Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 January 8

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 8)
< January 7 January 9 >

January 8 edit

User:L.L.King and images uploaded by his sockpuppets edit

This user uploaded a number of images under his sockpuppet accounts to promote Paris in Jail: The Music Video and the actors and production company involved in that video. The images this user claims they took are all likely copyright violations and should be scrutinized very carefully.

Image:Paris Video Spoof.jpg edit

Image:Paris Video Spoof.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cinemapress (notify | contribs).
  • CV & OR - Orphaned derivative work. PD claimed, but image is copyrighted and watermarked work of Omovies. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:James Evans Actor.jpg edit

Image:James Evans Actor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CelebPress (notify | contribs).
  • CV - Uploaded as PD by sockpuppet of banned user but that is almost certainly false. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fine Arts Pose.jpg edit

Image:Fine Arts Pose.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MikeTheModel (notify | contribs).

Image:Beer_Security.jpg edit

Image:Beer_Security.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ExtraordinaryActor (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned & Likely CV - This is a sockpuppet of L.L.King and likely does not own the rights to this image. Image has since been orphaned. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You can't prove that he's lying about his rights to the image. He may be a sockpuppeteer simply because he's a paranoid, and does not want people to know certain things he has done, for political reasons. He might have copyright ownership of the image, after all. Just ask him on his talk page. And no, I am not another sockpuppet of his. I am just User:Wilhelmina Will, and that's all I ever want anybody to recognize me as. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't prove that he didn't take this picture, no, but per WP:DUCK, the overwhelming amount of evidence against this user leads me to believe that he is misrepresenting his rights to this image. This includes claiming rights to other images which he obviously did not produce, promoting Paris in Jail: The Music Video and its associated actors and producers through numerous socks and attempting to hide these copyright violations through the use of those same sockpuppets. These things together remove any credibility for the license used on this image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now the tag has been changed to fair use (without explanation) and the image isn't being used in any articles. It was automatically tagged for deletion by BJBot to be deleted on the 22nd, but since it's been nominated for more than a week, it can be deleted now under NFCC #8. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michael as Bacchus 2006.jpg edit

Image:Michael as Bacchus 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cinemapress (notify | contribs).
  • CV, OR, UE - Image is orphaned, uploader likely does not have rights to release image and is unencyclopedic. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paris_and_Mitch.jpg edit

Image:Paris_and_Mitch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ExtraordinaryActor (notify | contribs).
  • per NFCC #8 and #3b, image is one of a dozen uploaded from same music video and used in the same articles with each other. Uploader is, again, a blocked sockpuppet of User:L.L.King. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cop_and_Paris.jpg edit

Image:Cop_and_Paris.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ExtraordinaryActor (notify | contribs).
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 discussion was:

