the image is very low quality and a same purpose one has been uploaded to commons (
Image:Peru Provinces.png), I've replaced the nom on the only article it was included — Andersmusician$ 01:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic value
Iamunknown 02:32, 17 June 2007 (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.
Keep. As the person who uploaded all the images in question, I have provided what I believe to be sufficient rationale for their fair use based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies. (A lot of thought went into the rationale and the tags provided, unlike the overwhelming majority of images and media offered for deletion here.) If you believe my rationale is in error, insufficient or incorrect, please explain exactly why, beyond just offering this image (and the others) for deletion--which seems to be a primary focus of your participation on Wikipedia, from what I can tell. (I don't mean anything personal by that; it's just an observation.) The images on the DVD covers are discussed in the article that accompanies the grid in which the images are featured, so it's not simply a "catalog" use. But, if others agree that their use does not meet Wikipedia standards, I'm willing to accept a consensus judgment on this. However, as far as the other images on the La Femme Nikita page are concerned, I would vote a Strong Keep, as the rationale for their fair use on Wikipedia is extremely appropriate.--
TARDIS 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I understand you've thought through your rationales, and I don't doubt your good faith. I just suspect they violate criterion #3, that's all. Nothing personal. I hope others will comment with whether they think this use is acceptable or not. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Personally I think it contributes to the article to show how the show was merchandised; though I know others may disagree.
Jheald 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete some we do not need that many fair use images in a single article. -
N 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Kept. The blurb at the top of the "DVD releases" section describing the covers saves these images. howcheng {
chat} 16:26, 22 June 2007 (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 image, absent uploader, questionable license given no proof of uploader being photographer
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, image unlikely PD-self given base image has a copyright notice applied, also insufficent information to determine use for image
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete if you wish I uploaded this image when I was less-familiar with Wikipedia's policies. As it is orphaned, go ahead and get rid of it.
11kowrom 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, image unlikely PD-self given base image has a copyright notice applied, also insufficent information to determine use for image-
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, unlikely GFDL-self - source provided in summary does not work, licensed changed after uploaded as non-commercial use
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, either is an unencyclopedicpersonal photo or a non-free promo pic
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
CV. I myself uploaded this image when I started out at WP more than a year ago. I wasn't experienced enough to know this would be in blatant violation of copyright. —
rohith 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
the image is very low quality and a same purpose one has been uploaded to commons (
Image:Peru Provinces.png), I've replaced the nom on the only article it was included — Andersmusician$ 01:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic value
Iamunknown 02:32, 17 June 2007 (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.
Keep. As the person who uploaded all the images in question, I have provided what I believe to be sufficient rationale for their fair use based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies. (A lot of thought went into the rationale and the tags provided, unlike the overwhelming majority of images and media offered for deletion here.) If you believe my rationale is in error, insufficient or incorrect, please explain exactly why, beyond just offering this image (and the others) for deletion--which seems to be a primary focus of your participation on Wikipedia, from what I can tell. (I don't mean anything personal by that; it's just an observation.) The images on the DVD covers are discussed in the article that accompanies the grid in which the images are featured, so it's not simply a "catalog" use. But, if others agree that their use does not meet Wikipedia standards, I'm willing to accept a consensus judgment on this. However, as far as the other images on the La Femme Nikita page are concerned, I would vote a Strong Keep, as the rationale for their fair use on Wikipedia is extremely appropriate.--
TARDIS 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I understand you've thought through your rationales, and I don't doubt your good faith. I just suspect they violate criterion #3, that's all. Nothing personal. I hope others will comment with whether they think this use is acceptable or not. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Personally I think it contributes to the article to show how the show was merchandised; though I know others may disagree.
Jheald 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete some we do not need that many fair use images in a single article. -
N 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Kept. The blurb at the top of the "DVD releases" section describing the covers saves these images. howcheng {
chat} 16:26, 22 June 2007 (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 image, absent uploader, questionable license given no proof of uploader being photographer
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, image unlikely PD-self given base image has a copyright notice applied, also insufficent information to determine use for image
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete if you wish I uploaded this image when I was less-familiar with Wikipedia's policies. As it is orphaned, go ahead and get rid of it.
11kowrom 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, image unlikely PD-self given base image has a copyright notice applied, also insufficent information to determine use for image-
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, unlikely GFDL-self - source provided in summary does not work, licensed changed after uploaded as non-commercial use
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, either is an unencyclopedicpersonal photo or a non-free promo pic
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
CV. I myself uploaded this image when I started out at WP more than a year ago. I wasn't experienced enough to know this would be in blatant violation of copyright. —
rohith 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply