hard for the reader to see what all the fuss was about. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is hard to imagine a better case for using a magazine cover.--Knulclunk (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Remember the Dot. JRG (talk) 04:29, 22 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Barry Bonds SI Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Microphon200 (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine used to just to reinforce the fact that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 13:36, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Si-cover lebron james 2002.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bender235 (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 13:38, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:RadioTimes-magazine-cover-08-Sep-07.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JoeWiki (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 13:41, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Director Cover August 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JoeWiki (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 13:42, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:LGW HOLA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Solarisgirl (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine used just to reinforce the information that this couple was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 13:45, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Apple-Dynamic-Duo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wackymacs (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine used just to reinforce the information that these guys were featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 13:47, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No source. Said to be a magazine's cover but it isn't. Damiens.rf 14:23, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:David-dubinsky-aug-29-1949.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Haus (notify | contribs).
- This Time magazine cover is used as the main picture of a biography. The image itself is non-free and non-notable (and is not discussed in the article) Damiens.rf 14:24, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Dance Spirit - January 2006 - Nick Lazzarini.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Esprit15d (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:25, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:DanieleDupre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shawn Pickrell (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this girl was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:27, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Deng Xiaoping TIME.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kitkatcrazy (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:28, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Desmond Tutu and George Bush.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cazo3788 (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NFCC. Vanity Fair is not mentioned in the article. Understanding of Desmond Tutu doesn't require a picture of him on a magazine cover with George Bush. Mind you, the picture with Brad Pitt is even less justified. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 15:36, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Discover Sept 1982.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nectarflowed (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this guy's research was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:33, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:DickMorris TimeMagazineCover Scandal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhobite (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This cover should not be deleted. It is helpful to researchers in identifying the man involved in the scandal. The cover should remain with the rest of the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippie55 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 18 November 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. Seeing the cover of the magazine is not significant to the understanding of the text. -Nv8200p talk 14:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this game was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, its a source for information in page, and a notability marker Patcat88 (talk) 08:18, 25 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Duffy Daugherty Time.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GallanoHJS (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:37, 16 November 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. The cover itself is discussed and was the subject of a small amount of controversy. I had doubts based on this, so I followed the deletion guidelines. -Nv8200p talk 18:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that these guis were featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the text of the Jack Kemp article. There is substantive discussion about this cover and why a portion of it mentions the discovery of life on mars. The cover is necessary to depict this controversy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Image is used -- and needed -- to illustrate the unusual story about the VP nomination nearly being displaced from the magazine cover. --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:EastEnders Radiotimes 3nights.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EastEnders the great (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this tv-series was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:42, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Elisabeta Karabolli.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sportiv (notify | contribs).
- Incomplete (unverifiable) source, weird licensing. Damiens.rf 14:44, 16 November 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. Nothing in the text of the article that makes the image significant to the understanding of the article. -Nv8200p talk 14:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Elle williams 360.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Knulclunk (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this model was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fair use of single magazine cover shows subject's work. This use is similar to the use of a fair use music sample of recording artist, 2D Art for painter, comic cover for an illustrator, or quotation from a writer or poet. --Knulclunk (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition fair use rationale includes:
- Limited amount of work in question; shoot, article, publication or cropped photograph;
- Choice of ELLE corresponds to model's most significant client, as she was on the cover of the popular fashion magazine over a dozen times in 4 years;
- Use of ELLE cover also corresponds to Williams's relationship with fashion photographer Gilles Bensimon, who worked at American ELLE during the same period;
- Choice of cover photograph credits publication, as opposed to similar interior or article photo;
- Choice of fashion photograph suitable for commentary in article about fashion model.
