Images by User:PAROH
- Image:אגרות הראיה - א קוק להרכיב אתרוג באתרוג-2-.pdf
- Image:Igroth HoRaye.pdf
- Image:סוד ישרים.pdf
- Image:אגרות הראיה.pdf
- Image:פרי עץ הדר.pdf
- Image:מן המקור - ד קלוגר, בנימין -2-.pdf
- Image:Pri Etz Hadar Jerusalem1.pdf
- Image:Biography Nefesh Haya Etrog1.pdf
- Image:Pogrom Corfu.pdf
- Image:Tzinner Palestina.pdf
- Image:Pri Etz Hadar 1.pdf
- Image:Tzinner Yanoa.pdf
- Orphaned, unencyclopedic, absent uploader -- Prince Kassad ( talk) 20:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Paul_venter ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Obsolete ( Image:Julius Wernher02.jpg is better quality, larger, and has better source/copyright information) Bigr Tex 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image:Julius Wernher02.jpg is a much better picture for what it is used for. Razor flame 02:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Young_sage18 ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic 'my car' pic, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution) Bigr Tex 00:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This picture doesn't even come close to being of use to the Wikipedia. Seems to be more like a self-promotion image than an encyclopedic image. It's kind of like a boast if you will; shouting out to other users, "Hey! Look at this car that I own!". The image description backs that up. Razor flame 02:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, no context to determine encyclopedic value Bigr Tex 00:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned; Unencyclopedic — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Anthony5429 ( notify | contribs).
- Logo being used in the infobox. Also, nothing to explain why the logo is notable. Undeath ( talk) 05:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic motivational book, copyvio. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic motivational book. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not written in English, cannot be used in any article, seems to be WP:OR or advertising. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not written in English, cannot be used in any article, seems to be a motivational guide or advertising and hence unencyclopedic. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by SJSU-networkers ( notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic class project. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Lukemendes ( notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic press guide for a film. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unencylopedic image that serves no useful purpose other than biographical. Image is likely to be orphaned except for the user page which is currently marked for Speedy deletion. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 07:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- No freedom of panorama in France see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:European-parliament-strasbourg.jpg for a similar case, building is copyrighted, the architects are still alive. Also note from WP:Copyright Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of these nations as best they can, the same as they do for other countries around the world Please only comment as is relevant to policy. Jackaranga ( talk) 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Jackaranga ( talk) 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I decided to be bold and change it to a non-free image since this image is unreplacable due to its nature.
ViperSnake151
18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Image kept and tagged as fair use. - Nv8200p talk 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hope there is another photograph out there that is better, as this one does not seem to be the most flattering either of the building or of Renzo Piano's works. And it's at the top of the page in the featured section. Kristinwt ( talk) 02:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader MER-C 13:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete if I'm not mistaken, that's The Ian Green again. As per nom, delete. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and Protect. Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, and the file name is generic enough that it should probably be protected against upload (per WP:IFN) Kesac ( talk) 01:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopedic image. 99.230.152.143 ( talk) 00:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader MER-C 13:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - what, the Ian Green? Remove. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved from April 16 to allow an editor time to address the problem - Nv8200p talk 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Quantum bird ( notify | contribs).
- I do not want this image to be deleted, but I do want it to go through proper channels rather than underhanded as was being done. This image was put up for deletion today as "no rationale." Since the original uploader hasn't edited for two years, I put the rationale in myself, being a good sport. Within an hour the same deletionist again tagged this for deletion, under "non-free use rationale is disputed." I don't know what his agenda is, but this is a useful illustration and I think it should be saved. Can anyone help? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as the rationale is valid and the two articles in which it is used are perfectly legitimate uses of the image as they discuss topic of the cover story of the issue featured in the image. ···
日本穣
? ·
Talk to Nihonjoe
03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- But they don't discuss the issue or the story itself. That's what would be required for this image to be within policy. — An gr 05:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as neither of the articles where this image is used discusses the magazine in general or this issue of the magazine in particular, except in the caption of the image itself. Thus the image violates WP:NFCC#8 and its own licensing tag, and its rationale is invalid. Incidentally, the description of tagging an image "disputed fair use" as being "underhanded" is ridiculous, and the description of me as a "rabid deletionist" is an uncivil, and untrue, personal attack. — An gr 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep.
Model minority is about certain minorities being recognized as successful, and having a cover story in a major magazine about that minority's success — the precise topic of the article — is certainly significant. Contrary to your assertion, I don't see where
WP:NFCC#8 (or any other WP policy for that matter) requires that use of a magazine cover has to be only for illustrating the magazine itself. Are you disputing something else in the fair-use rationale, or is this your only bone of contention?
Jpatokal (
talk)
06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the articles
Model minority and
Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States actually discussed the Newsweek article, or the cover of Newsweek magazine, then NFCC#8 might be met. But they don't: neitzher article never discusses this issue of Newsweek, and the image's own tag says it can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". That is not being done in this case. —
An
gr
05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- The template does not assert that the image must be used to illustrate the magazine itself. The template asserts that the image must be used to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question. In
Model minority, the image is captioned "April 1984 cover of Newsweek featuring an article on the success of Asian American students" — it's thus used to illustrate the publication of the issue, and the condition is met.
Jpatokal (
talk)
14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- But the articles do not discuss the publication of the issue except in the caption to the image itself. Removing the image will not reduce understanding of the article, because there's nothing in the article referring to this issue of Newsweek. — An gr 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- The template does not assert that the image must be used to illustrate the magazine itself. The template asserts that the image must be used to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question. In
Model minority, the image is captioned "April 1984 cover of Newsweek featuring an article on the success of Asian American students" — it's thus used to illustrate the publication of the issue, and the condition is met.
Jpatokal (
talk)
14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the articles
Model minority and
Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States actually discussed the Newsweek article, or the cover of Newsweek magazine, then NFCC#8 might be met. But they don't: neitzher article never discusses this issue of Newsweek, and the image's own tag says it can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". That is not being done in this case. —
An
gr
05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets NFCC#8 as improving reader's understanding of
model minority.
dihydrogen monoxide (
H2O)
09:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- See above: the image can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question", and neither article where the image is used discusses this issue of Newsweek. — An gr 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep meets NFCC#8.
Razorflame (
talk)
14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- See above: the image can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question", and neither article where the image is used discusses this issue of Newsweek. — An gr 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 06:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Relunctantly, delete per Angr's justification. I don't see why this cover is particularly significant or necessary in either of the two articles in which it is used. And he's right in that the usage violates the instructions in {{ non-free magazine cover}}. Kelly hi! 14:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NFC#10a Jackaranga ( talk) 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Unfortunately, fails WP:NFC criteria 8. Does not significantly enhance the readers understanding due to tendentious placement. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment NV8200 re-opened this after I noted that the image was neither tagged in-article nor on the article talk page. I hadn't intended for a re-opening, but simply wanted to remind closing admins that for a while, it seemed in vogue, if not in policy, to tag and/or note on talk pages that an image was of concern, and that sort of courtesy allows many problems to be sorted out. That said, in this particular case, I'm not sure there's a means to include more about the Newsweek material which would in itself justify the image, and I accept the deletion decision here without reservation. ThuranX ( talk) 20:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Mattyspringltfc ( notify | contribs).
- Not suitable under GFDL as little individual images are not free use. Can't roll back to previous version as that had the club crest in, which isn't free use either...... ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - pretty sure there's no GFDL agreement for each and every image in this collage. Certainly no evidence of such. And it's an abomination of nature (not sure which criteria that fits under though...) Yuck. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Request Creamy! Talk 18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Seattlekaps ( notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic promotional leaflet. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Academic thesis = original research, text asserts it is copyrighted. Cannot be used in articles and is orphaned. Hut 8.5 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Original research, unencyclopedic, reads like the author just made it up. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 19:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Vishalarora2007 ( notify | contribs).
- Promotional, content is available in an appropriate format at Programme for Environmental Awareness in Schools. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 19:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic press release. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pinkfloyd789 ( notify | contribs).
- Serbian academic paper. Original research, cannot be used in any articles (and would have to be translated which would take a very long time), and quite possibly a copyright violation. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Mehditanveer ( notify | contribs).
- Content available at Syed Akbar, this version cannot be displayed or used in articles. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unenyclopedic profile, can't be used in articles due to format, copyvio. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Ranjitnambiar1 ( notify | contribs).
- Original research, advertising, we do already have an article on the subject, this image cannot be used in articles due to its format. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Was nominated for deletion in the past. Unfree image with fair use rationale that is linked to a single article History of Rush, however, it does not convey any significant understanding beyond what is presented to the reader in the text alone. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. ALthough it's a 'nice' image, the article doesn't tie to it in a significant enough way to warrant its inclusion. ThuranX ( talk) 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Non-free image purportedly of a famous music group that should therefore be easily replaced with a free image (concert or otherwise) Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Band split up, so a free image is unlikely to be created. -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are we positively certain that there are no free images available. Surely band played shows or toured.
Wisdom89 (
T /
C)
21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Image kept. No evidence of free images being available or that can be created now. - Nv8200p talk 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The image was obviously taken at a press conference, access to such events is usually restricted to professional photographers. Its uploaded under low resolution: 250x250 which is common for image thumbnails. No EXIF data, of course. However it is tagged as PD-Self. There are only 2 contributions of User:Gejoro: the image upload and adding the link in the article. I suppose he was just a novice who didnt care of licenses. The story however continues on Commons where this same image was uploaded by another user and again as PD-self :-D Sadly, I could not detect it via Google Images despite of the numerous searches. But I am sure this is a case of copyright violation. Spiritia ( talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Already deleted on Commons. -- Spiritia ( talk) 07:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Images by User:PAROH
- Image:אגרות הראיה - א קוק להרכיב אתרוג באתרוג-2-.pdf
- Image:Igroth HoRaye.pdf
- Image:סוד ישרים.pdf
- Image:אגרות הראיה.pdf
- Image:פרי עץ הדר.pdf
- Image:מן המקור - ד קלוגר, בנימין -2-.pdf
- Image:Pri Etz Hadar Jerusalem1.pdf
- Image:Biography Nefesh Haya Etrog1.pdf
- Image:Pogrom Corfu.pdf
- Image:Tzinner Palestina.pdf
- Image:Pri Etz Hadar 1.pdf
- Image:Tzinner Yanoa.pdf
- Orphaned, unencyclopedic, absent uploader -- Prince Kassad ( talk) 20:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Paul_venter ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Obsolete ( Image:Julius Wernher02.jpg is better quality, larger, and has better source/copyright information) Bigr Tex 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image:Julius Wernher02.jpg is a much better picture for what it is used for. Razor flame 02:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Young_sage18 ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic 'my car' pic, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution) Bigr Tex 00:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This picture doesn't even come close to being of use to the Wikipedia. Seems to be more like a self-promotion image than an encyclopedic image. It's kind of like a boast if you will; shouting out to other users, "Hey! Look at this car that I own!". The image description backs that up. Razor flame 02:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, no context to determine encyclopedic value Bigr Tex 00:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned; Unencyclopedic — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Anthony5429 ( notify | contribs).
- Logo being used in the infobox. Also, nothing to explain why the logo is notable. Undeath ( talk) 05:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic motivational book, copyvio. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic motivational book. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not written in English, cannot be used in any article, seems to be WP:OR or advertising. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not written in English, cannot be used in any article, seems to be a motivational guide or advertising and hence unencyclopedic. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by SJSU-networkers ( notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic class project. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Lukemendes ( notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic press guide for a film. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 06:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unencylopedic image that serves no useful purpose other than biographical. Image is likely to be orphaned except for the user page which is currently marked for Speedy deletion. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 07:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- No freedom of panorama in France see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:European-parliament-strasbourg.jpg for a similar case, building is copyrighted, the architects are still alive. Also note from WP:Copyright Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of these nations as best they can, the same as they do for other countries around the world Please only comment as is relevant to policy. Jackaranga ( talk) 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Jackaranga ( talk) 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I decided to be bold and change it to a non-free image since this image is unreplacable due to its nature.
