Orphaned image, tagged as GFDL-presumed, without further information provided it would be difficult to determine an encyclopedic use
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
now orphaned image (I deleted it from
Karakorum as the silk routes were not referenced in the article and the uploader metions in the upload these were hypothetical routes to Karakorum making the map original research too. And the image is tagged as GFDL-presumed.
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned image, absent uploader, no indication of a source for the image, image is not useful for an encyclopedia
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo, tagged as GFDL-presumed
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:49, 5 October 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: delete Unable to access source. Unable to establish proper license. -
Nv8200ptalk 16:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, uploaded after Jan 2006 and tagged with GFDL-presumed which was added by uploader.
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
this is an image with facts and needs to be here for info. Not for deletion.
Supermod (
talk) 02:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
It has been added into an article, but there remains an issue with the licensing as the text added by the uploader is "Courtesy of Media Centre for National Security, Sri Lanka.". I googled that term, and found
http://202.124.172.166/, but unable to access the site to determine any licensing information.--
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 15:52, 5 October 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.
Image is only used in a deleted article's arhived talk page
Talk:Rajput/Archive 19 and listed as a possible image back in March/06. The image is tagged as GFDL-presumed.
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 02:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Photo tagged as Multilicense, but I doubt this is a work of the uploader. That seems to be an old publicity photograph.
Kmusgrave (
talk) 09:54, 5 October 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: delete Fair use image of living person. Wikipedia has shown little tolerance for using fair use images of living persons. -
Nv8200ptalk 16:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)reply
According to our article, the subject is still alive, and still acting. A free image could be created- this is replaceable.
J Milburn (
talk) 11:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
She is 88 years old, and didn't any work through the 2000s. See
IMDb link. A free image couldn't be created at this time at the peak of her film career. This isn't replaceable. See
Wikipedia:Non-free content#UULP.
Wbrz (
talk) 12:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - The reference above to UULP does not really apply here in my opinion. The only passing reference to her appearance is "Michèle Morgan had classically beautiful, remote and enigmatic, such as the young Greta Garbo." but it is unreferenced and comes across as a fan statement. It would be very nice to have this image on the article, but it is in no way nessesary to understand the article.--
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 16:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - Garbo does not matter.
Michèle Morgan has not been active for about 10 years so free images are not readily available. Therefore non-free promo image used in lieu until then.
Wbrz (
talk) 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep I feel that UULP does apply here. Her looks are part of what she did. A picture of her, as she looked during most of her career, is important for almost any actor.
Hobit (
talk) 05:15, 8 October 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, as the summary says it's a fan-made custom tech spec for a transformers character using a photo of the toy version. If I'm not mistaken such photos are still considerd derivative of a copyrighted character though.
Sherool(talk) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, I uploaded it a while ago, but then I was told no-tech specs (even though it's not the actual tech specs, it's custom one I made, so it would be original), so it was removed from the page, but I don't know how to delete the picture from wikipedia.
Mathewignash (
talk) 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, not much of a source info. the copyright tag is for a previous, also unsourced image and there is also yet another image mixed into the hisotry here, due to the generic name no dought.
Sherool(talk) 18:58, 5 October 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: - Keep. Wierdest claimed copyright violation I've ever seen - no valid deletion reason -
Peripitus(Talk) 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep seriously even if some art buffs can contrive to argue that a blank canvas is somehow this an amazing work of art it doesn't mean you can actualy copyright a blank image. This is pretty much the poster child for {{PD-ineligible}}, updated the tag accordingly. --
Sherool(talk) 19:40, 5 October 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: - Keep - a little research before nominating does a world of good. It's the Village lock-up at Breedon on the Hill, Leicestershire, and is not orphaned or unidentified now - tagged for commons though -
Peripitus(Talk) 11:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)reply
OR, not specifically identified building
SkierRMH (
talk) 22:41, 5 October 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.
Orphaned, questionable encyclopaedic value
SkierRMH (
talk) 23:07, 5 October 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.
Orphaned personal image. Note that the author requested deleting them by uploaded a text image. This is for two images above as well.
