Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 February 17
.jpg){kind=link}
February 17
edit
- LQ: Out of focus — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- LQ: Out of focus — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- LQ: Out of focus — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- LQ: Out of focus — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- LQ: Out of focus — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- LQ: poor quality photo/screenshot of a TV show — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- LQ/Not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia; just a dirty, old Beanie thrown onto a bed and photographed — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- UE; photo of an old teddy bear holding an empty plastic bottle — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- LQ: Photo of a toy cash register but cluttered with various other objects. Slightly out of focus as well. — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- LQ: Photo taken from inside the user's car - car interior and window reflection visible in image — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- OR & UE: image of an old shopping bag with added computer graphics — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- LQ: Blurred, photo appears to have been taken from a moving car — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- LQ: slightly out of focus — Saikokira 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- - uploaded by Wolverine101 (notify | contribs). (NOT WORK-SAFE)
- Orphaned, encyclopedic purpose is already served by Image:Mamintb.PNG. RJASE1 Talk 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Negative, the mammary intercourse article describes two clear variations on the theme, the male-superior and female-superior positions. This picture illustrates the latter, while the cartoon drawing illustrates the former.
- I agree. The position on the picture illustrates a different form of mammary intercourse, than the cartoon. So keep.--CygnusPius 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- LQ, OR, OB by Image:Roundel of the Royal Jordanian Air Force.svg.—Ketil Trout 02:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Martin.Summers99 (notify | contribs).
- Vanity and Unencyclopedic — 172.213.253.155 05:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by JavierOmar (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation. This is as far as it gets from fair use. Neither "Displays image of actress in question", nor "Used only in said page for encyclopedic purposes", nor "No free image of this person can be found at this time." is any reason at all to claim fair use. Note that the fair use template says that it is only permitted if "the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it", which is simply not the case here. BTW, it should be disputed that fair use holds for "unrepeatable" images. Not only that every photo is unrepeatable in one way or another, if an image is unrepeatable, the more it restrictions on its copyright become relevant in the first place, since the copyright on it is especially valuable. "I cannot afford even a wikipedia-only license for the picture" is not an excuse for fair use. — Rtc 11:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, this is an excellent example of fair use: it's a publicity photo of a public person, used only to illustrate an article on that person. (The image page was problematic because it didn't mention the original source of the photo, but I've just added it: [1]. It's still unclear to me who actually owns the copyright — Lisa Nova or some random photographer or studio or what, but IMHO that's not sufficient grounds to delete the image wholesale.) --Quuxplusone 23:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is simply nonsense that publicity photos may be used under fair use. Wikipedia:Publicity photos is all complete nonsense and should be deleted or, better, replaced by a warning that publicity photos are not fair use. Besides that I do not even see that this picture is a publicity photo. It's a photo from a normal photo gallery. Nothing says that these are even free for promotional use. --Rtc 18:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, this is an excellent example of fair use: it's a publicity photo of a public person, used only to illustrate an article on that person. (The image page was problematic because it didn't mention the original source of the photo, but I've just added it: [1]. It's still unclear to me who actually owns the copyright — Lisa Nova or some random photographer or studio or what, but IMHO that's not sufficient grounds to delete the image wholesale.) --Quuxplusone 23:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not at all fair use. Kjetil_r 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Replaceable fair use, the policy seems to be to delete such images. - Mike Rosoft 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Eighthword (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, possible Copyright violation. Uploader claims to be creator, but image was downloaded from website and used for attack vandalism on a biography page. RJASE1 Talk 14:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- UE, OR, AB. Used in now-deleted page. — Calton | Talk 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- UE, OR, AB. Used in now-deleted page. — Calton | Talk 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by David Remis Jordan (notify | contribs).
- I strongly suspect that this is a gag, and that the person pictured in the image did not upload this image under the name "Twat.jpg". The only use to which this image has been put is as an inappropriate addition to the twat article. — bd2412 T 17:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- Nevertheless that does not give you any right to delete it outright without my having had a chance to discuss this with you first--David Remis Jordan 17:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't deleted it outright. I've nominated it for deletion, and it will go through the process. Irrespective of the identity of the uploader or permission of the subject, this image is of a non-notable person, is not of a particularly high quality or illustrative of a particularly rare phenomena, and is of no real value to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not PhotoBucket. bd2412 T 17:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- And I have deleted it outright as vandalism/attack image, as well as its re-upload Image:Twat.jpg. See history of twat and plonker. The uploader is now permanently blocked (not by me). - Mike Rosoft 10:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't deleted it outright. I've nominated it for deletion, and it will go through the process. Irrespective of the identity of the uploader or permission of the subject, this image is of a non-notable person, is not of a particularly high quality or illustrative of a particularly rare phenomena, and is of no real value to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not PhotoBucket. bd2412 T 17:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. UE. OR. Sort of LQ as well.-R. fiend 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I guess this is an attack image. Kjetil_r 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Classic counterexample 5: A photo from a press agency (in this case Agence France-Presse), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. — —Angr 19:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Image kept. See fair use rationale. -Nv8200p talk 03:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Desperadoxd (notify | contribs).
- It's an orphaned, unencyclopedic image. It's the logo of a non-notable band, Northmen (band), whose article has already been speedy deleted. — Leon Sword 20:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Composite superman (notify | contribs).
- Copyright Violation, and faked permissions labelling, uploader takes credit for creating image. — ThuranX 21:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the user really photographed the card and was under an impression that he can release it under GFDL (which is not the case). But in any case, it's unused, and the value of its inclusion in Composite Man/Composite Superman is dubious. - Mike Rosoft 10:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
