CV. Looks like a typical promo photo swiped from a web site. The link to the official web site, doesn't show that picture (with or without a license). Given the professional quality of the image, some clear proof is needed, that it's been put under a free license. --
Rob (
talk) 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The link
[1] provided by the uploader clearly states that the image is an unoffical fanmade cover. WB has not released the cover art for the single to date. The image has been removed from the related article
Alkclark (
talk) 16:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Media kit photo, can't be assummed to be in the public domain, therefore replaceable image, because of living subject.
PhilKnight (
talk) 00:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Uploader has requested permission from copyright holder, so I'll withdraw this deletion nom, and renominate if necessary.
PhilKnight (
talk) 20:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm waiting for a reply from William Kent Krueger and since he offers this photograph for download for use from his online media kit, I expect him to give permission since his approval is already implicit. I just wanted to reinforce the points I made on the talk page for this image. But also I don't understand why the "fair use rationale" and why the reasonable argument presented in
Wikipedia:Publicity photos isn't accepted in this situation as it is for so many other images used in Wikipedia?
Burntfingers (
talk) 06:53, 25 May 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.
Not needed anymore - was used to show a bug in
huggle 0.7.6 that has since been fixed.
Calvin 1998(
t-
c) 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
This can be speedy deleted as author request; tagged as such --
Gurchzilla (
talk) 21:49, 24 May 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.
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.
CV. Looks like a typical promo photo swiped from a web site. The link to the official web site, doesn't show that picture (with or without a license). Given the professional quality of the image, some clear proof is needed, that it's been put under a free license. --
Rob (
talk) 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The link
[1] provided by the uploader clearly states that the image is an unoffical fanmade cover. WB has not released the cover art for the single to date. The image has been removed from the related article
Alkclark (
talk) 16:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Media kit photo, can't be assummed to be in the public domain, therefore replaceable image, because of living subject.
PhilKnight (
talk) 00:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Uploader has requested permission from copyright holder, so I'll withdraw this deletion nom, and renominate if necessary.
PhilKnight (
talk) 20:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm waiting for a reply from William Kent Krueger and since he offers this photograph for download for use from his online media kit, I expect him to give permission since his approval is already implicit. I just wanted to reinforce the points I made on the talk page for this image. But also I don't understand why the "fair use rationale" and why the reasonable argument presented in
Wikipedia:Publicity photos isn't accepted in this situation as it is for so many other images used in Wikipedia?
Burntfingers (
talk) 06:53, 25 May 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.
Not needed anymore - was used to show a bug in
huggle 0.7.6 that has since been fixed.
Calvin 1998(
t-
c) 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)reply
This can be speedy deleted as author request; tagged as such --
Gurchzilla (
talk) 21:49, 24 May 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.
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.