Reason: Per
WP:NFCC#8. Logo is not being used to identify the club as stated in the rationale, and while the logo is mentioned in the text, there's no actual discussion of the art.
Reason: WP:NFCC#8: Used as a part of a gallery, an architect's rendering of a stadium that is now complete. While the design evolution is mentioned in the article body, it's unclear that the image is essential to understanding the topic, especially since it's not uncommon for stadiums to go through design changes.
Reason: WP:NFCC#8: Used as a part of a gallery, an architect's rendering of a stadium that is now complete. While the design evolution is mentioned in the article body, it's unclear that the image is essential to understanding the topic, especially since it's not uncommon for stadiums to go through design changes.
Reason: WP:NFCC#8: Used as a part of a gallery, an architect's rendering of a stadium that is now complete. While the design evolution is mentioned in the article body, it's unclear that the image is essential to understanding the topic, especially since it's not uncommon for stadiums to go through design changes.
Reason: Unencyclopedic and orphaned image of a non-famous person. Picture is also a composite and the uploader has not identified sources for the individual parts.
Reason: Orphaned image of a non-famous person. Potentially useful for
Segway but there are plenty of images on Commons and it's unclear if the uploader is the subject or the photographer.
Reason: There's no freedom of panorama in the United States, so this photograph of a possibly copyright-protected statue may not be in the public domain. The image is not used on Wikipedia.
Reason: I initially tagged this with {{Prod}} but it was untagged without explanation by 204.112.130.227(
talk·contribs·WHOIS).The subject is an American soccer player who has received recent national press coverage after she was found dead from suicide. The article is likely a case of
WP:SINGLEEVENT and
WP:RECENTISM. All of the significant, third-party coverage of her is due to her death. All the other sources are
WP:ROUTINE, except for a high school student newspaper that mentions her involvement in a Nickelodeon reality show. Beyond the single event, I don't think there's enough coverage to meet
WP:GNG and she doesn't meet
WP:NFOOTY criteria.
Reason: Initially tagged as "no permission" but template removed by uploader. Seems like an obvious case of
Flickrwashing, as it comes from a fan Flickr account and explicitly credits a 3rd party photographer. No evidence that the Flickr uploader has received permission to relicense the photo.
Reason: It's questionable whether this photograph is in the public domain. The uploader claims it is PD since it was published more than 70 years ago in Pakistan, but the photographer was American, working for an American publication. Short of other information, it's likely American copyright law applies, and the photographer died in 1971.
Reason: Appears to be a scan, based on the lines on the image and tightly cropped. Insufficient source info, especially given the user's upload history.
Reason: Does not appear to be the work of the New Zealand government. This
Alamy link (and we should take Alamy's copyright claims with a grain of salt) credits PA Images, a commercial photo agency.
Reason: Uploader claims to be the creator of the Church Of God In Christ seal. If the uploader is connected to the church, then that should be disclosed (especially as the user is actively editing a BLP of a bishop).
Reason: User should explain how they own the rights to the seal of a bishop. If it’s fan art, then it should not be used on the bishop’s article. Otherwise, the user should either explain their connection to the bishop or demonstrate permission from the bishop.
Reason: Fails
WP:NFCC#8, missing contextual significance. The rationale provided is incorrect as the article is not about the image itself. More crucially, the article mentions the painting but does not have a sourced discussion of the artwork itself in a way that makes it essential to include this image.
Reason: Likely fails
WP:NFCC#8 - I understand that the scene is discussed in the text, but the screenshot itself is not the subject of the commentary. The viewer does not have to see a glass of gin and tonic in Clarkson's hand to understand that he was seen drinking while driving.
Reason: Per
WP:NFCC#8. Logo is not being used to identify the club as stated in the rationale, and while the logo is mentioned in the text, there's no actual discussion of the art.
Reason: WP:NFCC#8: Used as a part of a gallery, an architect's rendering of a stadium that is now complete. While the design evolution is mentioned in the article body, it's unclear that the image is essential to understanding the topic, especially since it's not uncommon for stadiums to go through design changes.
Reason: WP:NFCC#8: Used as a part of a gallery, an architect's rendering of a stadium that is now complete. While the design evolution is mentioned in the article body, it's unclear that the image is essential to understanding the topic, especially since it's not uncommon for stadiums to go through design changes.
Reason: WP:NFCC#8: Used as a part of a gallery, an architect's rendering of a stadium that is now complete. While the design evolution is mentioned in the article body, it's unclear that the image is essential to understanding the topic, especially since it's not uncommon for stadiums to go through design changes.
Reason: Unencyclopedic and orphaned image of a non-famous person. Picture is also a composite and the uploader has not identified sources for the individual parts.
Reason: Orphaned image of a non-famous person. Potentially useful for
Segway but there are plenty of images on Commons and it's unclear if the uploader is the subject or the photographer.
Reason: There's no freedom of panorama in the United States, so this photograph of a possibly copyright-protected statue may not be in the public domain. The image is not used on Wikipedia.
Reason: I initially tagged this with {{Prod}} but it was untagged without explanation by 204.112.130.227(
talk·contribs·WHOIS).The subject is an American soccer player who has received recent national press coverage after she was found dead from suicide. The article is likely a case of
WP:SINGLEEVENT and
WP:RECENTISM. All of the significant, third-party coverage of her is due to her death. All the other sources are
WP:ROUTINE, except for a high school student newspaper that mentions her involvement in a Nickelodeon reality show. Beyond the single event, I don't think there's enough coverage to meet
WP:GNG and she doesn't meet
WP:NFOOTY criteria.
Reason: Initially tagged as "no permission" but template removed by uploader. Seems like an obvious case of
Flickrwashing, as it comes from a fan Flickr account and explicitly credits a 3rd party photographer. No evidence that the Flickr uploader has received permission to relicense the photo.
Reason: It's questionable whether this photograph is in the public domain. The uploader claims it is PD since it was published more than 70 years ago in Pakistan, but the photographer was American, working for an American publication. Short of other information, it's likely American copyright law applies, and the photographer died in 1971.
Reason: Appears to be a scan, based on the lines on the image and tightly cropped. Insufficient source info, especially given the user's upload history.
Reason: Does not appear to be the work of the New Zealand government. This
Alamy link (and we should take Alamy's copyright claims with a grain of salt) credits PA Images, a commercial photo agency.
Reason: Uploader claims to be the creator of the Church Of God In Christ seal. If the uploader is connected to the church, then that should be disclosed (especially as the user is actively editing a BLP of a bishop).
Reason: User should explain how they own the rights to the seal of a bishop. If it’s fan art, then it should not be used on the bishop’s article. Otherwise, the user should either explain their connection to the bishop or demonstrate permission from the bishop.
Reason: Fails
WP:NFCC#8, missing contextual significance. The rationale provided is incorrect as the article is not about the image itself. More crucially, the article mentions the painting but does not have a sourced discussion of the artwork itself in a way that makes it essential to include this image.
Reason: Likely fails
WP:NFCC#8 - I understand that the scene is discussed in the text, but the screenshot itself is not the subject of the commentary. The viewer does not have to see a glass of gin and tonic in Clarkson's hand to understand that he was seen drinking while driving.