Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27 June 29 >

June 28[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.

Image:Black Widow Syndrome.jpg[edit]

Image:Black Widow Syndrome.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by PianoKeys (notify | contribs).
Comment - the book is mentioned in the "Further Reading" section. PianoKeys 11:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The justification is at the image. In addition, we do not delete images here simply because someone does not like the article it is used at, the image is allowed at Wikipedia even if it is not currently used at an article. PianoKeys 10:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, we do delete images that are not currently used at an article. "Fair use" images that are not used in articles meet the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically I5; it's also criteria 7 at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). As for your fair use rationale, that is disuputed (failing criteria 8 at WP:FUC). Cover art is specifically covered at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images and states Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). The article isn't about the cover art, or even the book in question. The article doesn't mention the cover art, and there is no critical commentary regarding the cover art. I also believe any such commentary, even if it were hypothetically created, would be misplaced at that article. I hope this helps explain why there is concern over this image's use (and it has nothing to do with the subject matter of the article in question). Thanks.-Andrew c 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept but removed from all articles except the book article. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 3 July 2007 (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.


Image:Shamanakkanat.jpg[edit]

Image:Shamanakkanat.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Muhammed sonny mercan (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, LR, article was deleted Coredesat 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Imad_Halawa3.jpg[edit]

Image:Imad_Halawa3.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ohalawa (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, potential Copyright violation, article was deleted Coredesat 02:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add to that Image:Adjusted Imad Wiki.jpg. It's a duplicate, but the author is begging me not to tag it i1, so I haven't. In any case, delete, as article is gone, even though it's probably not a copyvio (looks to be WP:COI, though). The Evil Spartan 17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kristen_zaik_-_4.jpg[edit]

Image:Kristen_zaik_-_4.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Kriswxyz (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, potential Copyright violation (description says it is a publicity photo), article was deleted Coredesat 02:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rayquay-z2.jpg[edit]

Image:Rayquay-z2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Austin7895 (notify | contribs).

Image:Wwelogo.jpg[edit]

Image:Wwelogo.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Chad1m (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned,Non-free Use — Hornetman16 03:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's orphaned because the nominator uploaded the exact same picture (except as a PNG rather than JPG) and replaced this pic with his. TJ Spyke 23:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see a difference?

if you don't from here click on them both and you will... --Hornetman16 05:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Channon_Christian_accused_murderers2.jpg[edit]

Image:Channon_Christian_accused_murderers2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Chesspieceface (notify | contribs).
  • weak fair use claim because the subjects are still alive and a free alternative is not out of the question. These images do not convey anything not already provided by text. Bleh999 04:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As for the first claim, suspects are in police custody and are not available for photographs. It is unlikely they will be available to the public again. As for the second claim, I think images of the suspects convey a good deal of information that text alone can not convey. Otherwise, why have pictures of anyone? – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but its still not impossible that a free alternative exists Bleh999 04:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you should still not assume they will be convicted, hence further weakening the fair use claim, besides they are non notable, if they were notable why no biography on them on wikipedia? Bleh999 06:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP - Just until a free-use image comes availableHornetman16 04:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP - Photograph is crucial to the understanding of the controversy surrounding the lack of media coverage in the reports, especially since PC editors keep removing any mention of the race of the perps. Chesspieceface 05:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually a point against the validity of the fair use rationale, if this is a non notable news story, why do we need a photograph of each of the suspects? No one has even been convicted yet, there is no biography or articles on any of the suspects on wikipedia - they are non notable Bleh999 06:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But at least you admit the only reason to keep is for racial identification, I do not believe that is a valid fair use rational regardless, if you have content disputes, solve them in other ways, rather than needing copyrighted images. Bleh999 06:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a non-notable news story, as you assert, then nominate it for deletion -- don't try and do an end run by consuming everyone's time and energy arguing over whether the pictures should be deleted. --Haemo 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make personal attacks, no one asked you to comment here, so any time wasted of yours is of your own choice. Besides, images are judged on their own merits, it doesn't mean because an image is deleted, the article should be. Bleh999 11:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not replaceable, and substantially important to the issue of race in the article. As I argued on the other image nomination, the pictures of the victims, and the suspects played a role in the controversy surrounding the crime. Essentially to any cogent understanding of the issues surrounding this case. Furthermore, when, in any imaginable universe, are you going to get four suspected murderers to all pose together. The concept of "replaceable fair use" is that a duplicate image, or very similar image, could reasonably be produced. That isn't going to happen -- especially if they're found guilty. --Haemo 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where in US fair use laws does it state racial identification is a valid fair use criteria? It seems your reasons for keeping are increasingly POV, you can write in the article they are black, the article is not (at the moment at least) an essay on race and crime, in fact no one has claimed it was a race hate crime, so your main reason for keeping substantially important to the issue of race in the article is completely invalid. Bleh999 11:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would fair use need to assert that? In this case, the only reason these murders are notable is because of the controversy which surrounds them -- a controversy based on race. It doesn't have to be a hate crime -- merely the fact that the images of the victims/suspects have played a role in the controversy is critical to their inclusion. --Haemo 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misinformed, the article in its current state does not mention race at all, the only mention of race is the title of one of the refs City leaders say race not an element in Christian, Newsom murders Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom_murder, so why is it a controversy based on race as you assert, the article in its current state does not make that claim. Maybe you should read it before you coment... Bleh999 09:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the source and copyright holder are verified per WP:NFCC#10a. Right now I'm somewhat skeptical the uploader got them directly from the police department (though it's possible). What it appears is that the image was merged together from the mugshots in the same online Court TV article the victims' picture was sourced to (where they are clearly labelled as mugshots, but could be interpreted as falling under the same copyright as the victim picture). But if they're verified per WP:NFCC#10a, I think it's valid fair use. Videmus Omnia 01:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, the uploader did not provide a source for the image(s), if he took it from some website he has to credit it. There is a big difference between valid fair use and required fair use, I'm not convinced that these images are required, especially if the victims photos get deleted. Bleh999 11:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason as the image of the victims -- violation of NFCC #8. We don't need to see a picture of the suspects to understand that they're black. Additionally the contrast of "smiling white couple" against "thug-looking black people" is a subtle racial bias. howcheng {chat} 21:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:210px-IT-Army-OF10.png[edit]

