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 speedy close -- the image exists on Commons. howcheng {
chat} 03:57, 6 June 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 discussion was: delete. The image was decorative with no significance to the article. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
(1) Non-free image with no discussion in article. (2) The assertion that the copyright holder has given permission is not backed up by an OTRS ticket. (3) The rationale does not state why the image is needed in the article.
Papa November (
talk) 19:40, 6 June 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 sure what this is supposed to be, but I'm sure it violates personality rights in some form or another. Totally unencyclopedic.
Kellyhi! 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
--looks like a delete to me.--Esprit15d •
talk •
contribs 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
delete bizarre, possibly even a personal attack; see also
diff --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
the description of this image at the website (based on what is written here, it has since gone dead) does NOT indicate that anyone can use the image for any purpose
Mangostar (
talk) 23:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep.
wayback machine. Sounds like 'no rights reserved' to me. --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk) 00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Image deleted as there is no way to verify copyright status and the description is too vague to qualify as free use on Wikipedia. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:11, 26 June 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 speedy close -- the image exists on Commons. howcheng {
chat} 03:57, 6 June 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 discussion was: delete. The image was decorative with no significance to the article. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
(1) Non-free image with no discussion in article. (2) The assertion that the copyright holder has given permission is not backed up by an OTRS ticket. (3) The rationale does not state why the image is needed in the article.
Papa November (
talk) 19:40, 6 June 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 sure what this is supposed to be, but I'm sure it violates personality rights in some form or another. Totally unencyclopedic.
Kellyhi! 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
--looks like a delete to me.--Esprit15d •
talk •
contribs 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
delete bizarre, possibly even a personal attack; see also
diff --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
the description of this image at the website (based on what is written here, it has since gone dead) does NOT indicate that anyone can use the image for any purpose
Mangostar (
talk) 23:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep.
wayback machine. Sounds like 'no rights reserved' to me. --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk) 00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Image deleted as there is no way to verify copyright status and the description is too vague to qualify as free use on Wikipedia. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply