Screenshot of a website used just as an arbitrary example of that type of website, in Internet pornography, without any analytical comment about what it illustrates; therefore fails NFCC#8 – I can perfectly well understand the article without this. No meaningful fair use rationale. There may be an additional problem in that the website content shown may actually be illegal: It shows what it purports to be images taken surrepetitiously of non-consenting persons on beaches, and some of the thumbnails are large enough to make a person identifiable, even in our copy. Fut.Perf.☼00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid argument for removing. This is typically pointless over-zealous enforcement of non-free content rule; virtually every article in Wikipedia could be "perfectly well understood" without illustration; that does not negate the value of illustration as a part of the reader's experience. Statement that some of the subjects in the image may be "identifiable" is utter nonsense. RedSpruce (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also the license stipulates 'for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question', which hasn't been met, also the rationale is completely inadequate. PhilKnight (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned .pdf file. This is an electronic version of the leaflet with the printer cut and fold lines indicated - there is no indication why this would be PD. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor character portrait from a TV series, character is of minor importance and treated only in a brief list with no non-trivial critical analysis or notability through media coverage. Fails NFCC#8 and general practice about non-free images in lists. Fut.Perf.☼09:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contract player on the series, not a minor character; notability for the series is asserted in the article with references, but the article is brand new and the individual characters have not yet been expanded. The image would be acceptable if the character had its own stub, isn't a composite article preferable to several stubs? — TAnthonyTalk15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like the above. Minor character portrait from a TV series, character is of minor importance and treated only in a brief list with no non-trivial critical analysis or notability through media coverage. Fails NFCC#8 and general practice about non-free images in lists. Fut.Perf.☼09:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contract player on the series, not a minor character; notability for the series is asserted in the article with references, but the article is brand new and the individual characters have not yet been expanded. The image would be acceptable if the character had its own stub, isn't a composite article preferable to several stubs? — TAnthonyTalk15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like the above. Minor character portrait from a TV series, character is of minor importance and treated only in a brief list with no non-trivial critical analysis or notability through media coverage. Fails NFCC#8 and general practice about non-free images in lists. Fut.Perf.☼09:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contract player on the series, not a minor character; notability for the series is asserted in the article with references, but the article is brand new and the individual characters have not yet been expanded. The image would be acceptable if the character had its own stub, isn't a composite article preferable to several stubs? — TAnthonyTalk15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be an "iconic" photograph of a memorable historic scene (Krushchev banging his shoe on the table during a UN meeting in 1960) - but the photograph seems to be a fake. It's a montage of this shoe-less image with a shoe photoshopped in. The real shoe incident looked like this (but that photograph is commercial and therefore off-limits for us). Khrushchev was sitting, not standing; behind a table, not a speaker's podium; in the middle of other people, not alone. The shoe incident is certainly a memorable historic moment, but there just doesn't seem to exist a single, authentic, "iconic" photograph of it. Fut.Perf.☼12:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, recently absent uploader, insufficent information provided to confirm GFDL license; also has creators information in bottom right and it does not appear to be uploader. Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of such small resolution, and contains such noticeable watermarks that it isn't of sufficient quality for an encyclopaedia. Describing the dog seems sufficient. Ian¹³/t14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