Image:Michael_Q._Schmidt_at_wrap_party_for_Yesterday_Was_A_Lie.jpg edit

Image:Michael_Q._Schmidt_at_wrap_party_for_Yesterday_Was_A_Lie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mqschmidt (notify | contribs).
From MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have recieved some 50-odd emails in the last few days from literally all over the world. They have informed me that a page on Wiki about me was about to be deleted as being "non-notable"... and further, of a contentious argument on Wikipedia concerning reviewer Leon L. King's method of promoting projects with whom he may or may not have a vested interest. I had known an article existed, but did not concern myself with it until quite recently. I would request please, that that the page about me be removed immediately because being listed having on Wiki can be a detriment to one's career.
For example, the Paris Hilton trivia controversy that started the above-mentioned argument... and the number of changes for good or bad being done to that page. Such rampant spread of fabrication and misinformation, and the agrguments about what is worthy or not, have caused much popular media to feel that Wiki informations are generally unreliable, as changing on an hourly basis, and being too often the result of opinion proffered as fact.
The argument underscores my own feelings in this. Studying the L.L.King case in point, I see that the editor at the heart of this argument, in his rush to remove anything connected with King or his subordianants, first declared the article about me as "non-notable", and then proceeded himself to dismantle all the links and all images that might have shown any notability. I wish to point out, having read the artcle and the pre-dismantled verrsions, that the information removed by the angry editor were themselves factual. I found no errors or mis-truths. The fact that this person was able to do this is itself evident that personal opinion can be made to masquerade as fact anywhere on Wiki... to its detriment. Calling a car a junker and then driving it into a wall to destroy it makes it into the junker you first called it. Destroying a car because you do not like the previous owner is a childish act... one too often reflected in the pages of Wiki as seen through the eyes of popular media. The ability of one person to do this is the reason I insist that my "page" be removed.
I will not get into an argument about who is a sock puppet of whom. I do not care as it is not material to my own wish to not be connected to any source that pretends be truth when it all comes down to the simple fact that such a system is abused repeatedly... and under many guises... and often by the same individuals claiming to be working for a greater good. Such a system is not reliable. Consensus and opinion are not truth. Consensus and opinion are not fact..
Out of growing curiosity, I spent several hours following this one editor's trail of orchestrated and biased de-construction. I was appalled at the time and energy he has spent to make his own opinion more important than fact on numerous occasions. For instance, he has himself written an article about an unfortunate death. All deaths are unfortunate. But his personal interest in one such does not make it notable, no matter how much press coverage it may have gotten in his own part of the world. Studying the edits and counter-edits and arguments and counter-arguments I learned that he is a very opinionated person who does not like to be told that he has made an error in judgement. But he and those like him, and the ones that let him continue are the root and cause of all that is wrong with Wiki. His permitted continuance in his endeavours is an example of Wiki's biggest flaw.
I then found my way to this page of images he demand be deleted... and no doubt each and every one will be removed because he has the "friends in high places" and has thus been able to over-rule any disssent. Now inre these images of me... I wish to state for the record, that as an actor, I have absolutely no problem nor difficulty with any image of me being used, whether of my work as an actor or of my work as a fine arts model. I further wish to state that some of the images being proposed for removal are images taken of me on various film sets with my own camera, to which I owned the rights and to which I released to public domain years ago. As an actor, and as the subject and owner of those images, I allowed them to used by others. I do not rescind that permission, only feel very unhappy that they became part of his opinionated deceit.
More to the point, there is one image in particular being contested by this editor that I uploaded myself. I had a small background part in the film "Yesterday was a Lie". I was invited to the film's wrap party by actor/producer Chase Masterson. It was held in Hollywood in September 2006. At this warp party, I several times gave my camera to another guest and asked that they take a picture of me. One of those pictures was of me on the red carpet with star Kipley Brown, producer Chase Masterson and director James Kerwin. I cropped these other individuals out of my picture and now use the image as my "headshot" as is my right, owning the image. This cropped image is on the first page of my official web site. In August of 2007, I uploaded the image to Wiki personally as I had every right to do so. I again released it to the public domain... as was already done months previous when I had it put on my own website. I take exception to anyone acting without knowledge to blatantly call an image I owned a "copyright" violation... because I owned it, the rights to it, and cropped it and uploaded it. Owning all rights to the picture, I may do exactly what I did.
I am easily searchable on Google. My contact informations are on my website. I wish to point out as strongly as possible that this editor made absolutely no attempts to contact me to ascertain the truth about the image of me or in any way to confirm the statement he made about the image itself. The fact that anyone can act as this individual has done, and make any number of unsupported allegations without regard to evidence or truth or fact is a further indictment of Wikipedia. For these reasons, I would wish to have that image removed, as well as the article about me.
I know there may actually be people using Wiki that believe in it... that believe it can be used for the common good. That someone like this angry editor is able to abuse the process without any constraints, is horrific. And with all these truths being sadly quite evident, any article suffers when it is so readily subject to vandalism under the guise of (mis-used) authority.
I can easily be found on IMDB. I can easily be found with any Google search. I do not think this one person's opinion as to the notability of my life or career matter at all in the scheme of things. I also do not think Wiki should be giving credence to this person's opions being paraded as fact or as "consensus". As I said, opinion and consensus are not fact and never will be... except in the role-playing game of the self-righteous called "World of Wiki-craft". I do not need nor wish to be found on Wiki. Please remove the article about me and that picture of me... taken by a friend for me, with my own camera at the wrap party for "Yesterday was a Lie". - [Michael Q. Schmidt], a non-notable actor NOT hiding behind the veil of anonymity. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I visited. I commented. Consensus is not truth. Opinion is not fact. And knowing how lazy many people are... too lazy even to click to a different page to follow this disucsion... and because here is where you caught my attention... I post here as well.
[TRUNCATING RESPONSE] - See your talk page, there is no reason to keep this amount of text here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I return to town and discover that this image was deleted anyway? I explained that as the copyright holder... as the person to whom the picture belonged... that it had been uploaded with all proper citations and permissions. And yet it gets removed anyway... with no explanation other than WP:IFD. That's not a reason.... its a location. So what's the deal? Is simply being on the IFD page enough to guarantee any image be removed? Do those who wait and then remove these images not have to make a comment or read the arguments pro and con? I am confused... though this may also be jet lag. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With no one supporting keeping the image and endorsement by the subject of the image I originally deleted the image. User:MichaelQSchmidt the subject and claimed copyright holder of the image asked for restoring the image. Based on WP:AGF I complied. -Nv8200p talk 19:16, 19 January 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.

