Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 January 27
January 27
- Copyrighted image failing nfc - We dont need an image of someone who appears only in print (nfc#8) Fasach Nua (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- this image is not taken by the US government or public domain Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
-2008-01-27T01:47:00.000Z-Image:Eichmann.jpg){kind=link}
{{:Image:Kraysis.jpg]]|Uploader=Tim!|Reason=copy ighte image failing NFC
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 00:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This image is from NARA's archives as shown under it at its original location.user Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ),please wear glasses,you can't be THAT blind.user User_talk:Nv8200p, what do you mean absent uploader??what kind of a lie is this??i'm the one who originally uploaded this image.what do you mean Unencyclopedic??doesn't the image illustrate adolf eichmann??what kinds of jokes are these??Grandia01 (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (no article on Krewe of Onion), Low quality Nv8200p talk 00:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I (author) had this on the Baton Rouge page at one point, but the artistic nuances of the work were (and, sadly, continue to be) insufficiently appreciated. Delete away. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment A speedy tag would be sufficient in the future :) SGGH speak! 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Krisgilbert (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (No article on Kris Gilbert), Low quality, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Nunchuckgirl (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (No article on Chris Yen), Absent uploader (No contributions since 21 May 2007), Probable Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Mmmminky_lip (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (no article on Kristoff's Circles), Absent uploader (No contributions since 5 November 2007), Copyright violation (Derivative image) Nv8200p talk 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Danish_Ranger (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by PearlJamFan93211 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality, Watermarked Nv8200p talk 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 02:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Blasticore (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 02:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Robinboast (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by SakotGrimshine (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Ratziecana (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Livingston7 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 02:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Metaprotist (notify | contribs).
- Image was uploaded by vandalism-only user (now blocked). Only use for image was to use as a part of racist vandalism on Purple drank, then tiled repeatedly on his user page and talk page after being warned about vandalism. No need for this to be here at all. Gromlakh (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by ProteinBoxBot (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned and very poorly named. This uploader has been uploading many images that aren't named well. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- This image is part of the article on NIPA1 and has been orphaned by a template being broken by the switch to the new pre-processor. See discussion at User_talk:ProteinBoxBot#ProteinBoxBot.27s_uploads. This is a temporary bug until the templates are fixed. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Scoutzilla (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic orphan. LeSnail (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Drchandler (notify | contribs).
- Don't know who this is a picture of. Orphaned. LeSnail (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphan, self-request. Octane (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hans Oesterholt (notify | contribs).
- Image belongs to the following article, CMME, which has been deleted - Simeon87 (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hans Oesterholt (notify | contribs).
- Image belongs to the following article, CMME, which has been deleted Simeon87 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hans Oesterholt (notify | contribs).
- Image belongs to the following article, CMME, which has been deleted Simeon87 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hans Oesterholt (notify | contribs).
- Image belongs to the following article, CMME, which has been deleted Simeon87 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by AtulaSiriwardane (notify | contribs).
- Photograph of a painting, so copyright is owned by painter, accordingly uploader not in a position to release into public domain. Addhoc (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, apparently uploaded for College of Journalism and Mass Communications (University of Nebraska–Lincoln), which was originally called JFly. Perhaps "JFly" is a term for the college used by journalism students, but I can find no evidence of any official usage (see [1], [2]). —Bkell (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from Jan 20 to allow more user comment. -Nv8200p talk 17:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Per WP:PROFANITY, this image is neither necessary nor informative, and probably runs afoul of WP:BLP. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't see your rationale, it was a notable event...sorta ViperSnake151 14:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see how this image is profane, given that it was censored by CBS at time of broadcast. The article includes a bullet point about this, which notes that it was "the most talked about incident in the history of the show," according to Bob Barker, and that TV Guide ranked it as the 19th most unexpected moment in television history. We should have an image to illustrate this iconic moment. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. People don't need to see the picture to understand that a woman's tube top fell off. (Indeed the picture is so bad I couldn't really tell what it even was of.) Fails NFCC8. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The nomination, and the preceding discussion, was about the image as it relates to WP:PROFANITY and WP:BLP. To start a debate around WP:NFCC splinters the discussion.—Twigboy (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's a good reason to delete it, and where else should the issue be raised besides the images for deletion page? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree that it fails NFCC 8 for the reasons indicated in my vote above. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I also agree with Scott5114. This was a notable event in television history. The clip is shown frequently on blooper shows, and is regularly referenced in pop culture. The image is significant, and does not violate NFCC 8. --Mr. Brown (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree that it fails NFCC 8 for the reasons indicated in my vote above. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's a good reason to delete it, and where else should the issue be raised besides the images for deletion page? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The nomination, and the preceding discussion, was about the image as it relates to WP:PROFANITY and WP:BLP. To start a debate around WP:NFCC splinters the discussion.—Twigboy (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Does not violate WP:PROFANITY, as the image was not self-censored, but is an image from what aired on the program. Individual is identified by no more than "Yolanda," so WP:BLP is hard to assert.—Twigboy (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Sponge8485 (notify | contribs).