--Knulclunk (talk) 15:17, 16 November 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: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8 & #1 in Estes Kefauver and Coonskin cap. The image is used to illustrate a point that Estes Kefauver wore a coonskin cap. The text is sufficient to convey that information. There is no commentary as to why the TIME image itself is significant. The coonskin cap article has a free image. The subject of that article is about the coonskin cap, not about Estes Kefauver. -Nv8200p talk 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Estes Kefauver Time.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Craverguy (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The image is used to illustrate Senator Kefauver in his trademark coonskin cap, which is an important part of the article. I've added a fair-use justification to the image page. --Orlady (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Subsequently, I've boldly added this image to Coonskin cap, and added a second fair-use justification to the image page. I believe it has unique illustrative value in that article, too. --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - additional information and all the proper fair use rationale. - Mafia Expert (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - proper fair use rationale; because Kefauver was a trademark wearer of the coonskin cap its use would be justified in that article because no free image of him wearing it is available and because adding an image of a wearer signifciantly adds to the article - yes, it could be described by words, but an image describing the thing itself in iconic wearers would be even better. Note that being necessary to convey is not the required standard - only that it significantly increase understanding - which it does. INTGAFW (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NFCC8 in both articles (even more so in coonskin cap). Users can understand that he wears a coonskin cap and that he was on the cover without seeing a picture of it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Shows one way Kefauver was seen by millions of Americans. This is information that can't be conveyed with words alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.192.97 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The image is appropriate as it shows Senator Kefauver in a coonskin cap as noted in the article. Senator Kefauver appeared on other Time magazine covers, September 17 1956, so it was not put here just to reinforce that he was on the cover of Time. In the September 17th issue, he was not wearing his coonskip cap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slyskawa (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 December 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Excelsior Live & Learn Fall 2005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Glenlarson (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover from a magazine that isn't even mentioned in the article. Damiens.rf 14:50, 16 November 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: delete. The image fails WP:NFCC#8. The text in the paragraph concerning the cover is not a commentary on the cover image itself. The image is not significant to the understanding of the passage. -Nv8200p talk 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Evatime.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andrew Parodi (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this woman was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - incorrect justification of deletion. Cover is used as additional info with the the text and shows the importance of the event. - Mafia Expert (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a historically important event because it is the only time that a Latin American First Lady has appeared on the cover of Time Magazine. Image is of low resolution with extensive and detailed rationale provided. Obviously cannot be recreated in free context. Further, this cover story led to Time magazine being banned from Argentina for a year because it was the first article to mention that Eva Peron had been born out-of-wedlock ("illegitimate"). -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Here is the entire quote that makes reference to the Time cover, "During her tour to Europe, Eva Perón was featured in a cover story for Time magazine. The cover's caption — "Eva Perón: Between two worlds, an Argentine rainbow" — was a reference to the name given to Eva's European tour, The Rainbow Tour. This would be the first and only time in the periodical's history that a South American first lady appeared alone on its cover (in 1951, Eva appeared again with Juan Perón). However, the 1947 cover story was also the first publication to mention that Eva had been born out of wedlock. In retaliation, the periodical was banned from Argentina for several months." What part of that quote is "significantly increase[d]" by having the image as required by item WP:NFCC #8?--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all in my opinion. Thanks for pointing this out, all the more reason to keep the image. - Mafia Expert (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Mafia Expert. The understanding of that quote is definitely increased by the image and meets NFCC8. Strong keep. INTGAFW (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of you truely answered my question tho, what specific part of the quote ("the periodical was banned"; "in 1951, Eva appeared again with Juan Perón"; "During her tour to Europe, Eva Perón was featured in a cover story for Time magazine") is significantly increased by having the cover in the article. This cover adds no further to the understanding, it is simply a graphic of her advertising the story inside the Time magazine. If it somehow visually represented that the story states she was born out of wedlock, there might be a case for that theoretical cover. If there had been some famous photo of an event in the tour on the cover, again perhaps a case could be made. I agree that it would be nice to have the cover there to suplement the text, but it does nothing to increase understanding.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jordan, as usual you are reading too much into the guideline. Magazine media is VISUAL - to represent that there was a story by showing the actual cover of the magazine (or alternatively the article) definitely increases our understanding of the fact that an article was written on a particular subject - particularly if that magazine or article was notable (which this is, in this case). You're putting too much of your own opinion into your deletion thoughts, instead of just reading the guideline with some common sense and accepting that visual media highlighting an important event or discovery DOES help increase understanding. Why don't we be cooperative and fix the rationale if you don't like it; let's help Wikipedia, not destroy it by over-zealous readings of copyrighted material. INTGAFW (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did answer your question, but it is not my fault you don't like the answer. The more the journey is described - the more reason for the Time cover. This was a historically important event which is illustrated by the fact that Time choose to dedicate its cover to it. And stop aping the argument about that it would be nice - that is a derogatory and silly argument. - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I may not have been completly clear or you mistook my the meaning of my "nice" comment... I think it is very important to have images in an encyclopedia. I also think images aid in understanding (the concept of a picture is worth a 1000 words), and recognise that some images significantly increase understanding. The issue is, WP is trying to create a completely free encyclopedia so we, as editors, always have to keep that in mind. Images that have not been released, or become through time, publicly usuable (as per applicable licensing) are not free and come in conflict with that mission. The WP:NFCC rules were designed to manage that conflict. As I understand, when a stable version of WP is issued it will not include any non-free images so when someone looks at this article on a CD-ROM version, the cover will not be there.