Image:210px-IT-Army-OF10.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Horemsa (notify | contribs).
  • UE (unencyclopedic) - this is a joke image. This rank does not exist and the image is a combination of two other rank symbols. Someone keeps trying to push this wrong information into the article Italian Army Ranks. I'm in favor of speedy deletion. --noclador 04:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:200px-IT-Army-OF10.png[edit]

Image:200px-IT-Army-OF10.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Horemsa (notify | contribs).
  • UE (unencyclopedic) - this is - as the above mentioned image - a joke image. This rank does not exist and the image is a combination of two other rank symbols. Someone keeps trying to push this wrong information into the article Italian Army Ranks. I'm in favor of speedy deletion. --noclador 04:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:

Image:Nog.jpg[edit]

Image:Nog.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Noelgreen (notify | contribs).
  • no source to verify the claim that this is source material (Please, we have debated this kind of situation a thousand times rencently, let's avoid repeating ourselves. New facts are welcome. Old arguments, rants, comments about the nominator and unfruitful sarcasm are not. As a good reminder, let's not feed the trolls). Abu badali (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The subject of the image sort of looks like a troll. Isn't this a drawing or painting? It doesn't look like a photograph to me. There could be multiple copyright issues with this one. A screenshot would be much better. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with an attributed screenshot, fair use rationale for Nog added, old images deleted. Cheers, WilyD 14:14, 28 June 2007 (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.

Image:TheDoctor.jpg[edit]

Image:TheDoctor.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by GusF (notify | contribs).
  • No evidence this was released as promotional material. "Source info" is a link to a fansite. Abu badali (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although obviously a promo image, the link is to the wrong fansite, which doesn't have it anyways. Nonetheless, Memory-Alpha.org does have lots of sourced fair-use applicable images that could replace this. I'll look into it. WilyD 13:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced it with a sourced screenshot and added a fair use rationale for the article Doctor (Star Trek). I also boldy went ahead and deleted the old ones, so it seems there's nothing left to discuss. WilyD 13:57, 28 June 2007 (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:

Image:Travis_Mayweather.JPG[edit]

Image:Travis_Mayweather.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Rockitttt (notify | contribs).
  • Not enough source info to backup the claim that this is promotional material. "Source" info is a Wikipedia mirror. Abu badali (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the other Star Trek images, I've replaced this with a screen shot that probably better captures the character anyhow. I've also added a rationale and deleted the old image. Consider the issue solved. WilyD 15:06, 28 June 2007 (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.

Image:Legacy2.jpg[edit]

Image:Legacy2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Rockitttt (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, probably unencyclopedic Bleh999 06:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Awegt.jpg[edit]

Image:Awegt.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Schandoff (notify | contribs).
  • Users only contribution, [[[WP:NOT#MYSPACE]], unencyclopedic The Sunshine Man 09:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Axlken.gif[edit]

Image:Axlken.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by WindKun (notify | contribs).

Image:Bhatt_is_a_butt.jpg[edit]

Image:Bhatt_is_a_butt.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jordansbighead (notify | contribs).

Image:Bracwardlaw.jpg[edit]

Image:Bracwardlaw.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Smackywentz (notify | contribs).
  • Unencycloepdic, one out of two of uploaders contributions, orphaned The Sunshine Man 09:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bubbles1_copy.JPG[edit]

Image:Bubbles1_copy.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Flashskin (notify | contribs).

Image:CabScan0002.jpg[edit]

Image:CabScan0002.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Everylarge (notify | contribs).

Image:Bradtcordeiro.jpg[edit]

Image:Bradtcordeiro.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Bradtcordeiro (notify | contribs).

