Orphan image provides no encyclopedic content; the image is a webcam shot of a penis that has been modified in photoshop to render it useless for identification as such. This is described as "art", and as such has no place on wikipedia, unles it can claim some notability outside of wikipedia and is actually useable in an article. I am confident that this is not the case. I am also nominating the other 4 images in this series listed below.
Only used in deleted template "Template:User No Pro-West Stereotype". —
Random832 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
That is because this image is used in a user box. It is used as a statement to opposed the misuse of the stereo type pro-West which is all too often used in describing political alliances or support for a political party or movement. It is a stereotype that all too often is misused. Teh user box has been moved to my local account. This file should stay. IT. To remove it would open up a pandora's box and would give cause for many many more images to randomly be nominated for delegation. the user who has done so has failed to provide any justification for its removal. Update: The Image has been updated to a jpg. The svg file can now be removed.
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 debate was Delete (non admin close)
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 01:49, 2 March 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.
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.
Commentno longer OR, and very much related to article. --
Domer48 (
talk) 13:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Kept, used and related.
MECU≈
talk 13:27, 11 March 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 result of the debate was Delete (non admin close)
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 05:03, 2 March 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.
Not used, probably copyvio too, the fansite it's taken from simply state "marks and photos are property of his respective owners." no hint that the uploader created it or that it's released under the incidcated license combo.
Sherool(talk) 15:45, 2 March 2008 (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 is marked (c) 1978, original web page does not contain any kind of release of copyright. -
Nard 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Apologies, I had not noticed the markings at all. Please feel free to delete
Blueberrypie12 15:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
You could e-mail John Hanna, ELF founder, and ask if he knows who owns the copyright, then you could ask that person to release it. They will almost certainly agree to do it.
SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep but only on the page
Environmental Life Force. First it is important to distinguish Original ELF/Environmental Life Force form the ELF/Earth Liberation Front. They are two separate organisations which have no connection, indeed Hanna has recently called his org Original ELF to try to make the distinction clearer. As such the logo has no place on any article relating to the
Earth Liberation Front, but it does serve a purpose on the
Environmental Life Force, where I believe that it fits with
WP:LOGO. I've change license to {{non-free logo}} and linked it only from appropriate pages. --
Salix alba (
talk) 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Kept, license changed and used with valid rationale.
MECU≈
talk 13:29, 11 March 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.
Not used, asuming this photo is copyrighted by the blog in question the image is still not apropriately tagged. The copyright notice says "Bollywoodblog pictures can be licensed under the Creative Commons license (attribution, non-commercial 2.0)", wich is a non-free license.
Sherool(talk) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (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 debate was Delete (non admin close)
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.
Copyright violation - Contributor claims to be the copyright holder, but also states that it's "a picture I found on google"
Oli Filth(
talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Summary says "should not be used without permission", very low quality, Absent uploader. Removed from article
Chalk carvingNv8200ptalk 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphan image provides no encyclopedic content; the image is a webcam shot of a penis that has been modified in photoshop to render it useless for identification as such. This is described as "art", and as such has no place on wikipedia, unles it can claim some notability outside of wikipedia and is actually useable in an article. I am confident that this is not the case. I am also nominating the other 4 images in this series listed below.
Only used in deleted template "Template:User No Pro-West Stereotype". —
Random832 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
That is because this image is used in a user box. It is used as a statement to opposed the misuse of the stereo type pro-West which is all too often used in describing political alliances or support for a political party or movement. It is a stereotype that all too often is misused. Teh user box has been moved to my local account. This file should stay. IT. To remove it would open up a pandora's box and would give cause for many many more images to randomly be nominated for delegation. the user who has done so has failed to provide any justification for its removal. Update: The Image has been updated to a jpg. The svg file can now be removed.
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 debate was Delete (non admin close)
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 01:49, 2 March 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.
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.
Commentno longer OR, and very much related to article. --
Domer48 (
talk) 13:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Kept, used and related.
MECU≈
talk 13:27, 11 March 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 result of the debate was Delete (non admin close)
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 05:03, 2 March 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.
Not used, probably copyvio too, the fansite it's taken from simply state "marks and photos are property of his respective owners." no hint that the uploader created it or that it's released under the incidcated license combo.
Sherool(talk) 15:45, 2 March 2008 (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 is marked (c) 1978, original web page does not contain any kind of release of copyright. -
Nard 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Apologies, I had not noticed the markings at all. Please feel free to delete
Blueberrypie12 15:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
You could e-mail John Hanna, ELF founder, and ask if he knows who owns the copyright, then you could ask that person to release it. They will almost certainly agree to do it.
SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep but only on the page
Environmental Life Force. First it is important to distinguish Original ELF/Environmental Life Force form the ELF/Earth Liberation Front. They are two separate organisations which have no connection, indeed Hanna has recently called his org Original ELF to try to make the distinction clearer. As such the logo has no place on any article relating to the
Earth Liberation Front, but it does serve a purpose on the
Environmental Life Force, where I believe that it fits with
WP:LOGO. I've change license to {{non-free logo}} and linked it only from appropriate pages. --
Salix alba (
talk) 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Kept, license changed and used with valid rationale.
MECU≈
talk 13:29, 11 March 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.
Not used, asuming this photo is copyrighted by the blog in question the image is still not apropriately tagged. The copyright notice says "Bollywoodblog pictures can be licensed under the Creative Commons license (attribution, non-commercial 2.0)", wich is a non-free license.
Sherool(talk) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (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 debate was Delete (non admin close)
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.
Copyright violation - Contributor claims to be the copyright holder, but also states that it's "a picture I found on google"
Oli Filth(
talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Summary says "should not be used without permission", very low quality, Absent uploader. Removed from article
Chalk carvingNv8200ptalk 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)reply