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, than it won't be on the CD, as long as it stays on the online version, I don't really care. Who wants a CD when it is online anyway. I do see your concern, but what I don't understand is that you and others - who apparently are very worried about possible "non-free" images - do not try to get permission from various sources in stead of trying to delete images from entries. Many people have put considerable energy and time into writing these entries, it would be a truly joint effort if others would take care of getting wider permission for the use of images. Then we don't have to spent our time on these kinds of discussions. - Mafia Expert (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia never uses non-free content by permission because our content has to be reusable by others, and permission granted to us would not extend to other users. That's why non-free image has to have a strong fair use rationale proving that we don't need permission to use it. —Angr 16:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which other users? That is their problem. If they just link to Wikipedia there is no problem when we have the permission. You are just making up problems that don't really exist. Anyway, since there is a very strong fair use rationale, there is no problem. We can keep the image. - Mafia Expert (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which other users?? I have to ask, do you understand what WP is trying to do? May I suggest you have a read over Free Culture movement, Licensing_policy, and Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia? In regards to the "very strong" fair use rationale... you may wish to read over it again, it is written for a book cover rather then a magazine cover. While the two are similar, there are differences and it is a major chink in the "very strong" armor.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all nice abstract principles that have very little to do with the realities on internet. This image was uploaded on November 10, 2005 -- more than three years ago. Nobody ever made a problem, including Time Magazine, until somebody from our own community starts a campaign for unknown reasons. The license is for a book cover, that should be changed, but the whole fair use rationale has become such an incomprehensible mess that I can understand somebody has made a mistake. - Mafia Expert (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of you truely answered my question tho, what specific part of the quote ("the periodical was banned"; "in 1951, Eva appeared again with Juan Perón"; "During her tour to Europe, Eva Perón was featured in a cover story for Time magazine") is significantly increased by having the cover in the article. This cover adds no further to the understanding, it is simply a graphic of her advertising the story inside the Time magazine. If it somehow visually represented that the story states she was born out of wedlock, there might be a case for that theoretical cover. If there had been some famous photo of an event in the tour on the cover, again perhaps a case could be made. I agree that it would be nice to have the cover there to suplement the text, but it does nothing to increase understanding.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes fair use for critical commentary on this specific cover.--Knulclunk (talk) 19:06, 27 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:50C-BISD.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Anarchy 97 (notify | contribs).
- Unused album cover Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:51, 16 November 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. The image of the TIME cover is not significant to the understanding of the fact that he was TIME's Man of the Year or that his reforms gained notoriety. Commentary needs to be about the cover itself to justify using it. -Nv8200p talk 15:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Faisal time.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sohailstyle (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This image was indeed being used soley for identification purposes but I have updated the image to be sound with the policy: used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image; Reforms introduced by Faisal for Saudi Arabia gained notoriety internationally also; Time magazine chose Faisal as Man of the Year for 1974. The correlation is that the international appeal of his impact on Saudi Arabia was noticed elsewhere, for example Time. So, now the image is in accordance with Wikipedia policy on magazine cover uploads. Sohailstyle (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that he was choses man of the year may be relevant. What he looked like on the cover is not. --Damiens.rf 13:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sohailstyle following the reforms. INTGAFW (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. The image adds useful and additional information. - Mafia Expert (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This image was indeed being used soley for identification purposes but I have updated the image to be sound with the policy: used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image; Reforms introduced by Faisal for Saudi Arabia gained notoriety internationally also; Time magazine chose Faisal as Man of the Year for 1974. The correlation is that the international appeal of his impact on Saudi Arabia was noticed elsewhere, for example Time. So, now the image is in accordance with Wikipedia policy on magazine cover uploads. Sohailstyle (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't need to show him on the cover to have readers understand that he appeared on the cover. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But media is visual by its own nature so one image that is illustrative of it (especially when linked to Faisal's foreign reforms) is acceptable usage that satisfied NCCC8. The reforms he instituted gained Faisal international notoriety, including by the American media - so this is significant. If there were multiple images we could cut it down to one, but this is the only one. The FUR has been fixed up so it is acceptable. INTGAFW (talk) 21:33, 17 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:529685758 l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Travis0123456789 (notify | contribs).