Image:Ajasreggae.jpg[edit]

Image:Ajasreggae.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Tachsa (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopedic, inactive uploader, insufficent source information The Sunshine Man 09:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amar_Album.jpg[edit]

Image:Amar_Album.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by AmanParhar (notify | contribs).
  • Possibly unfree album cover, orphaned, inactive uploader The Sunshine Man 09:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bday.JPG[edit]

Image:Bday.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hdavuluri (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, unencyclopedic, seems to be just a love poem despite the source information The Sunshine Man 09:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kgriffin.jpg[edit]

Image:Kgriffin.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Zorkmid (notify | contribs).

Image:Bharati_vidyapeeth_insitute_of_technology(uploaded_by_GeeNeeYes_Pramod).jpg[edit]

Image:Bharati_vidyapeeth_insitute_of_technology(uploaded_by_GeeNeeYes_Pramod).jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by GeeNeeYes (notify | contribs).
  • Low quality, orphaned, unencyclopedic, inactive uploader The Sunshine Man 09:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kwan_Ng.JPG[edit]

Image:Kwan_Ng.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Itharmil (notify | contribs).

Image:K.O.P..jpg[edit]

Image:K.O.P..jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by ErickOtchere (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, unencyclopedic, taken from MySpace, inactive uploader The Sunshine Man 09:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Me_age_13.jpg[edit]

Image:Me_age_13.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Cavalierboy 28 (notify | contribs).

Image:Me_2.jpg[edit]

Image:Me_2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Matte496 (notify | contribs).
  • One of users only contribs, unencyclopedic, extremely low quality, orphaned The Sunshine Man 10:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Me_021.jpg[edit]

Image:Me_021.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Def mute (notify | contribs).

Image:Me_age_26.JPG[edit]

Image:Me_age_26.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Cavalierboy 28 (notify | contribs).

Image:Me_Curvy_Thumb.jpg[edit]

Image:Me_Curvy_Thumb.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Kempydaniels (notify | contribs).

Image:Lost_Title_Card.gif[edit]

Image:Lost_Title_Card.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by SilvaStorm (notify | contribs).
  • The article on Lost (TV series) already contains one non-free still from the title of the TV series. This animation duplicates it, it is a larger portion than is necessary to illustrate the series in question, and does not improve the understanding of the topic in a way that can't be expressed in words. Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Videmus Omnia 11:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per nominator, fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete For the reasons I gave at the Wikipedia:Fair use review#27 June 2007. nadav (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong keep: What the hell are you on about?! I uploaded that gif long before someone put up the still image, and it served its purpose in the 'Episode format' section. I think a much better picture could be put in place of the still frame at the top, as it does nothing at all to illustrate the show. -- SilvaStorm

Delete Unnecessary fair-use animation. While it does to some degree illustrate the title graphic, some 10 words in the section serve the exact same purpose (well, OK, I didn't understand that it spins slightly, but is that really significant?). It's just not particularly important for the understanding of the article in general (WP:NFCC#8). It's just described in the text, with no real comment or analysis, so could probably also be covered by unacceptable use example no. 15. --Pekaje 12:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NFSCarbonRace.jpg[edit]

Image:NFSCarbonRace.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gamer112 (notify | contribs).
  • orphan Multiple unuseable unfree fairuse images from the Need for Speed video game series; some with mistagged license tags. Articles trimmed of unneeded images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NFSCarbonRaceWars.jpg[edit]

Image:NFSCarbonRaceWars.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gamer112 (notify | contribs).
  • orphan Multiple unuseable unfree fairuse images from the Need for Speed video game series; some with mistagged license tags. Articles trimmed of unneeded images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NFSCarbonPolePosition.jpg[edit]

Image:NFSCarbonPolePosition.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gamer112 (notify | contribs).
  • orphan Multiple unuseable unfree fairuse images from the Need for Speed video game series; some with mistagged license tags. Articles trimmed of unneeded images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NFSMWPolicePursuit.jpg[edit]

Image:NFSMWPolicePursuit.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gamer112 (notify | contribs).
  • orphan Multiple unuseable unfree fairuse images from the Need for Speed video game series; some with mistagged license tags. Articles trimmed of unneeded images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NFSMWDodgeViperinCity.jpg[edit]

Image:NFSMWDodgeViperinCity.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gamer112 (notify | contribs).
  • orphan Multiple unuseable unfree fairuse images from the Need for Speed video game series; some with mistagged license tags. Articles trimmed of unneeded images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NFSMWmurcielago.jpg[edit]

Image:NFSMWmurcielago.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gamer112 (notify | contribs).
  • orphan Multiple unuseable unfree fairuse images from the Need for Speed video game series; some with mistagged license tags. Articles trimmed of unneeded images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NFSMWDodgeViper.jpg[edit]

Image:NFSMWDodgeViper.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gamer112 (notify | contribs).
  • orphan Multiple unuseable unfree fairuse images from the Need for Speed video game series; some with mistagged license tags. Articles trimmed of unneeded images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nfsc_6.JPG[edit]

Image:Nfsc_6.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Short stop (notify | contribs).
  • orphan Multiple unuseable unfree fairuse images from the Need for Speed video game series; some with mistagged license tags. Articles trimmed of unneeded images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:My pc.PNG[edit]

Image:My pc.PNG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by AnaCosta CTT (notify | contribs).

