Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 15
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
August 15
[edit]
- Dubious looking rationale, particularly "purpose of use"! Also, I wonder about WP:NFCC#8. ElinorD (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Does "No free counterpart" follow WP:NFCC#8? --Ryanasaurus0077 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Ryanasaurus0077 (notify | contribs).
- Can that really be GFDL, when it reproduces what would seem to be copyrighted images? ElinorD (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, they don't look like copyrighted images. That was the real tape, scanned onto my computer. What the **** (pardon my French) license should I use? --Ryanasaurus0077 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by NicolasLord (notify | contribs).
- screencap, with invalid copyright claim
- Previously was on userpage. Userpage is now blanked for violation of Wikipedia rules. Orphan and Unencyclopedic. It seems to me that there is no reason to keep it. Ash063 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nat Tang ta | co | em 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previously was on userpage. Userpage is now blanked for violation of Wikipedia rules. Orphan and Unencyclopedic. It seems to me that there is no reason to keep it. Ash063 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nat Tang ta | co | em 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previously was on userpage. Userpage is now blanked for violation of Wikipedia rules. Orphan and Unencyclopedic. It seems to me that there is no reason to keep it. Ash063 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nat Tang ta | co | em 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previously was on userpage. Userpage is now blanked for violation of Wikipedia rules. Orphan and Unencyclopedic. It seems to me that there is no reason to keep it. Ash063 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nat Tang ta | co | em 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previously was on userpage. Userpage is now blanked for violation of Wikipedia rules. Orphan and Unencyclopedic. It seems to me that there is no reason to keep it. Ash063 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nat Tang ta | co | em 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previously was on userpage. Userpage is now blanked for violation of Wikipedia rules. Orphan and Unencyclopedic. It seems to me that there is no reason to keep it. Ash063 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nat Tang ta | co | em 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
*Previously was on userpage. Userpage is now blanked for violation of Wikipedia rules. Orphan and Unencyclopedic. It seems to me that there is no reason to keep it. Ash063 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Now Keep. — Ash063 18:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nat Tang ta | co | em 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - it seems to be used now. Is it a valid use? – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could be - enough to prevent deletion, anyway. Up to the editors on the 'dunce' article. This should be moved to Commons, which would solve the problem for everyone. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, image is now on Commons with same name. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could be - enough to prevent deletion, anyway. Up to the editors on the 'dunce' article. This should be moved to Commons, which would solve the problem for everyone. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previously was on userpage. Userpage is now blanked for violation of Wikipedia rules. Orphan and Unencyclopedic. It seems to me that there is no reason to keep it. Ash063 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nat Tang ta | co | em 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previously was on userpage. Userpage is now blanked for violation of Wikipedia rules. Orphan and Unencyclopedic. It seems to me that there is no reason to keep it. Ash063 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nat Tang ta | co | em 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Superseded by Image:University of Wyoming.png.- Conscious 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why are we discussing this image? This is {{NCT}}, there is not a bit-by-bit copy only, because I had croped the transparent borders. Alex Spade 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Because WP:CSD#I8 requires bit-by-bit correspondence. Conscious 08:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by User:BrendelSignature (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, Unencyclopedic. Sebvdv 09:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- non-free image of a non-notable magazine cover used in an article that does not mentions the cover not the magazine Abu badali (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- if the article is edited to mention her cover appearence, would that make it acceptable? I could easily add this as it is relevant to her post '96 popularity paragraph Gdk1a 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- That would probably be original research. Do you know about some sources that considered this specific image worth discussing? We can't be the first one. --Abu badali (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unnecessry non-free image of a non-notable magazine cover used to illustrate a mention to the fact that a given athlete was on the cover. Abu badali (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I thought it was acceptable to use Time covers, as distinct from other magazines? Gdk1a 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- book cover used to illustrate what the people depicted look like. Abu badali (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- this book is specifically discussed in the articles that use it and is a work produced by the persons in question, so I fail to see how it could not be significant. Urso 12:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that since it doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:NFCC#8 ("only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."), it must me purposed to show what the person looks like, which further doesn't pass WP:NFCC#1. I don't intend to place any judgment or comment, just trying to possibly explain. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can understand that, but there are no free use images of these girls that I have ever come across and given that their careers ended some time ago, a relevant pic is unlikely to surface now. Or is this too woolly a rationale? Also, the pic shows them in their leotards, which caused the controversy. If this was added to the pic caption, would it then be deemed relevant as it illustrates the source of the controversy?Urso 13:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like it was blocking a Commmons image of the same name. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- no it wasn't- this just happened! It was fine yesterday. Why was someone allowed to replace the page without discussing it here, that is very unfair? I am going to reupload it and let the debate resume properly Urso 10:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC) - reupped as lcc2, please discuss here properly and provide a rationale either here or on my talk page if it's going to be deleted
- - uploaded by User:Nvinen (notify | contribs).
- Delete per WP:NFCC#10, copyright holder not identified. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Evildarkone (notify | contribs).
- Orphan. Replaced in St Bede's Catholic College by the standard WikiProject Bristol map box. Also, the copyright status is questionable, given the comment "generated from a mapping service" in the image summary Gasheadsteve Talk to me 16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Staxringold (notify | contribs).
- Non-free poster that is used without any commentary on the poster itself, violating WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Non-free music video screenshot used without any commentary on the scene being depicted. howcheng {chat} 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The article talks about the single and this is one and only picture from the video, showing Dion's as a robot (as the Bissential Man movie's theme). --Max24 00:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- But the article doesn't make any specific use of the image to better understand the topic. It's illustrative of the music video, but unnecessarily. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Arpingstone (notify | contribs).
- Orphan Image. There are already images of this plain on wikipedia and commons. Sebvdv 18:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Priorburst (notify | contribs).
- Soon-to-be orphan image is linked only to Little Lebowski Urban Achievers, an apparent hoax, which is itself being considered for deletion here. —Travistalk 21:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- File is on commons: now. - Erik Baas 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, per WP:IFD#What not to list here, it can be speedy deleted with {{subst:ncd|image name on Commons}}. —Travistalk 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted, Commons image showing. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Image "represent[s] Spears' return to music. There is no image for this section and this image suits it well." Articular sections do not "need images" per se; understanding of apropos section is not significantly increased with this image, not would its omission be detrimental to said understanding. Fails WP:NFCC#8. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
