Conditional oppose. AfD was withdrawn, as notability was established. Request exact URL to source image or page with source image. --GunnarRene 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is indeed not currently used in an article. And it is clearly tagged GFDL. Where does it say that you then should delete it? I'm getting to HATE all these deletionist people. Please, spent time on adding content instead of contesting what needs no contesting. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I don't understand your objections. This image is identical to Image:Bphouse01.jpg in Wikimedia Commons, so why do we need both? You should also be aware that the description you provided for Image:Bphouse.jpg says it can be only used for non-commercial purposes, thus qualifying it for speedy deletion. If the same applies to Image:Bphouse01.jpg (which you also uploaded, by the look of things), then you should edit this image's description page and add a {{Noncommercial}} tag to the licensing information. -- Sakurambo桜ん坊 23:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File was uploaded half a year ago, with the then 'noncommercial' limitation. In subsequent email with the photographer, he kindly lifted the limitation and the GFDL tag was therefore truly valid. I simply forgot about the summary, which I now corrected. Following the photographers permission, I have uploaded a whole range of pictures by this photographer (with his permission), so that indeed this specific picture is orphaned at present. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 13:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia is not an image hosting service. Please find an article to link the image to or the image should be deleted. The image also needs the name of the photographer on the image description page and the text of the e-mail releasing the image under GFDL posted on the image talk page. -Nv8200ptalk 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the page? The photographer's name is listed. And I have read WP:TAG and several other, and wonder where it is that states that I have to put an email on that talk page. Exactly this arrogant, disinterested attitude without any positive contribution to Wikipedia is the reason why I so dislike you all. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I created this image, but it is now obsolete, as I replaced it with an improved version (which is currently used in the related article). So it can be deleted. Thanks, Crum375 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Helgrind1992 (notify | contribs). OR, UE: what the fracking hell it's supposed to be, I haven't a clue.—Calton | Talk 06:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulfores (notify | contribs). LQ: a badly out-of-focus cameraphone shot. Possibly soon to be OR, as the article displaying has been tagged with PROD.—Calton | Talk 06:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warning! Obscene picture! Not used in any articles. Is a liability on the wiki as a template used in today's featured article was vandalised with it. Yes, I know Wikipedia is not censored for minors but there's no use in having potentially vandalous images which do not contribute to the encyclopedia. (Note: there were multiple uploaders.)MER-C 13:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Akuvodapainting (notify | contribs). OR, UE. This image, along with five others listed below, was part of this promotional material added to the uploader's user page (already speedied), user talk page, and about a dozen articles on painting related subjects.—Dave6 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: I beg to differ, it states that this is a copyrighted publicity photograph which qualifies as fair-use because "a free image could not be created to replace it." I also added "No free-use images available as of yet; vehicle still under wraps." There are no publicly available photos of this vehicle, all that exists to wikipedians is this officially released teaser shot, at least until sometime in 2007. Enigma3542002 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