Image:A_character_for_any_occasion.jpg edit

Image:A_character_for_any_occasion.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CelebPress (notify | contribs).
  • Blocked sock account of L.L.King, derivative work of copyrighted images. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michael Q. Schmidt creating Joy Peters.jpg edit

Image:Michael Q. Schmidt creating Joy Peters.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cinemapress (notify | contribs).
  • per NFCC #8, is not mentioned in the article and does not substantially contribute to reader's understanding of subject. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SAVE This image illustrates how the show's animations are made, and adds to the reader's and viewer's understanding of what is involved in the creation of the show. Godhead01 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I have to add to my comments... the image IS mentioned in tha article. In paragraph 3, "animation style which is made by taking photos of the cast with different expressions". The scene for which it was used in mentioned in the synopsis for the "rebith" episode, "using Joy in a rebirthing ceremony ". In these contexts, the image has value to the article. Godhead01 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user registered this morning and, because of the nature of these nominations and subsequent action against their uploader, I have to question whether these comments are made in good faith by a unique user. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not mean to upset you. I am a fan of the shows I have been editing and only wished to point out that you were in error when you made the statement "per NFCC #8, (the image) is not mentioned in the article", when in fact it was. And further, when you stated "does not substantially contribute to reader's understanding of subject", you were perhaps sharing an opinion. By way of visual example, the image does much more than mere words could to illustrate how the animations are created. Godhead01 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Godhead01 has been blocked as a sock of L.L.King. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Onset_with_Bill_Pullman_and_Richard_Riehle.jpg edit

Image:Onset_with_Bill_Pullman_and_Richard_Riehle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ExtraordinaryActor (notify | contribs).
  • CV - sockpuppet upload likely does not have rights to release this image, per all other noms above. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leige_King.jpg edit

Image:Leige_King.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MikeTheModel (notify | contribs).
  • CV - Blocked uploader likely does not have rights to release image, two other similar images are up for deletion and this one should be deleted under the same criteria. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hpiddy.jpg edit

Image:Hpiddy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ExtraordinaryActor (notify | contribs).
  • per NFCC#8, watermarked image is not discussed in article and does not enhance understanding of subject. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chauntal_Lewis_as_Lindsay.jpg edit

Image:Chauntal_Lewis_as_Lindsay.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ExtraordinaryActor (notify | contribs).
  • Watermarked image fails NFCC #3b and #8 as discussed above. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:James_B._Evans.JPG edit

