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]
Delete - Unencyclopedic, nonrepresentative of all porn sites, usefulness is confined to a very narrow range of topics (if indeed any at all), personality rights issues, fails WP:NFCC8, etc. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:31, 2 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]
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.
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.
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.
The result of the debate was:
- Delete - same reasoning for the subsequent two images. No argument given either in the debate on the image rationale as to how the non-free image significantly increases reader's understanding (per NFCC#8) - 13:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
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]
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.
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]
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.
Image's rights have been changed to CC ShareAlike on Flickr by author. -Mrprogrammer8 03:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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.
I believe the image has proper license. I spoke with the photographer about use of the image and was given written permission to use the image over a year ago. At this point, I really don't care, delete the damn picture. I am sick of dealing with this premission via email crap. I go out of my way to get the proper permissions from the owner and it still is not enough. I began submitting emailed permissions to the proper place but never got a response. You want to talk to to owner? Email him, I supplied the email on the image description. I have spent countless hours adding helpful material to Wikipedia, and this is the thanks I get. Here is an idea: Design a user-friendly website that doesn't take hours of digging though poorly organized pages to find out how to properly submit an image. Until then this site will continue to rely on the relative few who spend the time to read through all the crap. It is insulting to me that Wikipedia is an accuse first, ask questions later society. Delete all my images for all I care. Polypmaster (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: I understand licensing issues, but seeing as I got proper authorization, this image is not in violation. You may THINK it is in violation, but that does not make it so. Not following Wikipedia policy is not analogous to violating copyright. My comments are in reference to the poor organization of Wikipedia, and I stand by them. I have taken great effort to get authorization from the owners of ALL the images I have uploaded, but was repeatedly confused on how to properly submit them. It seemed that the proper method changed weekly, and while that may not be the case, finding proper information proved so difficult that every time I looked it up I came to a different conclusion. I really do not have time to contact everyone that I did to get reauthorization, resubmit it to whomever needs it, and edit each image. It will be a loss to the Wikipedia community as these are valid, useful images in regards to the articles they are in, but so be it. Polypmaster (talk) 15:48, 8 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]
Delete: The image is decorative and serves no real purpose in regard to illustrating any points of the article. The non-free album cover image identifies the album, go to the concert and take a pic of you need to decorate the article. — TAnthonyTalk23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image isn't orphaned. It's categorized in the "Images of Salem, Oregon" category. I thought the lighting issues made the picture interesting.
Comment: it may be categorised but it doesn't appear to be used in, or related to, any particular article which I think is what the nominator means. ColdmachineTalk17:32, 5 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}