Image:320x240.jpeg[edit]

Image:320x240.jpeg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Donar (notify | contribs).

Image:Black logo.gif[edit]

Image:Black logo.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by AnaCosta CTT (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned image, only used in an article about a non-notable website Cracktugateam (itself speedily deleted). No other possible use for this. ~Matticus TC 14:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Middlesbrough_crest_updated.jpg[edit]

Image:Middlesbrough_crest_updated.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Simmo676 (notify | contribs).
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.

Image:HallThruster 1.png[edit]

Image:HallThruster 1.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Keenan Pepper (notify | contribs).

Kept as an important part of the history of the SVG file. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 3 July 2007 (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.


Image:Devils 1982 1983 team photo.jpg[edit]

Image:Devils 1982 1983 team photo.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Cholmes75 (notify | contribs).
  • Primary reason: the image does not significantly contribute to the readers' understanding of the topic of New Jersey Devils, it merely decorates the article, fails WP:NFCC #8. Secondary reason: the image was recently orphaned, fails WP:NFCC #7. I first expressed my concerns about the fair use rationale on June 26, 2007, but the {{dfu}} tag was removed after the fair use rationale was changed. I described my concerns as: "An ordinary group portrait does not display a historic event, and therefore I believe the fair use rationale is not explaining why this non-free image qualifies as fair use in New Jersey Devils." — Ilse@ 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Image now on 1982-83 New Jersey Devils season (currently undergoing creation & expansion); fair use rationale as follows:

  • Low resolution
  • Picture is of historic nature: first ever New Jersey Devils team, which is clearly significant moment in the history of the franchise
  • Is only being used on this page... I can understand lack of justification for the main NJ Devils page to a certain extent (although I think fair use paranoia runs rampant on this site and hurts us more than it helps us)

The point is that this image shouldn't be deleted; it's got good fair use rationale now and isn't orphaned. Anthony Hit me up... 12:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per Anthony. BsroiaadnTalk 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can 800x654 really be considered low resolution? I'd say somewhere around half to two-thirds of that size. Current resolution is not unacceptable for wallpapers, should someone really want that. --Pekaje 21:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - I've just halfed the size of the image. BsroiaadnTalk 22:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Better. Of course, it might make sense now to crop out the caption (which is also suggested by the image use policy), and copy the text into the image description page. This also makes translation easier, should it ever be needed. What do you think? --Pekaje 04:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd hardly call this a "historic" photo. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is historic. This image does not particularly help the reader understand the article any better, thus making it a violation of NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Historic" is relative to the subject. In this particular instance, the 1982-83 Devils team was the first ever to play in New Jersey, signifying the rebirth of the franchise. Considering the move to NJ was chosen as one of the top 25 moments of the team's last 25 years on their website, I find it hard to say the first team in NJ is not historic to Devils fans. Of course it's not "historic" like Iwo Jima, that's beyond apples & oranges, that's like apples and pencils. Anthony Hit me up... 10:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph is taken in the past, but the photograph is not really a historic photograph, on this point I agree with Howcheng. - Ilse@ 09:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:

Image:BuriedAlive.jpg[edit]

Image:BuriedAlive.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johnnyboyca (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader appears to be abscent. Image purports to be of the Nanking Massacre, yet no real evidence has been supplied either by users or on source links as to this fact. Equally originally copyright was claimed to have expired, but after requested detailed proof for this, tag was changed to fair use. There is still no information on copyright status. Picture is of low quality and it is difficult to ascertain whether this was part of the events at Nanking, or took place somewhere else. Just because a source may claim it is from Nanking is hardly conclusive, as websites tend to copy each other without researching any facts themselves. — John Smith's 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Image qualifies under fair use as no new photo may be produced for the Nanking Massacre. Source provided for the image claims that it is of the Nanking Massacre. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is any "new photo" available is irrelevant. The issue is that no firm copyright information has been provided and that the content of the picture is unclear and not directly substantiated by any sources mentioned. John Smith's 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say they claim copyright on the picture? It says they claim copyright over the content of the website. We cannot know that they legally have copyright of the picture. Who took the picture? When was it taken? Where was it taken? How was copyright released to them, etc? John Smith's 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's meaningless to discuss this picture from the view point of the copyright law. Because copyright law is a law for the economic logic. --Hare-Yukai 09:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is the same problem we have with photographs of the holocaust, the photographer is often unknown for good reasons, I will try and find out more about these images, but in any case they are PD-China PD-japan or even PD anonymous since 70 years have passed in most cases. Bleh999
That may be the case, but we need better sourcing information. Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg goes to show that just because a random website says it's from Nanjing doesn't mean it really is. John Smith's 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a good example because they were still victims of a Japanese attack, such images provide context to the viewers even if they are a related but not identical situation, and if you check the history of that image, someone had already corrected the caption to say it was from a 1941 air attack, but not in nanjing, so it wasn't misleading anyone. Anyway according to the Berne convention we can safely assume any image made available to the public older than 70 years ago can be assumed public domain, if you find any information on the images that contradicts their locale, you can change the caption, but they shouldn't be deleted because you think anonymous works aren't allowed here (they most certainly are, see how many old images lack the name of a photographer). Bleh999 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. The image is being used in Nanking Massacre. If it's not an image of the event, it shouldn't belong there. If we have no idea where it's really from, then it's of no encyclopedic use. howcheng {chat} 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not used in the article anymore but my point was that the caption was already corrected on June 7 by Hare-Yukai see [1] it is unfair for John smith to claim because one image was used in the article and was originally tagged incorrectly, all should be deleted, this deletion request only targeting the Nanjing massacre article seems to be a case of revanchism, that's like some images showing poles or jews being shot during WW2, if it was found on some dead German soldier, or in some abandoned house after the war, we will never know the author of a certain photograph, but that should not preclude its use here. Bleh999 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't start accusing anyone of anything, Bleh. I don't take kindly to allegations of anything like "revanchism". Do you even know what it means? I'm not Japanese if you had bothered to look at my profile.
There are lots of problems with the use of photographs in wikipedia. Unfortunately I don't have time going round finding them all. I did not say that because one image was incorrectly used it meant all of the others are. I said it was a good example of why one must be cautious and the fact a website says "Nanking massacre" does not mean it is automatically true. John Smith's 11:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is the conclusive evidence of the fabrication of the Nanjing Massacre. So, it should be kept and be shown for the whole world.--Hare-Yukai 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Image cannot be traced to a reliable source. One of the sources is UCSB, which as an academic institution could be considered reliable, but it's really just a student paper. In terms of the authenticity of the image, for controversial issues like the Nanking Massacre, it's important that we know we're actually depicting what we purport to. As an aside, the UCSB source has a slightly different version that doesn't look it was faked. howcheng {chat} 20:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep. -161.53.58.135 12:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Image kept. I believe image is public domain and adequate sources are now provided to link image to the article. - Nv8200p talk 12:49, 14 July 2007 (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:

Image:JapaneseStormNanjing.jpg[edit]

Image:JapaneseStormNanjing.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johnnyboyca (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader appears to be abscent. Image purports to be of the Nanking Massacre, yet no real evidence has been supplied either by users or on source links as to this fact. Equally originally copyright was claimed to have expired, but after requested detailed proof for this, tag was changed to fair use. There is still no information on copyright status. — John Smith's 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Image qualifies under fair use as no new photo may be produced for the Nanking Massacre. Source provided for the image claims that it is of the Nanking Massacre. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is any "new photo" available is irrelevant. The issue is that no firm copyright information has been provided and that the content of the picture is unclear and not directly substantiated by any sources mentioned. John Smith's 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say they claim copyright on the picture? It says they claim copyright over the content of the website. We cannot know that they legally have copyright of the picture. Who took the picture? When was it taken? Where was it taken? How was copyright released to them, etc? John Smith's 19:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is the same problem we have with photographs of the holocaust, the photographer is often unknown for good reasons, I will try and find out more about these images, but in any case they are PD-China PD-japan or even PD anonymous since 70 years have passed in most cases. Bleh999
That may be the case, but we need better sourcing information. Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg goes to show that just because a random website says it's from Nanjing doesn't mean it really is. John Smith's 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a good example because they were still victims of a Japanese attack, such images provide context to the viewers even if they are a related but not identical situation, and if you check the history of that image, someone had already corrected the caption to say it was from a 1941 air attack, but not in nanjing, so it wasn't misleading anyone. Anyway according to the Berne convention we can safely assume any image made available to the public older than 70 years ago can be assumed public domain, if you find any information on the images that contradicts their locale, you can change the caption, but they shouldn't be deleted because you think anonymous works aren't allowed here (they most certainly are, see how many old images lack the name of a photographer). Bleh999 23:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, just because a picture is from the war does not mean it should be used of the Nanking massacre. One has to be very specific about these things. A photograph only proves what is the visual subject content (and even then that can be manipulated).
What do you mean it has been corrected to say it was from an air-raid?
If we don't know specifically when it was published (not created) we can't know the Berne convention applies. The issue of it being anonymous is not relevant, more that we don't have publication details to verify the content. John Smith's 10:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Image cannot be verified against a reliable source. When dealing with controversial subjects, it's of the utmost importance to make sure that the article and images therein actually depict what they purport to. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source given does not give any information where the photograph is from or its copyright status (although copyright is asserted for the page which could include the images). Nor is it said that this is a photograph of troops entering Nanking, it just says "Japanese Troops Invade China". In the absence of a reliable source, clear copyright verification or even clear information of what the photograph shows, it should be deleted. DrKiernan 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IwaneRidesIn.jpg[edit]