ViperSnake151
18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Image kept and tagged as fair use. - Nv8200p talk 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hope there is another photograph out there that is better, as this one does not seem to be the most flattering either of the building or of Renzo Piano's works. And it's at the top of the page in the featured section. Kristinwt ( talk) 02:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader MER-C 13:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete if I'm not mistaken, that's The Ian Green again. As per nom, delete. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and Protect. Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, and the file name is generic enough that it should probably be protected against upload (per WP:IFN) Kesac ( talk) 01:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopedic image. 99.230.152.143 ( talk) 00:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader MER-C 13:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - what, the Ian Green? Remove. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved from April 16 to allow an editor time to address the problem - Nv8200p talk 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Quantum bird ( notify | contribs).
- I do not want this image to be deleted, but I do want it to go through proper channels rather than underhanded as was being done. This image was put up for deletion today as "no rationale." Since the original uploader hasn't edited for two years, I put the rationale in myself, being a good sport. Within an hour the same deletionist again tagged this for deletion, under "non-free use rationale is disputed." I don't know what his agenda is, but this is a useful illustration and I think it should be saved. Can anyone help? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as the rationale is valid and the two articles in which it is used are perfectly legitimate uses of the image as they discuss topic of the cover story of the issue featured in the image. ···
日本穣
? ·
Talk to Nihonjoe
03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- But they don't discuss the issue or the story itself. That's what would be required for this image to be within policy. — An gr 05:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as neither of the articles where this image is used discusses the magazine in general or this issue of the magazine in particular, except in the caption of the image itself. Thus the image violates WP:NFCC#8 and its own licensing tag, and its rationale is invalid. Incidentally, the description of tagging an image "disputed fair use" as being "underhanded" is ridiculous, and the description of me as a "rabid deletionist" is an uncivil, and untrue, personal attack. — An gr 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep.
Model minority is about certain minorities being recognized as successful, and having a cover story in a major magazine about that minority's success — the precise topic of the article — is certainly significant. Contrary to your assertion, I don't see where
WP:NFCC#8 (or any other WP policy for that matter) requires that use of a magazine cover has to be only for illustrating the magazine itself. Are you disputing something else in the fair-use rationale, or is this your only bone of contention?
Jpatokal (
talk)
06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the articles
Model minority and
Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States actually discussed the Newsweek article, or the cover of Newsweek magazine, then NFCC#8 might be met. But they don't: neitzher article never discusses this issue of Newsweek, and the image's own tag says it can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". That is not being done in this case. —
An
gr
05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- The template does not assert that the image must be used to illustrate the magazine itself. The template asserts that the image must be used to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question. In
Model minority, the image is captioned "April 1984 cover of Newsweek featuring an article on the success of Asian American students" — it's thus used to illustrate the publication of the issue, and the condition is met.
Jpatokal (
talk)
14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- But the articles do not discuss the publication of the issue except in the caption to the image itself. Removing the image will not reduce understanding of the article, because there's nothing in the article referring to this issue of Newsweek. — An gr 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- The template does not assert that the image must be used to illustrate the magazine itself. The template asserts that the image must be used to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question. In
Model minority, the image is captioned "April 1984 cover of Newsweek featuring an article on the success of Asian American students" — it's thus used to illustrate the publication of the issue, and the condition is met.
