The result of the debate was delete, not by me
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, not by me
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, not by me
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, not by me
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
delete Trading card images should not be used to identify the subject of the card but only articles about the trading card. - Nv8200p talk 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Was already deleted. Commons showing through now.
— Wknight94 ( talk) 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete: I5
The result of the debate was
Keep; concern of nominator addressed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. Has been discussed and decided before. The discussion seems to have vanished from the archives, and the templates seem to have changed. I only find this. However, the photo can't be "replaced by free images in other contexts" and since, as I pointed out before, it is a historic photo, it can't be taken again by anybody either. I don't understand why it is listed again.-- Peter Eisenburger ( talk) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Delete per Angus McLellan. Deletion later overturned at DRV. Procedural close by me, since debate was accidently left open. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
First closure that was overturned at deletion review - Nv8200p talk 02:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This may be child porn and the FBI is reviewing the image for possible violation of US law. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722] -- 204.78.9.12 ( talk) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
As I have already mentioned in my book Finding Naked Chicks and Photographing Them, the human body is not an obscene thing but rather a work of art. Not to be misunderstood, I am not advocating anyone photograph underage human beings for public display or justifying the production and application of this photograph. All I am saying is that the photo in question, in and of itself, does not appear to be sexual in nature and therefore, not unlawful. Tacky perhaps, but not unlawful and not worthy of being censored. Keep in mind that someone's parents provided consent for this photo to be taken and published publicly.
I am asking the community to do something that on balance will not harm the Wikipedia. Let's do the right thing here even if we don't have to. The issue here is far beyond what may or may not be legal - it's what is right. - JodyB talk 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep Permission received on OTRS. Note that we can't mark the permission on the image page until after it is uploaded and the system can get backlogged, so it is best to wait a while before nominating for deletion.
-- Mr. Z-man 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Keep; licensing appears to have been corrected. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Speedy Keep, if by speedy keep we mean almost three weeks. Image properly tagged. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. fails WP:NFCC #10a. Copyright holder is unknown. - Nv8200p talk 03:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Deleted. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Deleted. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
speedy deleted for lack of licensing and source info. — An gr 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Deleted UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted
— Alex. Muller 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply
HP
The result of the debate was speedy delete: I9
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a blatant copyright violation
— Alex. Muller 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Keep per revised tagging. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, not by me
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, not by me
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, not by me
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, not by me
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
delete Trading card images should not be used to identify the subject of the card but only articles about the trading card. - Nv8200p talk 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Was already deleted. Commons showing through now.
— Wknight94 ( talk) 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete: I5
The result of the debate was
Keep; concern of nominator addressed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. Has been discussed and decided before. The discussion seems to have vanished from the archives, and the templates seem to have changed. I only find this. However, the photo can't be "replaced by free images in other contexts" and since, as I pointed out before, it is a historic photo, it can't be taken again by anybody either. I don't understand why it is listed again.-- Peter Eisenburger ( talk) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Delete per Angus McLellan. Deletion later overturned at DRV. Procedural close by me, since debate was accidently left open. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
First closure that was overturned at deletion review - Nv8200p talk 02:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This may be child porn and the FBI is reviewing the image for possible violation of US law. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722] -- 204.78.9.12 ( talk) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
As I have already mentioned in my book Finding Naked Chicks and Photographing Them, the human body is not an obscene thing but rather a work of art. Not to be misunderstood, I am not advocating anyone photograph underage human beings for public display or justifying the production and application of this photograph. All I am saying is that the photo in question, in and of itself, does not appear to be sexual in nature and therefore, not unlawful. Tacky perhaps, but not unlawful and not worthy of being censored. Keep in mind that someone's parents provided consent for this photo to be taken and published publicly.
I am asking the community to do something that on balance will not harm the Wikipedia. Let's do the right thing here even if we don't have to. The issue here is far beyond what may or may not be legal - it's what is right. - JodyB talk 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep Permission received on OTRS. Note that we can't mark the permission on the image page until after it is uploaded and the system can get backlogged, so it is best to wait a while before nominating for deletion.
-- Mr. Z-man 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Keep; licensing appears to have been corrected. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Speedy Keep, if by speedy keep we mean almost three weeks. Image properly tagged. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. fails WP:NFCC #10a. Copyright holder is unknown. - Nv8200p talk 03:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Deleted. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Deleted. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
speedy deleted for lack of licensing and source info. — An gr 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Deleted UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted
— Alex. Muller 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply
HP
The result of the debate was speedy delete: I9
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a blatant copyright violation
— Alex. Muller 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Alex Muller 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
Keep per revised tagging. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply