Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 May 16
Appearance
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 16)
May 16
- Cumbrowski (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned because Image:Roy SAC banner.png made this image obsolete. PNG crusade bot 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image is part of non-notable article mainly for vanity — Janarius 01:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, insuficcient context to determine encyclopedic value, user's sole contribution Iamunknown 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Philbertgray (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- There is no critical commentary in the article about this film screenshot, thus failing WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- McCorrection (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Possible Copyright violation. It's an unsourced image only "believed" to be in the public domain. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Replaced with a smaller sized version at Image:Themonitors Archive.jpg in view of this guideline. This leaves this png file effectively orphaned. — J Greb 07:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reverted your replacement as it was impossible to see any detail, image is now again in use. --Basique 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Replaced with a smaller sized version at Image:Allssdcu0.jpg in view of this guideline. This leaves this png file effectively orphaned. — J Greb 07:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image has been removed from use as it was taken directly from another encyclopedia or encyclopedia-like publication as per this guideline. — J Greb 07:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image has been removed from use as it was taken directly from another encyclopedia or encyclopedia-like publication as per this guideline. — J Greb 07:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Doctored from Image:Tiger_shark_caught_in_bay.jpg for vandalism resons, only used in one page, to replace original picture. Suggest speedy, but vandalism pictures is not reson for speedy, but it does not fulfill copyright clause either ... — Stefan 09:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
- Curlyjimsam (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Non-commercial — Pagrashtak 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Non-derivative, replaceable. — Pagrashtak 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- why delete an image, - that yes can be relaced, but does not yet have one? Is this deleting images for the sake of deleting images? What is the purpose of deleting it? Twthmoses 08:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. "The following conditions must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives. Please list this image for deletion if they do." and the terms that follow prohibit derivitive workes. Since the image is replacable, an alternative should be found. Neitherday 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- why delete an image, - that yes can be relaced, but does not yet have one? Is this deleting images for the sake of deleting images? What is the purpose of deleting it? Twthmoses 08:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. see comment above. Neitherday 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Non-derivative, replaceable. — Pagrashtak 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- why delete an image, - that yes can be relaced, but does not yet have one? Is this deleting images for the sake of deleting images? What is the purpose of deleting it? Twthmoses 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. "The following conditions must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives. Please list this image for deletion if they do." and the terms that follow prohibit derivitive workes. Since the image is replacable, an alternative should be found. Neitherday 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- why delete an image, - that yes can be relaced, but does not yet have one? Is this deleting images for the sake of deleting images? What is the purpose of deleting it? Twthmoses 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. see comment above. Neitherday 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- "I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- "I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- "I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- "I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- "I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- "I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- "I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." does not prove that "PD-self" is acceptable — Loganberry (Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyright issue and is orphaned anyway. Neitherday 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, dubious free use claim.- Punkmorten 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, dubious free use claim.- Punkmorten 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, unencyclopedic, very low quality.- Punkmorten 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, unencyclopedic — – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, agree. Punkmorten 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Littledaniel 93 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Dubious free use claim. Seems like the image is cropped.- Punkmorten 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Absent uploader, Orphaned, Unencyclopedic hbdragon88 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- DJ Bob Hoskins (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic, user's only upload was this picture hbdragon88 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Medinetindia (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Clearly not GFDL, summary is spammy. Orphaned, Absent uploader (no contrib except for the image uploader), unencyclopedic hbdragon88 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mariothomas (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Unencylcopedic, personal photo, absent Uploader hbdragon88 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Claimed GFDL, but watermark says otherwise: All rights reserved. Also orphaned hbdragon88 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- OR, UE, personal photo, AU hbdragon88 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Personal pic, UE, OR, AU hbdragon88 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, looks like it should be used on Mercedes Ashley, but on the other hand, I suspect that there's reason to doubt whether it's really GDFL. Still, it might be worth some further investigation. Xtifr tälk 10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops, now I see the misplaced comment on the image below. Yup, ugly watermark, so delete. Xtifr tälk 20:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- No evidence that it is GFDL licensed. Watermark in the upper left had corner violates image policy. hbdragon88 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any watermark, but this is clearly unsourced and encyclopedic. V60 干什么? · VDemolitions 07:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right-o. This reason was written for image:MercedesAshley.jpg above, which does have a watermark. For some erason, I swapped them. hbdragon88 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)