Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 September 2

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 2)
< September 1 September 3 >

September 2 edit

Image:Sec_background1.jpg edit

Image:Sec_background1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moneymaka (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal group photo Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After many months here, I still don't understand why people upload stuff like this. Some NN group, unencyclopedic. --Lord₪Sunday 23:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uchita.jpg edit

Image:Uchita.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alevictoria (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, sole contribution of user, unencylopedic personal photo Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Teenageboywithredhair.jpg edit

Image:Teenageboywithredhair.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Batman6666 (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, absent uploader, unencylopedic personal photo, low quality Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cortracker_logo1.jpg edit

Image:Cortracker_logo1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by InfoWave (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, sole contribution of user, appears to be a non-free logo but is tagged as PD-self Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flyboi2.jpg edit

Image:Flyboi2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hifly86 (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BrandonSchnieder1.jpg edit

Image:BrandonSchnieder1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Willlengel (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Me_my_Grandmother_and_my_brother_Dennis_in_the_early_1990's.jpg edit

Image:Me_my_Grandmother_and_my_brother_Dennis_in_the_early_1990's.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ba_Atun_Hotep (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic persona photo Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BENAMI.JPG edit

Image:BENAMI.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SHMOOZA (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, sole contribution of user, unencyclopedic personal photo Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Archive.jpg edit

Image:Archive.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Artwebtelly (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic picture of a collection of stuff... based on link provided, appears to be art. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coke_and_a_smile.jpg edit

Image:Coke_and_a_smile.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wickedxjade (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CMW_MySpace.jpg edit

Image:CMW_MySpace.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cmwillix (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, sole contribution of user, appears user is subject of picture Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mike_dart.JPG edit

Image:Mike_dart.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ms.kewl34 (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, uploaders only contribtuions are to this and the talk page, unencyclopedic personal drawing Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ScumMic.jpg edit

Image:ScumMic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Christopher_Scum (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FGTH ICO.png edit

Image:FGTH ICO.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Briantist (notify | contribs).
  • Fair-Use Image is only used decoratively in all 6 articles. Seidenstud (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MAPlogo.gif edit

Image:MAPlogo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jimcohn (notify | contribs).

Image:Stac.jpg edit

Image:Stac.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 8A3C9F (notify | contribs).

Image:Them.jpg edit

Image:Them.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 8A3C9F (notify | contribs).

Image:God Damn Trio.jpg edit

Image:God Damn Trio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Harlequindance (notify | contribs).

Image:Result-1-.jpg edit

Image:Result-1-.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Friction19 (notify | contribs).
  • No indication that uploader is the copyright holder. Besides, still remains orphaned. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Way.jpeg edit

Image:Way.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Friction19 (notify | contribs).
  • No indication that uploader is the copyright holder. Orphaned and UE as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 2 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 result of the debate was: 

Deleted.  Fails NFCC#8, significance - none objecting. WilyD 12:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:James Dougherty and Marilyn Monroe.JPG edit

Image:James Dougherty and Marilyn Monroe.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thirdship (notify | contribs).
  • We don't need to see a picture of a couple to understand they were once married (WP:NFCC#8) Damiens.rf 18:27, 2 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.
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: delete. Non-free image of a living person. -Nv8200p talk 01:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:251-Col. Cumbie.embedded.prod affiliate.56.JPG edit

Image:251-Col. Cumbie.embedded.prod affiliate.56.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Geo Swan (notify | contribs).
  • Image used to illustrate a living person, but fair use is claimed (thus, fails WP:NFCC#1. Also, source url is not working. Also, it looks like an official PD image, but I couldn't figure out a valid source. Damiens.rf 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information -- I agree that this looks like an official USAF photo. I've sent an email to the Miami Herald's online editor asking if their online photo editor will agree to confirm, via OTRS, that the image was an official USAF photo. Geo Swan (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I heard back from the online editor.
    1. She may not understand that all the work of US Federal employee is in the public domain.
    2. Her first message said: "If there was no credit line I wouldn't be able to figure it out at this point but I can tell you all our photos from guantanamo are either shot by a staff member or handout."
    3. I sent her a URL to the picture, and she confirmed that it was not a Miami Herald picture.
    • So, if all the Miami Herald's Guantanamo pictures are either taken by a staff member, or were from a government handout, and this one was not by a staff member... Geo Swan (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless you can find a source we have no way of confirming it's within the public domain. We don't use process of elimination for copyright status. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very surprised if this were not an airforce publicity photo. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 7 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.