Jpatokal (
talk)
14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the articles
Model minority and
Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States actually discussed the Newsweek article, or the cover of Newsweek magazine, then NFCC#8 might be met. But they don't: neitzher article never discusses this issue of Newsweek, and the image's own tag says it can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". That is not being done in this case. —
An
gr
05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets NFCC#8 as improving reader's understanding of
model minority.
dihydrogen monoxide (
H2O)
09:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- See above: the image can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question", and neither article where the image is used discusses this issue of Newsweek. — An gr 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep meets NFCC#8.
Razorflame (
talk)
14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- See above: the image can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question", and neither article where the image is used discusses this issue of Newsweek. — An gr 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 06:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Relunctantly, delete per Angr's justification. I don't see why this cover is particularly significant or necessary in either of the two articles in which it is used. And he's right in that the usage violates the instructions in {{ non-free magazine cover}}. Kelly hi! 14:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NFC#10a Jackaranga ( talk) 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Unfortunately, fails WP:NFC criteria 8. Does not significantly enhance the readers understanding due to tendentious placement. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment NV8200 re-opened this after I noted that the image was neither tagged in-article nor on the article talk page. I hadn't intended for a re-opening, but simply wanted to remind closing admins that for a while, it seemed in vogue, if not in policy, to tag and/or note on talk pages that an image was of concern, and that sort of courtesy allows many problems to be sorted out. That said, in this particular case, I'm not sure there's a means to include more about the Newsweek material which would in itself justify the image, and I accept the deletion decision here without reservation. ThuranX ( talk) 20:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Mattyspringltfc ( notify | contribs).
- Not suitable under GFDL as little individual images are not free use. Can't roll back to previous version as that had the club crest in, which isn't free use either...... ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - pretty sure there's no GFDL agreement for each and every image in this collage. Certainly no evidence of such. And it's an abomination of nature (not sure which criteria that fits under though...) Yuck. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Request Creamy! Talk 18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Seattlekaps ( notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic promotional leaflet. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Academic thesis = original research, text asserts it is copyrighted. Cannot be used in articles and is orphaned. Hut 8.5 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Original research, unencyclopedic, reads like the author just made it up. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 19:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Vishalarora2007 ( notify | contribs).
- Promotional, content is available in an appropriate format at Programme for Environmental Awareness in Schools. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 19:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic press release. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pinkfloyd789 ( notify | contribs).
- Serbian academic paper. Original research, cannot be used in any articles (and would have to be translated which would take a very long time), and quite possibly a copyright violation. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Mehditanveer ( notify | contribs).
- Content available at Syed Akbar, this version cannot be displayed or used in articles. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unenyclopedic profile, can't be used in articles due to format, copyvio. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Ranjitnambiar1 ( notify | contribs).
- Original research, advertising, we do already have an article on the subject, this image cannot be used in articles due to its format. Orphaned. Hut 8.5 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Was nominated for deletion in the past. Unfree image with fair use rationale that is linked to a single article History of Rush, however, it does not convey any significant understanding beyond what is presented to the reader in the text alone. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. ALthough it's a 'nice' image, the article doesn't tie to it in a significant enough way to warrant its inclusion. ThuranX ( talk) 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Non-free image purportedly of a famous music group that should therefore be easily replaced with a free image (concert or otherwise) Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Band split up, so a free image is unlikely to be created. -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are we positively certain that there are no free images available. Surely band played shows or toured.
Wisdom89 (
T /
C)
21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Image kept. No evidence of free images being available or that can be created now. - Nv8200p talk 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The image was obviously taken at a press conference, access to such events is usually restricted to professional photographers. Its uploaded under low resolution: 250x250 which is common for image thumbnails. No EXIF data, of course. However it is tagged as PD-Self. There are only 2 contributions of User:Gejoro: the image upload and adding the link in the article. I suppose he was just a novice who didnt care of licenses. The story however continues on Commons where this same image was uploaded by another user and again as PD-self :-D Sadly, I could not detect it via Google Images despite of the numerous searches. But I am sure this is a case of copyright violation. Spiritia ( talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Already deleted on Commons. -- Spiritia ( talk) 07:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)