- Unused image of the band A Second To Last playing live. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:54, 16 November 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: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#1. The subject be adequately conveyed by text. -Nv8200p talk 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:TIMEasia Suharto.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dtasripin (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The Time cover, including the title "Suharto Inc." that appears on the cover, serves to illustrate the article text about the Time Asia investigation into Suharto's business interests. --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Orlady. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:36, 19 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Kurtklang.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kurtklang99 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned image (was used on AfD'ed page), issues with licensing (has been listed on PUI for some time now), absent uploader. Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:56, 16 November 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: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and #8. The image is not significant to the understanding of the article and the information could be conveyed in text. -Nv8200p talk 01:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:TIME Sep 17, 1965.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Idleguy (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this war was covered by the press. Damiens.rf 14:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The fair-use rationale presented on the image page goes well beyond addressing the fact "that this war was covered by the press." --Orlady (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the only critical commentary of this cover of TIME is barely covered in the unreferenced captioning. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Orlady. Where does it say "critical commentary" is required of the actual photo. All it need do is significantly increase understanding of a photo. Press media, by its own nature, is visual, and any visual media to illustrate press coverage is useful. INTGAFW (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-free content guideline on images says "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Orlady, additional and useful information and the proper rationale in provided. - Mafia Expert (talk) 10:05, 17 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free magazine cover being used as the main illustration of the band's article. Damiens.rf 14:58, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free image of a living guy. Damiens.rf 14:59, 16 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:TVGuideCoverBeatTheClock.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hillrhpc (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this tv-show was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 14:59, 16 November 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; deleted by Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:600820820 l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhythmnation2004 (notify | contribs).
- Unused personal image. Permission given for Wikipedia use only. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:00, 16 November 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: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Use of the image is not significant to the understanding of the article. Non-free images are not used to establish notability (that is what references are for) or illustrate a point unless that point is supported commentary about the image itself. -Nv8200p talk 17:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:TVGuide-Passions-2001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TAnthony (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this tv-show was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As used in Luis Lopez-Fitzgerald, the image establishes notability for the character, and in Passions it illustrates the series' "buzz" at the time; the TV Guide publication very rarely features daytime soap personalities or shows on its cover. — TAnthonyTalk 15:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the whole point of this deletion nomination. The image is used just as an "evidence" that the tv-show/character/actor/whatever is notable. We can (and should) do that with free text only. --Damiens.rf 17:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Passions article notes (I've trimmed the text somewhat for this page) "In 2001, HarperEntertainment released Hidden Passions, a tie-in novelization ... which reached #4 on the real-life New York Times Best Seller list and garnered the series two alternate covers of TV Guide in July 2001." That seems like illustrating a point in an article to me. And by the way, not sure if you know it or not, but you're hiding the captions when you tag the images within the articles; leave out the "|" before the deletion template, the captions may be helpful for editors wanting to participate in the discussion. — TAnthonyTalk 17:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - yes the covers are mentioned in the article on the show, but nothing about the covers requires illustration beyond what has been said in the quote -- there were two TV Guide covers in July 2001.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If "requires" was the bottom-line threshhold, there'd be like three non-free images on the whole of Wikipedia.— TAnthonyTalk 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I would not be opposed to three non-free images on WP, thats not the issue. I should have been more specific in my reasoning, this cover (and the related one below) does not meet NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I was equating required with significantly increase understanding - that would be my bad.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The images illustrate the show in a way that could never be duplicated by text or free images. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:28, 25 November 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: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Use of the image is not significant to the understanding of the article. Non-free images are not used to establish notability (that is what references are for) or illustrate a point unless that point is supported commentary about the image itself. -Nv8200p talk 16:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:TVGuide-JulietMills-2001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TAnthony (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this tv-show was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As used in Tabitha Lenox, the image establishes notability for the character, and in Passions it illustrates the series' "buzz" at the time; the TV Guide publication very rarely features daytime soap personalities or shows on its cover. — TAnthonyTalk 15:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Passions article notes (I've trimmed the text somewhat for this page) "In 2001, HarperEntertainment released Hidden Passions, a tie-in novelization ... which reached #4 on the real-life New York Times Best Seller list and garnered the series two alternate covers of TV Guide in July 2001." That seems like illustrating a point in an article to me.— TAnthonyTalk 19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The images illustrate the show in a way that could never be duplicated by text or free images. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:28, 25 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:TVGNOrleansCast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nightscream (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this tv-show's cast was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 15:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the image is kept, a lower-resolution version should be substituted. --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 25 November 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; deleted by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this woman was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 15:01, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Tetsuya Ogawa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Clamticore (notify | contribs).
