This is an extra image, wrongly uploaded. It can be deleted. Sorry, for the trouble -
P.K.Niyogi —Preceding
comment was added at 11:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not orphaned anymore. ~
Riana ⁂ 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete If you want the real version, get the one from commons. Don't come into an IfD and put the image on your talk page. IMO, that isn't the right way to do things. If the file is correct, there is a commons version of this.
Undeath (
talk) 06:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nomination withdrawn. -
Nv8200ptalk 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Unused, permablocked uploader, unrelated to
Colleen Lopez (Lopez is female and in her 50s, subject of the photo is male and in his teens).
Zetawoof(
ζ) 10:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 15:53, 6 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 discussion was: keep. Consensus supports that the image is significant to the articles. -
Nv8200ptalk 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Is the goal so improbable that it's ok for fair use under the authors article? →
AzaToth 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, it got very significant attention at the time he scored it. The image/video shows the "improbable" goal. I don't know if it matters, but I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Ksy92003 (
talk) 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Just to voice my opinion, aside from my personal beliefs on this single image, if it should/does remain, there are many other historical "highlight-reel" goals that should be permitted to qualify for fair-use. –
Alex43223T |
C |
E 05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep -- it is the goal he is the most famous for, and would be a glaring omission not to keep it. It seems like it is 'fair use' according to a fairly strict interpretation, and there is really nothing to be gained in deleting it.
PStrait (
talk) 01:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete -- In terms of significance, this goal wouldn't even be in the top 50 in NHL history. This animated GIF makes any page look more like a fan-page than an encyclopedia. Its only purpose is to try to show off Ovechkin's ability, but there are plenty of good references for that. Also, this image is 1.1 megabytes in size. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. I think this image is too large, especially because its importance is questionable. --
Muéro(
talk/
c) 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Nothing will be gained if this is deleted. I agree it may make the page appear to be a fan site. However, I also see the historical significance of the goal. According to many fan site it is definitely a candidate for one of the top goals - it is too early to tell though —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.193.179.49 (
talk) 14:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep --- Surely it is no different than posting a photograph of a player. It is a film of the subject doing the job that has made him important enough to have an entry in Wikipedia so it is surely relevant. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.112.208.124 (
talk) 21:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Its an amazing goal, and if it stays, Alexander Ovechkin will be remembered for making this goal. And if it goes, no one will know how he made it.
Keep -- It's definitely the same as an ordinary image, just twice as awesome.--
Eggman183 (
talk) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep -- How many goals are known as "The Goal"? It's a career defining goal...it only enhances the article. --
SmashvilleBONK! 03:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Fits the text perfectly and shows off the determination of this competitor.
Keep -- It's the same as a photo of a significant event in Alex's career.
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.
Unencyclopedic. Apparent editorial judgment attempting to conflate Obama and Rezko. Non-neutral and not useful in an encyclopedia article
Ronnotel (
talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
The article for which this image was originally used was deleted after a
discussion; the image is now orphaned, and I see no further use for it.
Mr. Absurd (
talk) 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
The article for which this image was originally used was deleted after a
discussion; the image is now orphaned, and I see no further use for it.
Mr. Absurd (
talk) 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This is an extra image, wrongly uploaded. It can be deleted. Sorry, for the trouble -
P.K.Niyogi —Preceding
comment was added at 11:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not orphaned anymore. ~
Riana ⁂ 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete If you want the real version, get the one from commons. Don't come into an IfD and put the image on your talk page. IMO, that isn't the right way to do things. If the file is correct, there is a commons version of this.
Undeath (
talk) 06:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nomination withdrawn. -
Nv8200ptalk 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Unused, permablocked uploader, unrelated to
Colleen Lopez (Lopez is female and in her 50s, subject of the photo is male and in his teens).
Zetawoof(
ζ) 10:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 15:53, 6 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 discussion was: keep. Consensus supports that the image is significant to the articles. -
Nv8200ptalk 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Is the goal so improbable that it's ok for fair use under the authors article? →
AzaToth 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, it got very significant attention at the time he scored it. The image/video shows the "improbable" goal. I don't know if it matters, but I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Ksy92003 (
talk) 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Just to voice my opinion, aside from my personal beliefs on this single image, if it should/does remain, there are many other historical "highlight-reel" goals that should be permitted to qualify for fair-use. –
Alex43223T |
C |
E 05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep -- it is the goal he is the most famous for, and would be a glaring omission not to keep it. It seems like it is 'fair use' according to a fairly strict interpretation, and there is really nothing to be gained in deleting it.
PStrait (
talk) 01:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete -- In terms of significance, this goal wouldn't even be in the top 50 in NHL history. This animated GIF makes any page look more like a fan-page than an encyclopedia. Its only purpose is to try to show off Ovechkin's ability, but there are plenty of good references for that. Also, this image is 1.1 megabytes in size. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. I think this image is too large, especially because its importance is questionable. --
Muéro(
talk/
c) 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Nothing will be gained if this is deleted. I agree it may make the page appear to be a fan site. However, I also see the historical significance of the goal. According to many fan site it is definitely a candidate for one of the top goals - it is too early to tell though —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.193.179.49 (
talk) 14:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep --- Surely it is no different than posting a photograph of a player. It is a film of the subject doing the job that has made him important enough to have an entry in Wikipedia so it is surely relevant. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.112.208.124 (
talk) 21:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Its an amazing goal, and if it stays, Alexander Ovechkin will be remembered for making this goal. And if it goes, no one will know how he made it.
Keep -- It's definitely the same as an ordinary image, just twice as awesome.--
Eggman183 (
talk) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep -- How many goals are known as "The Goal"? It's a career defining goal...it only enhances the article. --
SmashvilleBONK! 03:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Fits the text perfectly and shows off the determination of this competitor.
Keep -- It's the same as a photo of a significant event in Alex's career.
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.
Unencyclopedic. Apparent editorial judgment attempting to conflate Obama and Rezko. Non-neutral and not useful in an encyclopedia article
Ronnotel (
talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
The article for which this image was originally used was deleted after a
discussion; the image is now orphaned, and I see no further use for it.
Mr. Absurd (
talk) 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
The article for which this image was originally used was deleted after a
discussion; the image is now orphaned, and I see no further use for it.
Mr. Absurd (
talk) 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply