Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 December 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 12

[edit]
can't remember syntax for listing here, hope someone can help me out. However, as the GNAA article has been deleted, I recommend that this image be deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check first where it is being used? I very strongly recommend keep, in at least one place that I can recall it being used is in a wikipedia signpost article. As such it most certainly should be kept for that very reason. Mathmo Talk 09:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did a google search [1] which pulled up a few uses of the image in wikipedia. Mathmo Talk 09:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Hahnchen (notify | contribs). Deletion decision was overturned at WP:DRV and is now back for reconsideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion.trialsanderrors 08:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've not really been on Wikipedia much this last week. I don't actually mind if this is deleted due to the poor quality of the sourcing. What the DRV brought up however, was that now-private individuals such as Yamauchi should not be treated as a clear cut replaceable image. - hahnchen 01:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Skeletor2112 (notify | contribs). Obsolete, replaced with verifiable version, (Image:Megadeth96.jpg) with correct copyright info and reliable source — Skeletor2112 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Skeletor2112 (notify | contribs). Orphan, removed from article — Skeletor2112 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Skeletor2112 (notify | contribs). Orphan, copyright unverifiable, removed from article — Skeletor2112 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Skeletor2112 (notify | contribs). Orphan, copyright unverifiable, removed from article — Skeletor2112 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Skeletor2112 (notify | contribs). Orphan, copyright unverifiable, removed from article — Skeletor2112 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Darklove965 (notify | contribs). UE, orphan, copyright not stated, vanity piece—SkierRMH 08:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Uploaded by FarroRavenKnight (notify | contribs). UE content, orphaned, no posiblity of linking to encyclopedic content—SkierRMH 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Uploaded by Qaz1777 (notify | contribs). Non-encyclopedic, no possibility of linking to anything of encyclopedic nature—SkierRMH 09:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Uploaded by Pr0carbine (notify | contribs). Non-encyclopedic, orphaned, copyright nonverifiable—SkierRMH 09:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Uploaded by Jet rocks21 (notify | contribs). UE, child's artwork (pencil drawing)—SkierRMH 09:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Panocha (notify | contribs). UE, no possibility of encyclopedic entry, orphan, copyright nonverifiable.—SkierRMH 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source must be this, but they state that their documents including images are copyrighted. - LERK 09:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Uploaded by Mrmiscellanious (notify | contribs). Fails to meet Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images and does not qualify as fair use as a screen shot since it is not used for "identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents."—Strothra 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The image is currently used in three articles. Two of these articles are about the huricane and the image is used as comentary in these articles about the role the media played in the aftermath, specifically Rivera's role. The image should be removed from the article on Rivera himself as it is used in a decoritive manner as no discussion is raised about his reporting on the huricane. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Quazi Hoque (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB Nv8200p talk 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Maziy300 (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB Nv8200p talk 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Docrx (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB Nv8200p talk 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Seth Ilys (notify | contribs). Violates Fair Use under first provision as well as WP:Fair_use#Counterexamples. Origionally tagged as vio of first provision but relisted as IFD due to another user's complaints. See discussion at Image_talk:NickBergandFiveMen.JPG. Further, the image if Fair use yet used in two separate articles. Also, note that there are two of these images in the Nick Berg article demonstrating the same event. How can it be considered fair use if there are multiple stills which can be taken to demonstrate the same event? —Strothra 18:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I am unclear as to the reasoning for this nomination. The image is being used to disuss the circumstance of his death, not as a means of identification; that is being done using the image at the top of the Nick Berg page. The first provision states, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" and given the events, no replacable image could be created. The image is not "[a] photo from a press agency" (CE#5) nor is it "[an] image of a living person that merely shows what they look like" (CE#8). I think this image is exactly the reason to include fair use images in articles here.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Westmusic (notify | contribs). OR, AB, Improper tag Nv8200p talk 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Fractalmichel (notify | contribs). OR, AB Nv8200p talk 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Shilpagupta (notify | contribs). OR, AB, Advertisement Nv8200p talk 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Kingturtle (notify | contribs). Violates Fair Use under first provision as well as WP:Fair_use#Counterexamples. Origionally tagged as vio of first provision but relisted as IFD due to another user's complaints. See discussion at Image_talk:NickBergandFiveMen.JPG. Further, the image if Fair use yet used in two separate articles. Also, note that there are two of these images in the Nick Berg article demonstrating the same event. How can it be considered fair use if there are multiple stills which can be taken to demonstrate the same event? —Strothra 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Attica42 (notify | contribs). OR, UE Nv8200p talk 18:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Bigunit (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB Users only upload Nv8200p talk 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by onoff456 (notify | contribs). Uploaded incorrect file.—Onoff456 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Tmrobertson (notify | contribs). Obsoleted by OUSeal.pngNMajdantalk 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is tagged as being under a free license. I doubt that this is the case. It was taken from an article, itself copylefted, on marxists.org. However, I doubt that they own the photo itself (Though hope to be proven wrong, of course). Images like this are wonderful to have, but it's probably not kosher. --Zantastik talk 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Vincentl (notify | contribs). Obsoleted by Agreatergift.jpgVincentl 22:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Kevin_Murray (notify | contribs). uploading a .jpg of a recipe does not make any sense to me—790 23:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]