UE This is a school essay posted as a PDF file.- FreplySpang 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first and foremost it's OR, but I would concur that it's also UE. Could never be useful in any capacity. Cumulus Clouds 07:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly copyright violation. Given uploader's history, it is unlikely he/she holds the rights to this image. -- RG2 05:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find an exact copy of this on Google, but there are scaled down ones, other shots of her on the same set, and shots of other 24 characters on the same set. It's very likely a copyvio. -- RG2 06:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UE - Unencyclopedic photo of questionable utility in illustrating a pizza box. Previous concerns have been raised on the image's talk page about the quality of the image, but never addressed. Cumulus Clouds 07:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted this, as there as been no objections to this deletion nomination, while there have been objections elsewhere to using this image. -- RG2 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UE - Picture is titled "Pizza_delivery.jpg," though nothing in the picture indicates the man holding the pizza is a delivery man. Again, the picture carries only a marginal utility in illustrating the subject, which itself is in doubt. Cumulus Clouds 07:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the flickr page linked in the image license identifies the man by name and says only that he "comes bearing pizza," not that he himself is employed for a pizzeria or works as a pizza delivery man. Without that relevance, the picture and subject are nonnotable. Cumulus Clouds 07:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is clearly used inappropriately, as the person in the image is a news director in Boston, not a delivery person. Given that the individual doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article (or be notable enough to warrant one), there's no place to use this image. Given that there have been no objections to the nomination, I have deleted the image. -- RG2 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UE & OR - Picture is a low quality rendered image of two cannons (model not specified) and a French flag. Picture serves no useful addition to the article and, because it is a rendering made of what the author believes the cannons could have looked like (without citing sources or original image), it's OR. Cumulus Clouds 08:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Taking an image from the SNL cast intro yourself doesn't give you rights to that image. -- RG2 10:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not taken from the SNL cast intro. It is a promotional image distributed by NBC to the press, for editorial use (such as articles on Tina Fey). -- 19:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.76.16 (talk)
*I think you're going to have to explain how that license is false or cite the source if its a copyvio. Cumulus Clouds 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found another version of the image here. The coloring is totally differently, but I'm pretty sure it's the same photo, after comparing the position of the person in comparison to the things in the background and such. The poor quality of this photo leads to me believe that it's a scan from a printed source, as is the image I linked, and that the uploader believed that he could scan in an image and consider it his. -- RG2 18:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like the same photo to me, I'll support deletion. Cumulus Clouds 19:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is a world of difference between a "press photo" and a "photo provided to the press", typically by the family. This is clearly the latter. It is listed as being "submitted" to the press, used under fairuse by NewsLib, and as "released by the police", so it seems fsafe to say this is an ideal use of "fair use". Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 14:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I can buy that. I withdraw this nomination if that is made clear in the image summary and a fair use rationale is written. -- RG2 14:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. While we occasionally allow the use of nonfree images to illustrate what nonliving people look like, we don't use press photos. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a valuable image for Wikipedia! This is one of, if not the, most famous image from President Reagan's funeral and Wikipedia would be foolish to delete it. It is noteworthy within itself, licenses have been provided as well as a fair use rationale. Happyme22 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not think this image can be easily replaced, was widely replicated after his death and may meet the definition of "iconic" in the future. Cumulus Clouds 17:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing images of Ms. Reagan kissing the casket. The problem here is that it was an iconic event, not that this was an iconic photo, as there exists other versions (for example, the Washington Post's photo here, which was taken from a slightly different angle). Cumulus Clouds argues that it may meet the definition of "iconic" in the future. Well, if we keep it, it should be iconic now, and we should be able to verify that the image itself is iconic. Otherwise, it is a copyright violation. -- RG2 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible copyright violation. I'm not sure what the uploader means by the claim that he "bought" the image, but if he bought the image from AP Images for personal use, he still does not have rights to the image for free distribution. If that is the case, press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). Additionally, there already exist many, many free images in the article. -- RG2 13:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg, this is an extremely valuable image, one that is noteworthy within itself. I have provided information, as well as a fair use rationale... I urge you to please recondsider for the good of this article. Happyme22 17:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meets the definition of replaceable fair use. Cumulus Clouds 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. While we may use nonfree images for nonliving people, this is a press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). Additionally, there