Image:IwaneRidesIn.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johnnyboyca (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader appears to be abscent. Image purports to be of the Nanking Massacre, yet no real evidence has been supplied either by users or on source links as to this fact. Equally originally copyright was claimed to have expired, but after requested detailed proof for this, tag was changed to fair use. There is still no information on copyright status. — John Smith's 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Image qualifies under fair use as no new photo may be produced for the Nanking Massacre. Source provided for the image claims that it is of the Nanking Massacre. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is any "new photo" available is irrelevant. The issue is that no firm copyright information has been provided and that the content of the picture is unclear and not directly substantiated by any sources mentioned. John Smith's 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say they claim copyright on the picture? It says they claim copyright over the content of the website. We cannot know that they legally have copyright of the picture. Who took the picture? When was it taken? Where was it taken? How was copyright released to them, etc? John Smith's 19:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is the same problem we have with photographs of the holocaust, the photographer is often unknown for good reasons, I will try and find out more about these images, but in any case they are PD-China PD-japan or even PD anonymous since 70 years have passed in most cases. Bleh999
That may be the case, but we need better sourcing information. Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg goes to show that just because a random website says it's from Nanjing doesn't mean it really is. John Smith's 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a good example because they were still victims of a Japanese attack, such images provide context to the viewers even if they are a related but not identical situation, and if you check the history of that image, someone had already corrected the caption to say it was from a 1941 air attack, but not in nanjing, so it wasn't misleading anyone. Anyway according to the Berne convention we can safely assume any image made available to the public older than 70 years ago can be assumed public domain, if you find any information on the images that contradicts their locale, you can change the caption, but they shouldn't be deleted because you think anonymous works aren't allowed here (they most certainly are, see how many old images lack the name of a photographer). Bleh999 23:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, just because a picture is from the war does not mean it should be used of the Nanking massacre. One has to be very specific about these things. A photograph only proves what is the visual subject content (and even then that can be manipulated).
What do you mean it has been corrected to say it was from an air-raid?
If we don't know specifically when it was published (not created) we can't know the Berne convention applies. The issue of it being anonymous is not relevant, more that we don't have publication details to verify the content. John Smith's 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Image cannot be verified against a reliable source. When dealing with controversial subjects, it's of the utmost importance to make sure that the article and images therein actually depict what they purport to. howcheng {chat} 21:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fair use rationale is inadequate, you need to defend the use of this particular image in the article, by referring to the part of the article where you describe the historical event depicted, i.e. the review of Japanese troops in Nanking by Iwane. The pd tags are not believable in the absence of proof that the photograph has been published previously or that the photographer did die over 50 years ago. DrKiernan 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nanjingmassacreheads.jpg[edit]

Image:Nanjingmassacreheads.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johnnyboyca (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader appears to be abscent. Image purports to be of the Nanking Massacre, yet no real evidence has been supplied either by users or on source links as to this fact. Equally originally copyright was claimed to have expired, but after requested detailed proof for this, tag was changed to fair use. There is still no information on copyright status. Picture is of low quality and it is difficult to ascertain whether this was part of the events at Nanking, or took place somewhere else. Just because a source may claim it is from Nanking is hardly conclusive, as websites tend to copy each other without researching any facts themselves. — John Smith's 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Image qualifies under fair use as no new photo may be produced for the Nanking Massacre. Source provided for the image claims that it is of the Nanking Massacre. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is any "new photo" available is irrelevant. The issue is that no firm copyright information has been provided and that the content of the picture is unclear and not directly substantiated by any sources mentioned. John Smith's 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is the same problem we have with photographs of the holocaust, the photographer is often unknown for good reasons, I will try and find out more about these images, but in any case they are PD-China PD-japan or even PD anonymous since 70 years have passed in most cases. Bleh999
That may be the case, but we need better sourcing information. Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg goes to show that just because a random website says it's from Nanjing doesn't mean it really is. John Smith's 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a good example because they were still victims of a Japanese attack, such images provide context to the viewers even if they are a related but not identical situation, and if you check the history of that image, someone had already corrected the caption to say it was from a 1941 air attack, but not in nanjing, so it wasn't misleading anyone. Anyway according to the Berne convention we can safely assume any image made available to the public older than 70 years ago can be assumed public domain, if you find any information on the images that contradicts their locale, you can change the caption, but they shouldn't be deleted because you think anonymous works aren't allowed here (they most certainly are, see how many old images lack the name of a photographer). Bleh999 23:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, just because a picture is from the war does not mean it should be used of the Nanking massacre. One has to be very specific about these things. A photograph only proves what is the visual subject content (and even then that can be manipulated).
What do you mean it has been corrected to say it was from an air-raid?
If we don't know specifically when it was published (not created) we can't know the Berne convention applies. The issue of it being anonymous is not relevant, more that we don't have publication details to verify the content. John Smith's 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The point of the picture was to show the amount of people who got beheaded, and hence the severity of the Japanese mass murders. Even if this picture was not taken in Nanjing, it was widely believed that similar events did happen in Nanjing. Perhaps until further proofs are found, a note should be added to say that the picture might not have been taken in Nanjing, but similar events did happen there.
As I have tirelessly said, you can't use this picture as evidence of something that happened at Nanjing if it didn't happen there! John Smith's 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Image cannot be verified against a reliable source. When dealing with controversial subjects, it's of the utmost importance to make sure that the article and images therein actually depict what they purport to. howcheng {chat} 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way, can we add this to the bad image list? It's pretty disturbing displayed inline even if its historical value is significant. I know the bad image list is typically used only for nudity but certainly a pile of disembodied heads is more disturbing than a macro shot of a vulva. 170.140.210.108 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can not read the source page (which is Chinese) and so cannot assess this image fully. However, I think a fair-use rationale along the lines of "provides context of events occuring at the time" may find greater favour than claiming something for the image that cannot currently be proven. DrKiernan 14:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After much commentary and exhaustive investigation, I deem these images to be in the public domain as they were obviously taken on de facto Japanese territory more than 50 years ago. Since they are free images, they do not have to undergo the strenuous image criteria to which non-free images must adhere. I do not know whether these photographs show what they purport to show or not, but that is (thankfully) not a task I must determine in judging the suitability of these images. This judgment does not say whether the images are accurate, or whether they should be used in any given article. (That's a decision that should be made on article talk pages or an RFC.) But I am confident that these images are in the public domain, and as they are not orphans, I find no reason to delete. Kept. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:21, 16 July 2007 (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.

Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg[edit]

Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johnnyboyca (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader appears to be abscent. Image purports to be of the Nanking Massacre, yet no real evidence has been supplied either by users or on source links as to this fact. Equally originally copyright was claimed to have expired, but after requested detailed proof for this, tag was changed to fair use. There is still no information on copyright status. Picture is of low quality and it is difficult to ascertain whether this was part of the events at Nanking, or took place somewhere else. Just because a source may claim it is from Nanking is hardly conclusive, as websites tend to copy each other without researching any facts themselves. — John Smith's 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Image qualifies under fair use as no new photo may be produced for the Nanking Massacre. Source provided for the image claims that it is of the Nanking Massacre. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is any "new photo" available is irrelevant. The issue is that no firm copyright information has been provided and that the content of the picture is unclear and not directly substantiated by any sources mentioned. John Smith's 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is the same problem we have with photographs of the holocaust, the photographer is often unknown for good reasons, I will try and find out more about these images, but in any case they are PD-China PD-japan or even PD anonymous since 70 years have passed in most cases. Bleh999 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one is a little different because it can be sourced to a reliable source (the U.S. National Archives). However, NARA says it's not the Nanjing Massacre, but from Chungking instead (June 5, 1941, as opposed to late 1937/early 1938 when the massacre occurred). So this should be deleted and re-uploaded under a different name and put in a different article. howcheng {chat} 21:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If not deleted, should be renamed IMO. John Smith's 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one that corrected the source on that image, only the image name is misleading, however if it is appropriately captioned, it is not a big deal, however if you want to delete it, we can re upload a higher res version from the NARA website. Bleh999 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technical issues prevent us from renaming an image; to accomplish this goal, the image needs to be deleted and reuploaded. howcheng {chat} 21:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it certainly needs to be deleted - the current title is far too misleading. John Smith's 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the photographer is still 'unknown' even if I changed the caption. It still an anonymous work. Bleh999 23:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:

Image:David Gill.jpg[edit]

Image:David Gill.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jefrank (notify | contribs).
  • Orphan, no description to indicate what is depicted therefore limited encyclopedic value. — Madmedea 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - orphaned, no evidence of copyright release. ~ BigrTex 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image on commons. howcheng {chat} 20:20 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

Image:US Army OF11.gif[edit]

Image:US Army OF11.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Yomar (notify | contribs).
  • UE (unencyclopedic) - this is a fake image. This rank is not in use since 1919! and there has never been made an insignia, so the image is just one users imaginative creation of "One of conjectural Design for General of the Armies" as he write shimself. I'm in favour of speedy deletion, as the user is trying to push this completly fabricated image into articles about the US Army Ranks and Chinese Army Ranks articles. noclador 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied under CSD G4. Next time you see this image again, just tag it with {{db-repost}}. Uploader has been warned to refrain from repeatedly uploading the image. howcheng {chat} 21:26, 28 June 2007 (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.