Image:James_B._Evans.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Anypose (notify | contribs).
  • per NFCC #3b and #8 above, uploader is confirmed sockpuppet of blocked and user, also claims GFDL, but image appears to be a screencap. Once again, probably the work Omovies or some other work associated with Paris in Jail or its producers. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tom_Peters_and_wife_Joy.jpg edit

Image:Tom_Peters_and_wife_Joy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ZeeToAaa (notify | contribs).
  • per NFCC #8, image is not discussed in article and does not contribute to article in a significant way. Uploaded by a sock puppet of blocked user to promote actors within it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SAVE Joy giving Tom grief is a common theme throughout the entire series. The image right above it of Tom and the Mayor is not "specifically" discussed in the article either, but just as the Joy image, acts to illustrate repeated themes within the show. Godhead01 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I need to correct myself here. Sorry. The action of the image IS specidfically referred to in the synopsis for the episode "Pipe Camp", "Joy verbally accosts Tom for interrupting her breakfast". In both this specific context and as an overall illustration of the Tom/Joy relationship, the image should stay. Godhead01 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, this is a new user registration from an account with no other edits than to IFD. Aside from those concerns, the image does not contribute substantially to either article where text would do just as well (NFCC #8). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing only the cogent points of your response, I am again sorry that I need to counter your opinion. Throughout the "Tom Goes to the Mayor" series, Joy has a turbulent relationship with Tom. This image showing Joy eating a "breakfast trough" while Tom cowers in the doorway is a superb illustration of the Joy/Tom relationship, expressing in one picture what it might take volumes to explain. In that manner and in that way is contributes quite substantially to viewer understanding of the show, its's characters, and their interactions. Again, the image IS discussed in the article and contributes substantially to the viewer's understanding, being succinct, relevent and to the point. While text might do to replace ANY image anywhere, this is an instance where one picture IS worth a thousand words. Godhead01 (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Godhead01 has been blocked as a sock of L.L.King. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stephanie Courtney.jpg edit

Image:Stephanie Courtney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by L.L.King (notify | contribs).
  • GFDL asserted without proof. Probable copyright violation. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:33919.jpg edit

Image:33919.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thefreshraj (notify | contribs).
  • Has no use purpose and a name containing random numbers. Compwhiz II 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Warka.jpg edit

Image:Warka.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soad666 (notify | contribs).
  • orphan, unencyclopedic; was part of vandalism on Warka. This image is also listed for having no copyright information, but I am also listing it here because clarifying the copyright status would not be sufficient. Bovlb (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was used to vandalize the infobox in place of a city emblem/city logo. —MJCdetroit (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cold_Case.jpg edit

Image:Cold_Case.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SJR2008 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphan, the article it was on was deleted for non-notability. The image can not go on the commons, as it was uploaded by a sockpuppet of a user who was blocked on the commons. BlueAzure (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MaineRoute9A.GIF edit

Image:MaineRoute9A.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gateman1997 (notify | contribs).

Image:Whoamigradmosaic.jpg edit

Image:Whoamigradmosaic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Firewire280 (notify | contribs).
  • OR, unencyclopedic, possibly a copyvio B (talk) 04:34, 8 January 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:TimmyTurner.gif edit

Image:TimmyTurner.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wilhelmina Will (notify | contribs).
  • (Sticks her tongue out at the nominator) Haha! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an inside joke that I'm missing? The image is used under a claim of fair use. That the image is on a search engine has no bearing on whether or not that claim is valid. --B (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those exist! It's plain to see! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy kept - nomination process not completed, invalid reason for deletion given, not a serious discussion. Please feel free to renominate if there are serious concerns with the image. --B (talk) 05:37, 8 January 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.