already exists another nonfree image in the article. -- RG2 13:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible copyright violation. I'm not sure what the uploader means by the claim that he "bought" the image, but if he bought the image from AP Images for personal use, he still does not have rights to the image for free distribution. If that is the case, even though we may use nonfree images for nonliving people, press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned. Possible copyright violation. I'm not sure what the uploader means by the claim that he "bought" the image, but if he bought the image from AP Images for personal use, he still does not have rights to the image for free distribution. If that is the case, press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem deleting this image. Happyme22 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this image could go, but I have no idea where to find free image of Merv Griffin, and believe me I have tried. Happyme22 17:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above. Happyme22 17:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. It's clearly not a promotional image, either. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves. Our use of such images infringe on the rights of press and photo agencies, who do business with such images. Such deletions have consistently been upheld (for example, User:Jimbo Wales' deletion here). -- RG2 13:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image. There is a series of these images uploaded by the same user to advertise an independent film release. All the articles they were associated with have been speedily deleted. -- WebHamster 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image. There is a series of these images uploaded by the same user to advertise an independent film release. All the articles they were associated with have been speedily deleted. Further, this image has been tagged by the system as having malicious code embedded. -- WebHamster 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image. There is a series of these images uploaded by the same user to advertise an independent film release. All the articles they were associated with have been speedily deleted. Further, this image has been tagged by the system as having malicious code embedded. -- WebHamster 15:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image. There is a series of these images uploaded by the same user to advertise an independent film release. All the articles they were associated with have been speedily deleted. -- WebHamster 15:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image. There is a series of these images uploaded by the same user to advertise an independent film release. All the articles they were associated with have been speedily deleted. -- WebHamster 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image. There is a series of these images uploaded by the same user to advertise an independent film release. All the articles they were associated with have been speedily deleted. -- WebHamster 15:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image. There is a series of these images uploaded by the same user to advertise an independent film release. All the articles they were associated with have been speedily deleted. -- WebHamster 15:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image. There is a series of these images uploaded by the same user to advertise an independent film release. All the articles they were associated with have been speedily deleted. -- WebHamster 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image. There is a series of these images uploaded by the same user to advertise an independent film release. All the articles they were associated with have been speedily deleted. -- WebHamster 15:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image. There is a series of these images uploaded by the same user to advertise an independent film release. All the articles they were associated with have been speedily deleted. -- WebHamster 15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image. There is a series of these images uploaded by the same user to advertise an independent film release. All the articles they were associated with have been speedily deleted. -- WebHamster 15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OR - Orphaned OR image of a Sulfuric Acid Alkylation Reactor. Since it's a rendering done without citing an original image or model, it's original research on the author's part. Cumulus Clouds 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likely CV & UE - Image is a low resolution gif of a Tyrannosaurus dancing. Image was one of the only contributions of the uploader, a vandalism-only account, and is now only used on their talk page. No encyclopedic value. Cumulus Clouds 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image is one of the only contributions of the now-absent uploader, which appears to be a gimmick account. It is therefore doubtful that the uploader holds the rights to the image, which itself is unencyclopedic and irrelevant to the articles it's used in. The basis of the image may also qualify as OR, since the uploader does not explain what he's using as a model. Cumulus Clouds 19:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've expressed my opinions on the Mexican standoff talk page, along with others who think the image is inappropriate. 高 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as uncyclopedic. It seems like they just got bored and decided to take that picture... Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 13:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source listed refers to an image from commons (Image:Mike Patton.jpg). However, that image was deleted from Commons due to a lack of source info(see Commons deletion log), effectively making this image sourceless. Seidenstud 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the original source:[1] The copyright is all in order, and I will re-upload it to Commons. Please withdraw this deletion nomination. Skomorokhincite 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks. That was really nice of you to remove the deletion notification I left on your talk page per Wikipedia standard politeness standards with the edit summary of "rv spam." Keep up the good work! -Seidenstud 08:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