- Non-free picture of a living Japanese. Damiens.rf 15:03, 16 November 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. Tagged as move to Commons. -Nv8200p talk 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Lusitania Mauretania.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aquitania (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, poor quality (blurry). SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Send to Commons as a public domain image of a notable historical topic (two famous ships photographed together). It looks to me like the image was enlarged too much before being uploaded (it looks OK at smaller scale). The articles about both ships are amply illustrated already, but this image also has value. --Orlady (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to commons - agree with Orlady. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:50, 10 December 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: delete. References are used to support the notability of an article not non-free images. -Nv8200p talk 16:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Tillinghast-time.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Americasroof (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 15:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Image adds useful information about the notability of the person in question. - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:48, 24 November 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: delete. Free image available and image was not significant to the understanding of the article. -Nv8200p talk 16:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:ThomasWatsonJr.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mjuarez (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used to illustrate a bio. Free alternative available. Damiens.rf 15:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Image adds useful information about the notability of the person in question. - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given that a free image of the subject is available and already in use on the page, it does not meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images guideline and WP:Ignore All Rules does not apply. In particular, it does not meet I1 - cover art, I7 - works of visual art, or I8 - historical works when used in the article Thomas J. Watson, Jr.. This is not an article about the cover. Nowhere in the article is the artwork referenced in the context of a visual work of art. While the photo may be historic, but it's not that historic and the events it depicts are but one part of the article. If this were an article about IBM in the mid-1950s, then maybe. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:26, 10 December 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: delete. Orphaned non-free image. -Nv8200p talk 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Time Magazine cover, June 25, 1923 of Colonel House.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mtmelendez (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this guy was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 15:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as explained in the rationale the image is used to provide illustration of the subject's importance to national politics by his portrayal in the front page of a national publication. You are deliberately misstating the rationales. - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and possibly moot: The image in Edward M. House has been replaced in the article with Image:Colonel Edward M. House.jpg from a 1921 book about World War I. The limited value-add that a Time Magazine cover offers to show the importance of the person in national politics does not rise to a level that justifies fair use. I am tagging the image as orphaned, it will go away in 7 days if my edits to Edward M. House are not reverted and the tag removed. I considered speedy-closing this but with the chance of a revert it should be left open for a couple days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:06, 10 December 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: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. A non-free image cannot be used for mere illustration nor does it matter that is was widely published. -Nv8200p talk 16:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Time Magazine Dec 20 1982 Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Halgin (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that this crisis was covered by the press. Damiens.rf 15:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Illustrates part of the Economic history of Mexico, the Economic crisis of 1982. The appearance of this widely read magazine cover, illustrates level of the Mexico's Economic crisis of 1982. You are again deliberately misstating the fair use rationale. - Mafia Expert (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Halgin (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Fair use. 124.170.151.140 (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is close but I don't think it meets the requirements for fair use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:30, 10 December 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: Replaced with free image. Image will be speedy-deleted as an orphan. The replacement image adequately represents the person's historical importance, albeit not quite as much as a magazine cover. --davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Note: non-admin closure.[reply]
- Image:Time Cover William L Clayton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cuppysfriend (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to illustrate a bio. Damiens.rf 15:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as explained in the rationale the image is used to provide illustration of the subject's importance to national politics by his portrayal in the front page of a national publication. - Mafia Expert (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is no other image of this person, and this one is of such low resolution that there is no risk of injury to the copyright owner. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Ditto. --Cuppysfriend (talk) 17:28, 17 November 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: delete. The image fails WP:NFCC#8. Using an image to highlight a point in an article does not make the image significant to the article. The claims that the cover is a unique historic image or a prime example of American anticommunist visual propaganda are unsupported POV. -Nv8200p talk 16:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Time DeGasperi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mafia Expert (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used just to reinforce the information that the 1948 election was covered by the press. Damiens.rf 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This image is used to highlight an important moment in the history of Italy: the tense Italian elections in 1948 in Italy in which many feared the Communist Party would win and Italy would come under Soviet influence. The image reflects this featuring Alcide De Gasperi threatened by the Red (Communist) Octopus (the caption explaining this is apparently deleted deliberately - I restored it again). To say it is used "just to reinforce the information that the 1948 election was covered by the press", is incorrect and lacks understanding of the use of unique historic images. This a clear example of such an unique historic image and should be kept in both entries. - Mafia Expert (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Mafia Expert's reasoning. It appears the image satifies fair use rationale for both articles. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Time hired an artist to elborate an insightful drawing that would reflect Italy's historic moment, so that it could be used to illustrate its article about that Italy's historic moment. Do you think it's "fair use" for wikipedia to take this very drawing and use it to illustrate its article on that very Italian historic moment? --Damiens.rf 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you are getting at with your question. We have articles which use low res scans of magazine covers to illustrate subjects. If an artist has depicted a subject for TIME (or any other magazine as far as that goes) and the same material is in a Wikipedia, and fair use rationale applies, then we use them. By your question and thinking - Shall all magazine photos be deleted from the project?? I'm not getting what your point is. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is his point. His aim is to have no non-free use images on Wikipedia and he'll make up any excuse to get rid of them, even if they're not valid reasons for deletion. INTGAFW (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you are getting at with your question. We have articles which use low res scans of magazine covers to illustrate subjects. If an artist has depicted a subject for TIME (or any other magazine as far as that goes) and the same material is in a Wikipedia, and fair use rationale applies, then we use them. By your question and thinking - Shall all magazine photos be deleted from the project?? I'm not getting what your point is. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Time hired an artist to elborate an insightful drawing that would reflect Italy's historic moment, so that it could be used to illustrate its article about that Italy's historic moment. Do you think it's "fair use" for wikipedia to take this very drawing and use it to illustrate its article on that very Italian historic moment? --Damiens.rf 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What Damiens.rf seems to be suggesting is that, by using the image essentially for the same purpose — graphically and evocatively depicting the perceived communist threat in the 1948 Italian general election — for which Time Magazine originally commissioned it, we may be using it to "replace the original market role" of the magazine cover, thereby violating NFCC 2. If true, this would also seem to imply a violation of NFCC 1, since it would be possible (even if not necessarily easy) for us to come up with our own original illustration of the same thing. Further up, he also seems to be suggesting that the image could be adequately replaced by plain text, which, if true, would make it a violation of NFCC 8.
