Photoshopped attack image, used to discredit the historical photo
Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. Previously deleted at
[1] however this new version is not the same as the old and may not qualify for speedy deletion. Besides being an attack image, and a re-upload of deleted content, it is original research. — -
Nard 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Original is defined as a attack image oneself. --
Hare-Yukai 07:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
From the first, this images lack trust. It is pointed out by university's Professor and plural journalists. It is not only my opinion. --
Hare-Yukai 02:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment This problem should be unified for this argument. Hong know this problem's background well. So It should be stopped to disperse. --
Hare-Yukai 02:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete All Original sauces are included, too. --
Hare-Yukai 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete yet again.
Blueshirts 03:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This image seems to be a hoax or vandalism. The image is marked as being a work of the U.S. govt yet that is highly unlikely considering it's content. It's currently not used in any articles and I doubt it ever will be, considering its content.
Wikidudeman(talk) 05:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
CV - Possible copyright violation: The disclaimer on the source's web site says, "All photographs of Marilyn Monroe on this site were obtained off the Web or scanned by the webmistress using Photoshop unless otherwise indicated."
[2] No other copyright information is listed on the actual web page where the image came from.
[3] Therefore there is no evidence that this was released under the
GFDL or any other
free content licence. —
Zzyzx11(Talk) 06:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
"The image is being used to illustrate the television show in question."; does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic nor will it's loss be detrimental to that understanding, failing
WP:NFCC#8. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC) — pd_THOR|=/\= | 17:43, 3 August 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.
Unencylopedic nonsence, better suited to commons —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
86.12.249.63 (
talk •
contribs) 12:48, 3 August 2007.
Kept. Freely licensed and used on a number of user pages. Even if moved to Commons, it would still serve the same purpose here, so I don't see what would be accomplished by such a move. howcheng {
chat} 18:36, 9 August 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Copyright violation. Found at
[4] which states that the original source is
SUPARCO. No GFDL claim anywhere that I can see. howcheng {
chat} 22:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This image has no purpose on Wikipedia. It does not link to anything and is just taking up space. It fills all but two of the Wikipedia deletion policy's. The image is orphaned, unencyclopedic, and low quality. —
Oman9978 23:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This image has no purpose on Wikipedia. It does not link to anything and is just taking up space. It fills all but three of the Wikipedia deletion policy's. The image is orphaned, and unencyclopedic. —
Oman9978 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This image has no purpose on Wikipedia. It does not link to anything and is just taking up space. It fills all but three of the Wikipedia deletion policy's. The image is orphaned, and unencyclopedic.
Oman9978 00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This image has no purpose on Wikipedia. It does not link to anything and is just taking up space. It seems to be an image of someones pet dog. —
Oman9978 00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Photoshopped attack image, used to discredit the historical photo
Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. Previously deleted at
[1] however this new version is not the same as the old and may not qualify for speedy deletion. Besides being an attack image, and a re-upload of deleted content, it is original research. — -
Nard 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Original is defined as a attack image oneself. --
Hare-Yukai 07:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
From the first, this images lack trust. It is pointed out by university's Professor and plural journalists. It is not only my opinion. --
Hare-Yukai 02:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment This problem should be unified for this argument. Hong know this problem's background well. So It should be stopped to disperse. --
Hare-Yukai 02:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete All Original sauces are included, too. --
Hare-Yukai 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete yet again.
Blueshirts 03:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This image seems to be a hoax or vandalism. The image is marked as being a work of the U.S. govt yet that is highly unlikely considering it's content. It's currently not used in any articles and I doubt it ever will be, considering its content.
Wikidudeman(talk) 05:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
CV - Possible copyright violation: The disclaimer on the source's web site says, "All photographs of Marilyn Monroe on this site were obtained off the Web or scanned by the webmistress using Photoshop unless otherwise indicated."
[2] No other copyright information is listed on the actual web page where the image came from.
[3] Therefore there is no evidence that this was released under the
GFDL or any other
free content licence. —
Zzyzx11(Talk) 06:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
"The image is being used to illustrate the television show in question."; does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic nor will it's loss be detrimental to that understanding, failing
WP:NFCC#8. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC) — pd_THOR|=/\= | 17:43, 3 August 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.
Unencylopedic nonsence, better suited to commons —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
86.12.249.63 (
talk •
contribs) 12:48, 3 August 2007.
Kept. Freely licensed and used on a number of user pages. Even if moved to Commons, it would still serve the same purpose here, so I don't see what would be accomplished by such a move. howcheng {
chat} 18:36, 9 August 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Copyright violation. Found at
[4] which states that the original source is
SUPARCO. No GFDL claim anywhere that I can see. howcheng {
chat} 22:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This image has no purpose on Wikipedia. It does not link to anything and is just taking up space. It fills all but two of the Wikipedia deletion policy's. The image is orphaned, unencyclopedic, and low quality. —
Oman9978 23:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This image has no purpose on Wikipedia. It does not link to anything and is just taking up space. It fills all but three of the Wikipedia deletion policy's. The image is orphaned, and unencyclopedic. —
Oman9978 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This image has no purpose on Wikipedia. It does not link to anything and is just taking up space. It fills all but three of the Wikipedia deletion policy's. The image is orphaned, and unencyclopedic.
Oman9978 00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This image has no purpose on Wikipedia. It does not link to anything and is just taking up space. It seems to be an image of someones pet dog. —
Oman9978 00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply