Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 October 4
Appearance
October 4
[edit]- This image is only used on a talk page where it was moved in Aug 2006 with the basic comment asking if anyone thought the image was needed -- At this point, I would have to say it is not needed. The image is also licensed as GFDL-presumed, so it is not cleanly licensed either. Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I uploaded the picture. I made it myself with octave (matlab clone). So the license should not be a problem. But since there are better pictures available in the article it is obsolete and I do not mind if it is deleted. Mond (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Commons showing through.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- orphaned image, licensed with GFDL-presumed but the text provided when uploading states that the "photo was scanned from a tourist brochure...there was no mention of a copyright" Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Jack_Lumber (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal drawing, licensed as GFDL-presumed Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Avatar of chaos (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- The image runs counter to the information here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Images which cannot be "fair use" and the underlying principle of not using material copied from existing encyclopedias and encyclopedia-like works. The image was created and used in such a context where originally published in the Spawn Bible. J Greb (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- orpahned image, absent uploader, licnesed as GFDL-presumed and is easily replaceable Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- WH Coordinator (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- A Google screenshot, uploaded only to try to shoehorn a claim of notability onto an article that is at AfD. Is not in any way an image of what the article it is being used on is actually about. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. No WP policy cited to warrant deletion. The Image is a screenshot of search engine results that establishes notability of the article subject through its 400000+ appearances on the web.WH Coordinator (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The uploader, and the previous "Keep" vote, thinks that uploading a screen shot of a zillion Google hits, proves that his multi-level marketing pyramid scheme passes WP:N when it does not. His efforts are misguided, he should see WP:GOOGLE#Notability. Reswobslc (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- WP:GOOGLE#Notability is inapplicable as it talks about a single term return (Madonna) on multiple term search (Madonna of the Rocks), the RFS returns the complete multiple term composition "Reverse Funnel System" on the "Reverse Funnel System" search. WH Coordinator (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- In any event, the AfD will likely be closed within the next 24 hours, and if the article is deleted this image will serve even less of a purpose than it does now and all this talk will be for nothing so I suggest we wait on the AfD result. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, the article is gone, this image serves absolutely no purpose in any way now. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete uploading non-free images just to "prove" a point in a meta discussion about an article is not acceptable per WP:NONFREE. Cite sources, don't copy them. In this case a simple link to the search result would serve the same purpose. --Sherool (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds (and less than 10% of the length of the track). This sample provides no reason to exceed the guideline. ★ Bigr Tex 02:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The WP:Music Samples guideline recommends that except in exceptional cases, music samples should be no longer than 30 seconds and less than 10% of the length of the track. "Business" is 4:04 long, so the sample should be less than 24.4 seconds to meet the guideline. This sample is 34 seconds long and provides no reason to exceed the guideline. ★ Bigr Tex 02:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The file should be deleted, because it does not function at all. MrDuDe33 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- [ notify] | contribs). - uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:Image_name.ext listed for deletion|]] (
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic: Wikipedia is not a memorial, Absent uploader MER-C 09:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS MEMORIAL....ALL PEOPLE IN WIKIPEDIA ARE DEAD......DO NOT DELETE MY IMAZH PLEASE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traboini (talk • contribs) 05:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader MER-C 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- HarukaHavok (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader MER-C 10:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Basel_Abu_Jamous (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader MER-C 10:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Bensellers (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader MER-C 10:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader MER-C 10:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright image
with no fair-use rationale andnot used to illustrate an article discussing this book Richard Pinch (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC) - Keep. This particular cover is interesting because it is of a very rare book, which shows the penname "Danielle Brown". This was a collaboration with the author-of-record's husband, bestselling author Dan Brown (I also think it's fairly amusing, considering the title). --Elonka 03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, as nominator. I see that this image now has a fair-use rationale, which is good, but I fear that it does not address the issue, hence this followup. The rationale now states The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.The image is used in a discussion of the author of the work, for purposes of commentary on the author and how it relates to this work. The discussion of the author would not be complete without referring to this work. The book is currently available in stock at Amazon.co.uk, which is hardly "very rare" (sales rank 841,906), and is sufficiently identified (for the purposes of the discussion of its author) by its bibliographic data considering that the article contains no critical commentary whatsoever on this book. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The image has had a Fair Use Rationale since February, and has not been changed.[1] If there are concerns that it should be better worded, by all means feel free to fix it. --Elonka 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Quite right, so it has, I withdraw that part of the nomination (perils of cut and paste, my mistake). However my comments above still stand. I think it impossible to "fix" the rationale since I believe that use of this sort of image for this sort of purpose is contrary to policy. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete This commercial image has not been used to accompany an article explaining the content of the book in any way at all. Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright image with no fair-use rationale and not used to illustrate an article discussing this book Richard Pinch (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yessenia0606 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader MER-C 11:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Dupe of Image:Artistic_Braiding_by_Yessenia.jpg, which is used in Cornrows 128.226.130.90 (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader MER-C 11:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Billy Hathorn (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Photo tagged as Multilicense, but I doubt this is a work of the uploader. Kmusgrave (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The photo is in the 1969 Louisiana Tech yearbook. The yearbook has no copyright.Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is no proof that the yearbook has no copyright. No link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, no tag with an OTRS ticket number has been added. Kmusgrave (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wait, has no copyright as in has no copyright notice as required by US law at the time of publishing? If you can't find an explicit notice, the entire book would be {{PD-US-no notice}}. ViperSnake151 12:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Captain_Awesome (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Not used, seems to have been uploaded only for a now deleted nonsense article. Sherool (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unused personal photo. Sherool (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- NickNbeezy (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- This is a homemade image presented as the cover for a commercially released single, which it clearly is not (single has not even been released yet). WP:HOAX. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete likely a copyright violation, very small res & the user have a history of uploading copyright violations. --Kanonkas : Talk 09:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Quixotic92 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Image for a soon to be deleted article. (and salted article) Undead Warrior (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- No longer used since assisiated article was deleted. Sherool (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Advocate70 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- 6313.gif - obsoleted by 1995 Expansion Draft.gif.2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 20:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I forgot to properly name the image per guidelines, and reloaded it with a proper name and gave valid fair use rationale on that image. This one is superfluous.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 20:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- ThorinMuglindir (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orpahned drawing, recently absent uploader, licensed with as GFDL-presumed Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Also Image:Ideal chain fixed reservoir.png which is a converted version of the nominated image, which itself is orpahned and tagged as GFDL-presumed.
- ThorinMuglindir (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- This is an orphaned image, recently absent uploader, replaced with Image:Ideal chain random walk.png and is licensed as GFDL-presumed Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn as uploader's license information was found in history.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 23:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic logo used only the user page of a user who has not contributed since Jan 2007. Nv8200p talk 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Copyrighted logo mistagged by uploader and only used on his user page. Nv8200p talk 00:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)