Image:Muhammad Assad, a Yemeni who was held by the CIA.jpg edit

Image:Muhammad Assad, a Yemeni who was held by the CIA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Geo Swan (notify | contribs).
  • Image fails WP:NFCC#2: It's a valuable, difficult-to-obtain image copied from a news source. Damiens.rf 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marden House.jpg edit

Image:Marden House.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rtcpenguin (notify | contribs).
  • Possibly replaceable image copied from a news source. Damiens.rf 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lenny Skutnik at State of the Union address 1982.jpg edit

Image:Lenny Skutnik at State of the Union address 1982.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CrypticBacon (notify | contribs).
  • Image copied from a news source to illustrate living individual and possibly an important event. Fails WP:NFCC#2. Damiens.rf 19:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Archer Kent Blood.jpg edit

Image:Archer Kent Blood.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sniperz11 (notify | contribs).
  • Image copied from a news source Damiens.rf 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sydthrift.jpg edit

Image:Sydthrift.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SportsAddicted (notify | contribs).
  • Image from news agency associated press. Damiens.rf 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WaPo Bubble Bench.png edit

Image:WaPo Bubble Bench.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Frothy (notify | contribs).
  • There's a huge rationale written for this non-free image, but it still fails to explain how we're not competing with (at least) washington post's website by copying their image to ours (WP:NFCC#2), and why is this image necessary understanding that there was "a large number of unsold condominiums during the bubble" WP:NFCC#8 (it's surely a good illustration, but hardly something that passes the "minimal use" requirement. Damiens.rf 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the bench is still there, this image is replaceable. Since it's a recent article, I'd wager that's true. Delete. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:24, 2 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 result of the discussion was: delete. License from web site does not meet Wikipedia requirements for a free image. -Nv8200p talk 01:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Washington DC Bubble Bench.jpg edit

Image:Washington DC Bubble Bench.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Frothy (notify | contribs).
  • Wrong licensing. Permission ""to freely copied to other sites as long as credit is given to this blog" is not the same as permission to "to copy, distribute and transmit the work; to adapt the work;" Damiens.rf 19:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly recommend writing to the owner of that blog and clarifying. There doesn't seem to be a blatant failure of the license here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:26, 2 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.

Image:Stenandersson.jpg edit

Image:Stenandersson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SportsAddicted (notify | contribs).
  • Image copied from new agency associated press. Damiens.rf 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- How is this a problem? It is tagged as fair-use and has a valid FUR. - Seidenstud (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Major Richard Spooner.jpg edit

Image:Major Richard Spooner.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Palm dogg (notify | contribs).
  • Beautiful image copied from new source Washington Post Damiens.rf 19:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now when you say "copied", presumably you mean to say "properly cited and attributed with a Fair use rationale". Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or maybe an "unfair use rationale". --Damiens.rf 23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I'll bite. How is it unfair? What do I need to do to fix it? Palm_Dogg (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's unfair because we're using their work for free to compete with them. To "fix it", we should stop using this photo as soon as possible (since paying a license fee is not an option for Wikimedia Foundation). --Damiens.rf 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let me rephrase: was there a policy change where Wikipedia no longer uses any PD pictures and I just didn't get the memo? Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The policy, as far as I'm aware, is that we only use PD or freely licensed images (ie, GFDL, CC-BY, etc). Exceptions must fulfill all then criteria set by WP:NFCC (in short, the image must irreplaceably necessary for the understanding of the article and still have a strong fair use case). This image, for instance, fails criterion #2 set by NFCC. --Damiens.rf 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KUMBHMELA.jpg edit