- Regarding NFCC 1 and 2, I would say the key question is whether we're using the image to illustrate the U.S. media's (and Time Magazine's in particular) reporting of the geopolitical situation surrounding the election, or whether we're using it to illustrate the situation itself. If the former, we're probably clear in this regard, since it's hard to show an example of U.S. media's reporting of the election without, well, showing an example of U.S. media's reporting of the election. If the latter, however, we indeed could and should replace the image with a free illustration (even if it might not be quite as evocative as Time's professionally designed one) and thus have no excuse to use an unfree one.
- Alas, it's kind of hard to say, since the image seems to be slapped onto both articles with very little in the way of text connecting it to the actual content. Italian general election, 1948 does mention Time Magazine, but in a completely different section than the image is used in. Alcide De Gasperi makes no mention of Time at all (outside the image's caption); it does say, in the paragraph the image appears to be illustrating, that "the US became alarmed about Soviet intentions", but makes no direct mention of the media's reporting as either a cause or a symptom of this alarm.
- That said, it may not matter much, since I have to agree with Damiens that the image appears to fail NFCC 8. Not only does the lack of discussion of the image in the text of the articles strongly suggest that its main purpose is merely decorative, but in any case, there's nothing factual in the image that would not be conveyed just as well by the simple words "Time Magazine, in its cover on 19 April, 1948, depicted De Gasperi with a red octopus (the color symbolising communism) extending its tentacles around a map of Italy." We don't need the cover itself to show De Gasperi's face (and in any case we're not allowed to use magazine covers for that). As for the octopus and the map of Italy, neither are particularly remarkably drawn — there's nothing that would distinguish them from any other drawing matching the same textual description, or indeed from the image that any reader could easily imagine in their head based on the text alone. Thus I'd have to say this image is not essential to the articles, and should be deleted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Our own original illustration? You must be joking. There is no own original illustration, and certainly not one that figured prominently on the cover of Time. The fact that it was on the Time cover makes it an unique historical image, illustrating the fears that existed at the time. You just gave an excellent reason why the image should be kept, thank you very much.
- Certainly I, or anyone else with more artistic talent than a chimpanzee, could draw a perfectly serviceable original picture of a red octopus grasping Italy in its tentacles. It wouldn't be the one that appeared on the cover of Time, but as long as the articles don't discuss this appearance in any way, this shouldn't make a difference. If they did indeed discuss it, such that showing the specific image would help the reader understand the text, that could indeed be a reason for keeping it — but as I note, even if they did, I don't think the image really gives the reader any better understanding than a textual description of the cover would. It just looks prettier. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Time Magazine has made the covers freely available on their website, we do not violate NFCC 2. On the contrary, I think they are quite happy to see the cover in Wikipedia. They seem to understand the unique historical role their magazine played at times.
- Time Magazine has not made the cover available freely in the sense used on Wikipedia — if they had, we wouldn't be having this discussion. They seem to feel there is some benefit left to them in not allowing free distribution and commercial use of the images. In particular, do note that they derive advertising revenue from visitors looking at the images on their website, something which we're taking away from them by hosting our own copies. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right - there is no other image that is "quite as evocative as Time's professionally designed one", another reason why it should be kept.
- That's not a reason for keeping the image — if anything, it's a reason for deleting it. Theft, whether of intellectual or physical property, is not mitigated by the fact that the stolen item is a particularly good and valuable one. There are a lot of great commercial images out there that we could use to make our articles look more impressive and evocative — but we don't, because we have neither permission to do that (in the form of a free license) nor a sufficient excuse (per the NFCC) to use them anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the article not mentioning Time Magazine, you might have a point there, but I will take care of that, when I have the time.