- Image as no apparent use- tagged as vandalism but I declined that. GDonato (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Lindsey8417 (notify | contribs).
- this could be replaced w/ a free image of the line's clothing Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, no real use for a graphic here - table would be better Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Seanelvidge (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, possible copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Rendleshamincident (notify | contribs).
- derivative work of copyrighted sign Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by System_effect (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by UgoTroccoli (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, possible copyvio? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by UgoTroccoli (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by AuroraStars (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Bang_bang_you're_dead (notify | contribs).
- unnecessary jpg version of flag - png and svg are superior Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Dollytheledge (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Davidcannon (notify | contribs).
- no reason to think this photo is PD, uploader has uploaded many images from non-US governments and tagged them PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Davidcannon (notify | contribs).
- no reason to think this photo is PD, uploader has uploaded many images from non-US governments and tagged them PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Davidcannon (notify | contribs).
- no reason to think this photo is PD, uploader has uploaded many images from non-US governments and tagged them PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Davidcannon (notify | contribs).
- no reason to think this photo is PD, uploader has uploaded many images from non-US governments and tagged them PD. a free photo of this individual should be available because lebanese copyright lasts 50 years. unfortunately this photo has no date. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Davidcannon (notify | contribs).
- no reason to think this photo is PD, uploader has uploaded many images from non-US governments and tagged them PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by LedgeGriffo! (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, not encyclopaedic, and being used as a social network thingy / sort of non-notable bio about someone called Rosalind after the article posted about her was deleted. They uploaded a few such images actually. Wikipedia is not a social network, and not a free image hosting site. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 20:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Davidcannon (notify | contribs).
- there is one free image of this man on the page already, and there probably are other free images pre-1923 we could track down. in other words, this image is replaceable Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Davidcannon (notify | contribs).
- no reason to think this photo is PD, uploader has uploaded many images from non-US governments and tagged them PD. we should be able to find a free image of this man because lebanese copyright for photos lasts 50 years. (but this photo is not dated.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Davidcannon (notify | contribs).
- no reason to think this photo is PD, uploader has uploaded many images from non-US governments and tagged them PD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by LedgeGriffo! (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, unencyclopedic, absentee uploader. And Wikipedia is not a free image host. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Davidcannon (notify | contribs).
- uploader claims images from the pitcairn islands are automatically copyright-free but i can find no support for this Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Yolanda-evergeeen (notify | contribs).
- Non-encyclopedic; promotion of non-notable band whose article has been deleted. Pegasus «C¦T» 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete--Hu12 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Yolanda-evergeeen (notify | contribs).
- Non-encyclopedic; promotion of non-notable band whose article has already been deleted. Pegasus «C¦T» 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete--Hu12 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which criteria do you feel applies here? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Yolanda-evergeeen (notify | contribs).
- Non-encyclopedic; promotion of non-notable band whose article has already been deleted. Pegasus «C¦T» 23:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete--Hu12 (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which criteria? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Dorje_Shedrub (notify | contribs).
- License allows use related to the practices of Plum Village, however image is used only in the Nhat Hanh biography, accordingly delete on grounds of replaceable fair use image. Addhoc (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per wp:nfcc#1. Also image is already replaced. See Image:Thich Nhat Hanh2.jpg. Garion96 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I absolutely disagree! The so-called "fair use" photo was mined from flickr and has not be verified as belonging to the photographer. We all know that people download photos and upload them to their flickr accounts all the time. I see absolutely no difference between someone having a photo that they don't want derivitive works of, don't want used commercially, and want attributed to them, but they don't call it CC (whatever version) because they don't know about such a designation, and actually calling it that term. I personally do not think it's ethical to upload a person's photo onto WikiCommons, regardless of the copyright designation without asking that person's permission. Nightngle (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nightngle, please listen to other people sometimes. I physically contacted the photographer and had them relicense their work so that it could be used here on Wikipedia. Flickr review will catch up in no time, as the license is in accord with what is acceptable at Wiki Commons. Also, the photo does allow for commercial and derivative works, unlike the press photo—also, it is not a "fair use" image, as you call it. So please listen a little. "Mining" Flickr, so to speak, is extremely valuable for adding to the content in articles here on Wikipedia. Countless articles now have imagery because of some of the kind photographers over at Flickr. Finally, there is absolutely no ethical problem with using a photograph that has a free license. The photographer knows what they are doing when they take the time to license their photos in that manner. Unethical behavior would be stealing someone's work when it has a strict copyright. (Mind meal (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
- There is no need for the condescending approach and tone here. When reading any of the help pages regarding images, there are no hard and fast definitions, and there are loads of contradictions. I have repeatedly researched the rules in working on this article; just because I disagree with you does not mean that I'm not listening or that I haven't studied! The article has been peer reviewed, reviewed by the biography project, and given an A-class review all without issues with the image used. Given that this is an biographic article about a living person, it is certainly more appropriate to use an image that the subject himself has given permission to use for articles of this nature. Nightngle (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