Image:KUMBHMELA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Holy Ganga (notify | contribs).
  • Geoeye's licensing is actually non-commercial and non-derivs. Damiens.rf 19:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- there are a number of lines in the licensing terms that seem to contradict its free-ish initial sentence. For example: "Imagery may not be sold, distributed, or reproduced in any form without express permission from GeoEye." and also, "Any other use of materials—including resale, distribution, or reproduction, or for purposes other than as noted above—without the prior written permission of GeoEye is strictly prohibited." A free-er alternative source must be found for this sort of material. -Seidenstud (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg edit

Image:Broaddrickcry 022499ap.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DennyColt (notify | contribs).
  • This image from associated press is not necessary for understanding the article. Damiens.rf 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely strongest keep - This has come up again and again and it has been decided each time that this photo is irreplaceable (it is), and that it is crucial to a complete understanding of this topic. Badagnani (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this being irreplaceable give us the right to ignore associated press copyrights and commercial interests? What's a possible fair use claim for taking an image associated press licenses to it customers and use it for free? --Damiens.rf 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to say that fact that you repeatedly removed the deletion tags doesn't make it irreplaceable. --Damiens.rf 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nonfree image of a living person. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the image serves to identify then subject then it is obviously replaceable. If it serves to illustrate that the subject cried on TV, then it can be adequately replaced with text saying so. CIreland (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Adel al-Jubeir.jpg edit

Image:Adel al-Jubeir.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rebrane (notify | contribs).
  • Image from associated press showing a living individual. Damiens.rf 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Markward 061151twp.jpg edit

Image:Markward 061151twp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (notify | contribs).
  • Image copied from a news source. Damiens.rf 19:29, 2 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Some of the items in the image exhibit an artistic or decorative aspect that can be conceptually separated from their utilitarian function; whereas, the aesthetic forms of cars in a parking lot are inseparable from their function as a utilitarian object. This makes these items eligible for copyright protection without any visible markings required. Current U. S. copyright law says that copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. Someone, somewhere can claim copyright to these items, as none of the items show signs of age to indicate they were created before 1923. The image may meet fair use requirements, but it cannot be considered a free image by Wikipedia standards because of the copyrighted elements that are central to the image. -Nv8200p talk 01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Halloween_Decorations.jpg edit

Image:Halloween_Decorations.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Willjay (notify | contribs).
  • Derivative work. No evidence uploader owns rights to any of the objects in the picture. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image is not Derivative work any more than is an image of different brands of cars in a parking lot is derivative. This is a random array of Halloween-related items in a store window for which there is no apparent rights holder but the uploader. It is a perfectly valid image. Willjay (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2008
  • The person or company who created those works holds the rights to them. The setting of the picture is irrelevant. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not derivative. The setting is actually is relevant: Had this particular display been created by a manufacturer to sell a product line, or had this specific display been copyrighted by a specific creator, publishing a photograph of it could be edging toward infringement. it is none of the above. Secondly, a company actually does not hold exclusive rights to create or publish photographs of their manufactured items for artistic or instructional purposes. if they did, any photograph that prominently features a manufactured product assumed to be under copyright would be a derivative work: (i.e., street scenes showing different brands of cars; photographs of billboards or advertisements showing products; or photographs of individuals wearing apparel such as t-shirts featuring a brand image.) Third, there is no evidence that any items in this view is even under copyright--that is the assumption of the person raising the objection. There are no identifiable brand names visible, no visible copyright symbols; no evidence of the country of origin; no evidence of the date of manufacture. For all we know, these items could have been created 80 years ago and in public domain. All tallied, the "derivative works" label simply does not fit--the image and associated license are perfectly valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willjay (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboards and t-shirts are derivative works. And without information demonstrating the manufacturer's copyright on these items hasn't expired we have no way of fully ascertaining the license status. It's equally hard to tell where this picture was taken, and we have only your claim that it was through a shop window. It's not a very good picture and is easily replaceable with a free image of a pumpkin or a witch, so this discussion is already somewhat moot. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument is about whether or not one individual claiming Derivative Works should be able to get somebody else's contribution pulled from the site, so it's hardly moot. Per article content, this image illustrates a variety of different kinds of Halloween iconography as well as showing an example of their commercial applications in the United States. A simple image of a pumpkin or a witch (assuming the creator "proved" s/he had permission of the pumpkin carver and witch to create, post and license the image) would not demonstrate the same points in the same way. And again, the question was whether --photographs-- of manufactured items in this context count as derivative works, which they simply do not. If Wikipedia is going to remain a robust and engaging encyclopedia, article contributors will need the freedom to post images that occasionally feature manufactured products without fearing groundless accusations of infringement. And since all Wikipedia images depend on the "word" of their creators for licensing, it seems that tolerating the uncertain origins of some images is an assumed risk of visiting or administering the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willjay (talk • contribs) 04:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's also try the following litmus test related to some issues surrounding "Fair use".

