Not used (the Holly Haynes article was deleted), also not entierly clear if she actualy released the image under the indicated licenses or if the uploader just grabbed it from her blog or website soemwhere.
Sherool(talk)02:06, 27 December 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 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.
Comment. Any readers who doubt my description should simply view the image. It shows a crucified Christ with a dinosaur head superimposed over his face and a caption reading "EXTINCTION FOR OUR SINS." It's a joke, and not even an amusing one.
EALacey (
talk)
09:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
This image fails
WP:NFCC policy #8 on "Significance" for this article. The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (Fox News Channel). It is only used for decoration.
Ilse@10:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
This image fails
WP:NFCC policy #8 on "Significance" for this article. The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (Fox News Channel). It is only used for decoration.
Ilse@10:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
This image fails
WP:NFCC policy #8 on "Significance" for this article. The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (Fox News Channel). It is only used for decoration.
Ilse@10:39, 27 December 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 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 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.
Keep The reasoning behind the nom is very poor, in my opinion. Where, exactly, in Wikipedia policy does it say that an article on a genre, director, band, etc must discuss a specific work in order for it to be covered under "fair use"? I think fair use definitely covers specific works used as general examples.
Iamcuriousblue (
talk)
17:54, 28 December 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 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.
I dunno. The website does say "My Favorite Sites: Hair Weave Info on Wikipedia", linking to the article this image is used in. It could well be her. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)17:33, 2 January 2008 (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 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.
Not used (the Holly Haynes article was deleted), also not entierly clear if she actualy released the image under the indicated licenses or if the uploader just grabbed it from her blog or website soemwhere.
Sherool(talk)02:06, 27 December 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 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.
Comment. Any readers who doubt my description should simply view the image. It shows a crucified Christ with a dinosaur head superimposed over his face and a caption reading "EXTINCTION FOR OUR SINS." It's a joke, and not even an amusing one.
EALacey (
talk)
09:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
This image fails
WP:NFCC policy #8 on "Significance" for this article. The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (Fox News Channel). It is only used for decoration.
Ilse@10:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
This image fails
WP:NFCC policy #8 on "Significance" for this article. The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (Fox News Channel). It is only used for decoration.
Ilse@10:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)reply
This image fails
WP:NFCC policy #8 on "Significance" for this article. The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (Fox News Channel). It is only used for decoration.
Ilse@10:39, 27 December 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 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 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.
Keep The reasoning behind the nom is very poor, in my opinion. Where, exactly, in Wikipedia policy does it say that an article on a genre, director, band, etc must discuss a specific work in order for it to be covered under "fair use"? I think fair use definitely covers specific works used as general examples.
Iamcuriousblue (
talk)
17:54, 28 December 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 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.
I dunno. The website does say "My Favorite Sites: Hair Weave Info on Wikipedia", linking to the article this image is used in. It could well be her. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)17:33, 2 January 2008 (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 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.