OsamaK 23:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned image, tagged as GFDL-presumed, without further information provided it would be difficult to determine an encyclopedic use
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
now orphaned image (I deleted it from
Karakorum as the silk routes were not referenced in the article and the uploader metions in the upload these were hypothetical routes to Karakorum making the map original research too. And the image is tagged as GFDL-presumed.
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned image, absent uploader, no indication of a source for the image, image is not useful for an encyclopedia
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo, tagged as GFDL-presumed
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:49, 5 October 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: delete Unable to access source. Unable to establish proper license. -
Nv8200ptalk 16:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, uploaded after Jan 2006 and tagged with GFDL-presumed which was added by uploader.
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
this is an image with facts and needs to be here for info. Not for deletion.
Supermod (
talk) 02:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
It has been added into an article, but there remains an issue with the licensing as the text added by the uploader is "Courtesy of Media Centre for National Security, Sri Lanka.". I googled that term, and found
http://202.124.172.166/, but unable to access the site to determine any licensing information.--
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 15:52, 5 October 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.
Image is only used in a deleted article's arhived talk page
Talk:Rajput/Archive 19 and listed as a possible image back in March/06. The image is tagged as GFDL-presumed.
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 02:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Photo tagged as Multilicense, but I doubt this is a work of the uploader. That seems to be an old publicity photograph.
Kmusgrave (
talk) 09:54, 5 October 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: delete Fair use image of living person. Wikipedia has shown little tolerance for using fair use images of living persons. -
Nv8200ptalk 16:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)reply
According to our article, the subject is still alive, and still acting. A free image could be created- this is replaceable.
J Milburn (
talk) 11:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
She is 88 years old, and didn't any work through the 2000s. See
IMDb link. A free image couldn't be created at this time at the peak of her film career. This isn't replaceable. See
Wikipedia:Non-free content#UULP.
Wbrz (
talk) 12:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - The reference above to UULP does not really apply here in my opinion. The only passing reference to her appearance is "Michèle Morgan had classically beautiful, remote and enigmatic, such as the young Greta Garbo." but it is unreferenced and comes across as a fan statement. It would be very nice to have this image on the article, but it is in no way nessesary to understand the article.--
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 16:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - Garbo does not matter.
Michèle Morgan has not been active for about 10 years so free images are not readily available. Therefore non-free promo image used in lieu until then.
Wbrz (
talk) 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep I feel that UULP does apply here. Her looks are part of what she did. A picture of her, as she looked during most of her career, is important for almost any actor.
Hobit (
talk) 05:15, 8 October 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, as the summary says it's a fan-made custom tech spec for a transformers character using a photo of the toy version. If I'm not mistaken such photos are still considerd derivative of a copyrighted character though.
Sherool(talk) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, I uploaded it a while ago, but then I was told no-tech specs (even though it's not the actual tech specs, it's custom one I made, so it would be original), so it was removed from the page, but I don't know how to delete the picture from wikipedia.
Mathewignash (
talk) 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, not much of a source info. the copyright tag is for a previous, also unsourced image and there is also yet another image mixed into the hisotry here, due to the generic name no dought.
Sherool(talk) 18:58, 5 October 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: - Keep. Wierdest claimed copyright violation I've ever seen - no valid deletion reason -
Peripitus(Talk) 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep seriously even if some art buffs can contrive to argue that a blank canvas is somehow this an amazing work of art it doesn't mean you can actualy copyright a blank image. This is pretty much the poster child for {{PD-ineligible}}, updated the tag accordingly. --
Sherool(talk) 19:40, 5 October 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: - Keep - a little research before nominating does a world of good. It's the Village lock-up at Breedon on the Hill, Leicestershire, and is not orphaned or unidentified now - tagged for commons though -
Peripitus(Talk) 11:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)reply
OR, not specifically identified building
SkierRMH (
talk) 22:41, 5 October 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.
Orphaned, questionable encyclopaedic value
SkierRMH (
talk) 23:07, 5 October 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.
Orphaned personal image. Note that the author requested deleting them by uploaded a text image. This is for two images above as well.
OsamaK 23:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