Image:BladeRunner Esper Edition CD 2.jpg[edit]

Image:BladeRunner Esper Edition CD 2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by RoyBoy (notify | contribs).
  • No fair use rationale, fails WP:NFCC #10. I first notified the uploader about the rationale on June 15, 2007. — Ilse@ 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BandBP.JPG[edit]

Image:BandBP.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Crr6097 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic - uploaded for Twelve-Twenty Four (speedied under A7) BigrTex 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no use for this image, it was only in an article that was speedy deleted because it was of a non-notable band. --Leon Sword 03:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:11111.jpg[edit]

Image:11111.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Taylor21 (notify | contribs).
  • this is clearly a false license Bleh999 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete orphaned, unencyclopedic. ~ BigrTex 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Image:Lesbians_Folsom_Fair_2004.jpg[edit]

Image:Lesbians_Folsom_Fair_2004.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Pretzelpaws (notify | contribs).
  • absent uploader, not used in any articles, unencyclopedic Bleh999 20:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Commons Copyright seems reasonable, could be used in Folsom Street Fair. Might have other uses outside the street fair article. ~ BigrTex 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Commons Besides, uploader is not absent at all. I will give him a warning about this nomination. Garion96 (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to Commons - Not sure it would add very much to the street fair article really, but it is linked to user page. It definatly should not be deleted.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Commons I originally uploaded the picture to illustrate the Lesbian article - however both of the pictures I added to the article were soon removed though the other one has subsequently been replaced. I believe the women in the picture to be representative of younger members of the "leather dyke" subculture and if this subculture is covered in a future article or perhaps in a section within the Lesbian or Leather subculture articles, the picture may again be useful. Pretzelpaws 04:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inappropriate comment: Mmmmmmmmmm. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept pending Commons move. howcheng {chat} 20:23, 3 July 2007 (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.


Image:Nachotrace.jpg[edit]

Image:Nachotrace.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Creator22 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigrTex 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fosters.jpg[edit]

Image:Fosters.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Creator22 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned scan of newspaper front page, questionable {{GFDL-self}} license based on likely copyright of incorporated picture BigrTex 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fosters_lettering.jpg[edit]

Image:Fosters_lettering.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Creator22 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned scan of newspaper name, unclear if {{GFDL-self}} applies BigrTex 21:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PWA_logo.jpg[edit]

Image:PWA_logo.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Craigwilhelm (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned wrestling logo, Absent uploader, questionable {{PD-self}} license BigrTex 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jamie_2.jpg[edit]

Image:Jamie_2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Candy321 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader (only contribution), no context to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 22:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Image:Sos&s_logo.jpg[edit]

Image:Sos&s_logo.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Coz 11 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, unclear licensing BigrTex 22:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that it is clearly stated on the image page that the logo is used with the permission of the Save Our Sonics and Storm group. If there is ANY questions regarding that permission you are free to contact them at info at saveoursonics.org --Coz 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could contact them, but it is generally better to attach permission to the discussion page or file it with WP:OTRS. But since it isn't being used anywhere, and I couldn't find anywhere that it would be used, I don't think it makes sense for us to continue to host it. ~ BigrTex 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. --Ben 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no longer orphaned: [2]. Used by active contributor. The Evil Spartan 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. howcheng {chat} 20:25, 3 July 2007 (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.


Image:Huey_Banner.JPG[edit]

Image:Huey_Banner.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arcticmonkeys33 (notify | contribs).
  • Absent uploader, likely Copyright violation BigrTex 22:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Caesarbanner.JPG[edit]

Image:Caesarbanner.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arcticmonkeys33 (notify | contribs).
  • Absent uploader, likely Copyright violation BigrTex 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rileybanner.JPG[edit]

Image:Rileybanner.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arcticmonkeys33 (notify | contribs).
  • Absent uploader, likely Copyright violation BigrTex 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chriscomic13.JPG[edit]

Image:Chriscomic13.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arcticmonkeys33 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic BigrTex 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chriscomic6.JPG[edit]

Image:Chriscomic6.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arcticmonkeys33 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic BigrTex 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chriscomic7.JPG[edit]

Image:Chriscomic7.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arcticmonkeys33 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic BigrTex 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chriscomic15.JPG[edit]

Image:Chriscomic15.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arcticmonkeys33 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic BigrTex 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:APsaA_sm-542.jpg[edit]

Image:APsaA_sm-542.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Apsawiki (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned logo, Absent uploader BigrTex 22:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Johannes_Cori_Ander.jpg[edit]

Image:Johannes_Cori_Ander.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Lillnisse (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, no context to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stillion.jpg[edit]

Image:Stillion.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Docjames (notify | contribs).

Image:Picture_126.jpg[edit]

Image:Picture_126.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mcmikex (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned personal photo, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic - apparently uploaded for Michael C. Phelan (speedied as nn autobio) BigrTex 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wiki_Mike.jpg[edit]

Image:Wiki_Mike.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mcmikex (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned personal photo, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic - apparently uploaded for Michael C. Phelan (speedied as nn autobio) BigrTex 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Image:Candy_Ravers.jpg[edit]

Image:Candy_Ravers.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Alkivar (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Originally added to Rave to replace copyvio... was replaced in Candy raver by copyvio... now back in article. So its not orphaned.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kept - image is no longer orphaned. Note that this is a non-administrator close. The Evil Spartan 17:21, 3 July 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_June_28&oldid=1146819511"