- That would be nice. Once you've done that, if you still feel a textual description would not be sufficient, feel free to reupload the image and add it back. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, in both entries and I still feel a description is not sufficient. I managed to not even put up a second Time cover featuring De Gasperi, although the urge was strong. - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be nice. Once you've done that, if you still feel a textual description would not be sufficient, feel free to reupload the image and add it back. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is not used to show De Gasperi's face, another image already takes care of that, so why bring this into the discussion? That you think the drawing is not remarkable is your personal opinion and violates WP:NPOV. Separating arguments about the drawing and De Gasperi's face is a non-issue. The image is remarkable and historically significant because of the combination of the two - that is exactly the reason why it is there. Frankly, I only see some bogus bureaucratic arguments here, while ignoring the overriding general principle that this is an unique historic image, which enhances the readers understanding on the issue and the historical importance of De Gasperi. - Mafia Expert (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that the image does not really do anything to "enhance the readers understanding on the issue and the historical importance of De Gasperi" that a plain textual description of the cover (as in the example I provided above) would not do just as well. All the image does better than a text-only description is look nice — and we're not allowed to use non-free images for that purpose alone. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't agree. Where do you draw the line? In stead of an image of Adolf Hitler, we now have a description "weird looking guy with a funny moustache"? If you do, most people would think of John Cleese instead of Hitler. I hope the example tells you that showing an image is the best way to explain how an image looks. This is not just an issue of "looking nice" - and a description will not suffice. If you can find the chimpanzee, let him draw the image, and you see what I mean. I am glad you compared yourself with a chimpanzee, that way I won't have to do it, because your way of reasoning is not much more advanced. This Time Magazine cover, just as the other covers discussed here, do "enhance the readers understanding on an issue and the historical importance of persons" and should be kept. I think most comments in the discussion so far go that direction and it is about time you acknowledge the fact that a majority seems to be in favour of using Time covers because of their historical significance (which in this case is the fair use rationale) and not because they look nice. - Mafia Expert (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Our own original illustration? You must be joking. There is no own original illustration, and certainly not one that figured prominently on the cover of Time. The fact that it was on the Time cover makes it an unique historical image, illustrating the fears that existed at the time. You just gave an excellent reason why the image should be kept, thank you very much.
- Keep image but disallow use on Alcide De Gasperi. The use on Italian general election, 1948 introduces POV problems and the editors of that article may choose to resolve those issues by removing the image, but as it stands it's a fair-use image for that article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - prime example of American anticommunist visual propaganda during the 1948 elections. Uniquely illustrates the psychological pressure placed on the Italian electorate. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:16, 10 December 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 - Where the magazine cover itself discussed in the article the outcome may be different. But as it stood a commercial, copyrighted work was being used for a purpose other than discussion of the work. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Time Cover Glenn McCarthy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Junglecat (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover is not even mentioned in the article. Damiens.rf 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yes the article does mention the magazine covers usage: TIME cover from 1950 symbolizing Glenn McCarthy as an oil giant in his day. This TIME cover is a cultural depiction of McCarthy (hand drawn) who is now deceased. 1.) It is a low res scan of the true magazine cover 2.) It is not being used for profit, used for informational purposes only 3.) It is only used in the article Glenn McCarthy to illustrate his cultural impact on the oil industry in the mid 1900's. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per above reasons. The image adds useful and additional information about the subject. - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the magazine cover is mentioned in the article and fair use rationale is provided. Postoak (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clear WP:NFCC8 violation. Readers can understand Glenn McCarthy perfectly well without seeing this magazine cover. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 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 - the Image is usually required to be discussed in sourced commentary and must significantly increase reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 12:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Time cover william pereira.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zedla (notify | contribs).
- Non-free magazine cover being used to illustrate a bio. Damiens.rf 15:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Image adds useful information about the notability of the person in question. - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:50, 24 November 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; deleted as I5 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Pearling crew 1926.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ravichandar84 (notify | contribs).
- Pearly is mentioned only briefly, and the appearance/methodology is not discussed at all. As such, this image is not needed. J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per Milburn above. This is somebody else's copyright photograph, we can't use it just because we want to. If we're going to argue for fair use, it needs to be central to an improved understanding of the main topic of the article. But the connection here is marginal, tenuous at best. Jheald (talk) 14:44, 22 November 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; deleted as I5 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Varg trial.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamerslayer (notify | contribs).