Image:Evidence_of_Miles'_Homeschooling.jpg edit

Image:Evidence_of_Miles'_Homeschooling.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Berniejw (notify | contribs).
  • No licensing or source given. Clearly self-uploaded, as the only page which links here is a non-notable self-made biography. thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trailblazesymbols.jpg edit

Image:Trailblazesymbols.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Latitude0116 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, replaced by Image:Trail blaze-symbols.svg. The user who originally uploaded this image provided it under a non-free Wikipedia-only license. Someone else retagged it as PD-ineligible, which is probably correct, but since it has been replaced, there is no need to keep it around. B (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NASAExtrasolarFlash.jpg edit

Image:NASAExtrasolarFlash.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Latitude0116 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kimiko and agot.JPG edit

Image:Kimiko and agot.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Princess kimiko (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopedic orphaned image. User's only contributions are uploading personal photos. --Kelvinc (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Wilhelmina Will has unorphaned the photo at User:Princess kimiko (see Image:3399864355904l.jpg below). I still request delete under WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Kelvinc (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still? You don't stop, do you? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wanted to point out that my initial statement of orphan has been superseded. kimiko's edit history clearly shows that kimiko has never done any actual edits, but only personal photo uploads. Indeed, many image uploads were ignored until Image:kimiko.JPG got overwritten and I glanced over kimiko's logs and saw only personal photo uploads. As far as I can tell, kimiko does not respond (in writing or in action) to inquiries and comments on the talk page. If these uploads were meant to adorn the user page as a means of introduction to other Wikipedians, then I would have no problem with that, but it would be pretty apparent since the user page would be edited. All signs indicate that kimiko uploads images for personal use, not for Wikipedia consumption, which goes against WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. That you have added the images onto the user page does not change the fact that they were never meant for that purpose in the first place, or that they should serve such a purpose. Kelvinc (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clear violation of WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Recommend block of account under WP:SPA. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:3399864355904l.jpg edit

Image:3399864355904l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Princess kimiko (notify | contribs).

Image:1211.jpg edit

Image:1211.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Captainpeejay (notify | contribs).

Image:Cm.jpg edit

Image:Cm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Murali Thoota (notify | contribs).
  • Unused, article was A7 speedy deleted --Icarus (Hi!) 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: appears to be from [3], which states "© 2003. Department of Information Technology, Govt. of NCT of Delhi." Living person, thus deleteable under WP:FU#Unacceptable images #12. Also, file name is undescriptive and has been overwritten on two occasions by images of totally different people, and the PD template is actually left over from the original upload. Kelvinc (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kc.jpg edit

Image:Kc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bashardc (notify | contribs).

Image:Fall to pieces single.jpg edit

Image:Fall to pieces single.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by (aeropagitica) (notify | contribs).

Image:CandiceMichelle.jpg edit

Image:CandiceMichelle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Speed CG (notify | contribs).

Image:Candice-Michelle-Womens-Champ.jpg edit

Image:Candice-Michelle-Womens-Champ.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Speed CG (notify | contribs).

Image:Cena-2007-TagChamp.jpg edit

Image:Cena-2007-TagChamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Speed CG (notify | contribs).

Image:Booker-T-end-07.jpg edit

Image:Booker-T-end-07.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Speed CG (notify | contribs).

Image:Enterprise rent a car logo parody.gif edit

Image:Enterprise rent a car logo parody.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MonkeyBoyToo (notify | contribs).
  • Delete - Derivative work of Enterprise logo, image isn't public domain. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fred_Rogers_and_Yo_Yo_Ma.jpg edit

Image:Fred_Rogers_and_Yo_Yo_Ma.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HeWhoE (notify | contribs).
  • does not significantly add to readers' understanding, not discussed in-text Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LL2007.jpg edit

Image:LL2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KamilaB (notify | contribs).
  • CV - Public domain asserted, but uploader likely does not have rights to commercial image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:3_of_Makell_Bird's_albums.gif edit

Image:3_of_Makell_Bird's_albums.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Makellbird (notify | contribs).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_January_8&oldid=1147973295"