1. What is the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes? It's art, it's currently being distributed for educational purposes at no charge.

2. What is the nature of the copyrighted work? I doubt you can copyright a cultural object like a Jack O Lantern, and there are no other visible brand names or anything else suggesting any these items are copyright, just that they appear to be manufactured items. So, who even knows what the objects are specifically?

3.What is the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole? Assuming there is any copyright work at all, with the exception of the aforementioned pumpkin, all items appear in only fragmentary portions.

4. What is the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? 17 U.S.C. 107(1-4). None. Zero. Zip.

This image is "art" composed of "found objects" based on "cultural reference" which I created and posted in the context of "educational purposes" for a free online article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willjay (talk • contribs) 13:25, 5 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.

Image:BSC Fund Manager Tannin Perp Walk.jpg edit

Image:BSC Fund Manager Tannin Perp Walk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Frothy (notify | contribs).
  • Huge and verbose rationale fails to explain why is the image necessary (and not just useful) for the understanding of the article, and how aren't we competing with news source that produced this image by freely copying it to articles about the event captured. Damiens.rf 20:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Economist-06-15-2005.jpg edit

Image:Economist-06-15-2005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Frothy (notify | contribs).
  • This magazine cover is not necessary for understanding the discussion in the article. Damiens.rf 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ditto. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Time Magazine June 13 2005 Cover.jpg edit

Image:Time Magazine June 13 2005 Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Llavigne (notify | contribs).
  • This magazine cover image is not necessary for understanding the article. The cover story may be notable (arguably) but the cover image is not. Damiens.rf 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Purely decorative. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:45, 2 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 result of the debate was: 

Deleted.  Bad licence. WilyD 13:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jesse Unruh.jpg edit

Image:Jesse Unruh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jessesamuel (notify | contribs).
  • Sending a autographed picture is not the same as releasing the copyrights oto the public domain. Damiens.rf 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason to believe that the sender either had the rights to, or the intent to release the photo into the PD. -Seidenstud (talk) 15:33, 10 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.

Image:AirNZSafetyDemoBrace.jpg edit

Image:AirNZSafetyDemoBrace.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Airodyssey (notify | contribs).
  • Replaceable, it's not like someone can demonstrate it for us. ViperSnake151 21:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jhdgjhdjdjhg.gif edit

Image:Jhdgjhdjdjhg.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sameyejara (notify | contribs).
  • orpahaned animated gif file, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SLFImage4.gif edit

Image:SLFImage4.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jcuk (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, recently absent uploader, this image claims to be a montage of people and as such the basis of each image can be questioned; there currently is a picture on the band's article that has a much cleaner license Image:Slfcurrentofficial.jpg. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Background.jpg edit

Image:Background.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sampo_Sheep (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic collection of hand drawn cartoon characters Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glen_The_Gopher_Background.JPG edit

Image:Glen_The_Gopher_Background.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sampo_Sheep (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic hand drawing of cartoon charater Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_September_2&oldid=1138516050"