- There is no reason for a gif animation- a single frame would be enough (if the picture is definitely not replaceable). J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 16:50, 16 November 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: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. The image of Kemp posing in a uniform is not significant to understanding his football career. -Nv8200p talk 01:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Kemp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).
- Non-free picture used to illustrate the article of a living football player and to decorate the article on a politician. Damiens.rf 17:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an image showing what a prominent politician looked like as a professional football player 45 years ago. The politician is very prominent as was his athletic career. This image depicts very prominent athletic career. No replacement is available. Image also used on second biography.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - non-replaceable image depicting the politician as a football player. Not just used for decoration but to illustrate the football career. If it were an early political picture perhaps a case could be made for deletion but here it is not. INTGAFW (talk) 23:10, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Coat of arms Russian Empire Central.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emigrant123 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, replaced by Image:Coat of arms Russian Empire Central.png JaGatalk 17:31, 16 November 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: delete. It may be fair use but does not meet WP:NFCC#1 or #8. The presence of the image is not significant to the understanding of the article and text adequately conveys the information. I do not agree this is PD-ineligible. Thinking up the title took a certain amount of creativity. -Nv8200p talk 01:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:An American Renaaissance by Jack Kemp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).
- Do we need to show a book cover for a book that is mentioned in just one triviial sentence in one article? "At this time, Kemp wrote An American Renaissance (ISBN 0-06-012283-8), to deliver his message that "A rising tide lifts all boats"? Damiens.rf 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Book covers are used fairly commonly in this way, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - good faith and permissible use of non-free book cover, is referenced in the article. INTGAFW (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep {{PD-ineligible}} Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Since the book itself has no article of its own, this seems like a fair use for identification and commentary. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:55, 28 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Miass.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marina garipova (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, replaced by Image:Coat of Arms of Miass (Chelyabinsk oblast) (2002).png JaGatalk 17:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
_(2002).png){kind=link}
- 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Poland jack new.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tkinias (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, small, low res, replaced by Image:Poland jack new large.png. JaGatalk 17:48, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:COA Of Dajabón.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Retrodude101 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, replaced by Image:COA Of Dajabón.jpg JaGatalk 19:21, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Armes sundgau.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dlyons493 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, replaced by Image:Armes sundgau.png. JaGatalk 19:35, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Powersin 1901.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jreferee (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, replaced by higher quality Image:Harriet Powers 1901.png. JaGatalk 22:56, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:WikiQR.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alchemy pete (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, replaced by Image:WikiQR.png. JaGatalk 22:58, 16 November 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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
- Image:Axe pistol (1).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick19thind (notify | contribs).
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- A good portion of the important part of the image is cut off, and there is little encyclopaedic value for an image that doesn't show the reader half of what it's supposed to show them. Should be replaced with a better scan of the original image. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:06, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:British Ceylon flag.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nitraven (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, replaced by Image:British Ceylon flag.png. JaGatalk 23:12, 16 November 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- orphaned image, absent uploader, appears to be self-promotion by user Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is indeed self-promotion, but by an important composer. It's nice of him to put some of his (expensive?) pictures up here (even though his edits of the article on himself do not suggest he is completely aware of how Wikipedia works). I've put this image (Ewcolor) into the article, because it looks the least glossy to me. The article didn't have a picture yet, which is why all three Whitacre pictures were orphans. As far as I'm concerned, the others can be deleted. Classical geographer (talk) 08:53, 17 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Eric-Whitacre-London.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EWHITINC (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, appears to be self-promotion by user Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:BioNanoMatrixLogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danthony21 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, questionable GFDL-self licese for a logo Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:BioPetroCleanWaterexperiment.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danthony21 (notify | contribs).
- orpahned image, absent uplaoder, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Bpclogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danthony21 (notify | contribs).
- orpahned image, absent uplaoder, questionable GFDL-self license for a logo Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:24, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Solarbus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danthony21 (notify | contribs).
- orpahned image, absent uplaoder, questionable GFDL-self license Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Great-range.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moocow22593 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, source provided does not match image, also insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:41, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:47, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:47, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:48, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Pristine_small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Webucation (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uplaoder, source provided is a wikimedia link which leads to a 404 error, without any source info (was original deleted?) we really should not keep this image around dispite it being a very nice photo Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Cr2005300cmopardubeditio1316322.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HairForceOne (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, watermarkings make it questionable if this image really is GFDL licensed Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Cap Arcona sinking.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aquitania (notify | contribs).
- No evidence from the site this is applicable under the provisions of German copyright law as described in the license, or that the site hosting are qualified to release this into the public domain Benea (talk) 23:55, 16 November 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; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Live_pew.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sheepman94 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:57, 16 November 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.