Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use
BigDT (
416) 02:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Also, the band's articles have been subject to AfDs and their results were delete (
Heavenade,
Sex Ant Toys, etc.). So I guess they will be orphaned until the band becomes notable. x42bn6Talk 02:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, "This is a Haiku / Shown by Wikipedia / For its article" - not really appropriate for an article per
WP:ASRBigDT (
416) 02:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
BigDT (
416) 02:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
On Commons. I've nominated it for deletion there, as it's been deleted several times here due to copyright issues. --
kingboyk 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This file got orphaned because a version was created on commons, however, that version was not the full resolution, so I have updated the commons version to be the same as this version, so it is fine to delete this image now.
WilliamKF 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This image is copied from this website
[1] and
[2]. The author claimed it was his, however, I found it to be a false statement he has done so several times. Even if you were to save the image from online, the name that is under the image is the same as the name of the uploaded one. This is a copyright violation —
Vseferović 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This image is copied from this website
[3] and
[4]. The author claimed it was his, however, I found it to be a false statement he has done so several times. Even if you were to save the image from online, the name that is under the image is the same as the name of the uploaded one. This is a copyright violation —
Vseferović 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This image is copied from this website
the 5th/fifth image (thumbnail) and
[5]. The author claimed it was his, however, I found it to be a false statement he has done so several times. This is a copyright violation. Even if you were to save the image from online, the name that is under the image is the same as the name of the uploaded one. —
Vseferović 05:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This image is copied from this website
the 7th/seventh image (thumbnail) and
[6]. The author claimed it was his, however, I found it to be a false statement he has done so several times. This is a copyright violation. Even if you were to save the image from online, the name that is under the image is the same as the name of the uploaded one. —
Vseferović 05:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This image is copied from this website
the 7th/seventh image (thumbnail) and
[7]. The author claimed it was his, however, I found it to be a false statement he has done so several times. This is a copyright violation. Even if you were to save the image from online, the name that is under the image is the same as the name of the uploaded one. THE USERS IS REPEATING COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IMAGES, he does not want to talk! —
Vseferović 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This image is copied from this website
the 7th/seventh image (thumbnail) and
[8]. The author claimed it was his, however, I found it to be a false statement he has done so several times. This is a copyright violation. Even if you were to save the image from online, the name that is under the image is the same as the name of the uploaded one. THE USERS IS REPEATING COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IMAGES, he does not want to talk! —
Vseferović 05:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC).reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use, tagged as GFDL, description is "Personal Picture", but the resolution and dimensions make it look like a media photo
BigDT (
416) 06:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
'GFDL Presumed' tag added to image uploaded after 1 Jan 2006, author has not clarified copyright status in 3 months since tagged —
Butseriouslyfolks 07:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned document, 1 of 2 edits by uploader, appears to be original research of uploader (similar but not identical to above)
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 11:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Dubious tag; photo appears to be older than uploader, unlikely that uploader can release under GFDL —
Butseriouslyfolks 18:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Nonsense, the picture seems to have no reason for inclusion to Wikipedia and has already had several issues because of no copyright info and comes from an unsourced website. Most defintely a junk image put on as vandalism. —
Xtreme racer 19:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC).reply
inappropriate claim of fair use to illustrate band instead of album ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:12, 21 April 2007 (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 is speedy deleted by Zscout370 due to a takedown notice via OTRS - I can confirm that Zscout370 recieved a takedown email from the copyright holder via OTRS, the ticket number of which is in the deletion log for the image. Daniel Bryant 07:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This image was created, in good faith, for use as a stub image. But the design copies the design of a rugby ball (see
http://www.gilbertrugby.com/graysint/gt.nsf/page/balls ) which is copyrighted and/or trademarked, which I believe makes it a derivitive work. The image should be deleted because we do not need it as a stub template image (another more free image is very usable) and it's use anywhere can not be free and would still infringe on the copyright/trademark owners rights. A real image would serve the purpose better on an article about this company or the ball to serve the company better.
MECU≈
talk 20:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I created the Image and I find the reasoning slack as the design is fairly generic for rugby balls, Adidas used 'very' similar in 1991 for the RWC as the first ball to have colored areas on it and other companies have followed suit, Gibert hardly have copyright for this design. besides It is a 2d Representation of a 3d work, I am Hardly Infringing Gilberts copyright or trademark if there is any. Not like I'm making rugby balls to this design
Stabilo boss 10:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't get it. Rugby balls are shaped like rugby balls and I can only guess that it is the 'trim' that believe violates copyright. I think this is overzealous, half the rugby balls on sale will have a similar trim.
GordyB 13:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - There is nothing wrong with it and it doesnt infringe on any copyright/trademark laws. Most Balls now come in a similar design and that image is used in a lot of articles, stub articles and userpages and deleting it isn the right option..--Cometstyles 13:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
It would be possible to upload an image over this image, thus preserving all uses of the image and then delete the older ones out of the history. I would be complete acceptable with this as a way of helping prevent work in replacing all the images with another of a new name.
MECU≈
talk 14:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep I could buy several balls in the local sports shop that would look similar, making the image generic as far as I an concerned.
Nelson50 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Deleted due to takedown notice sent by the copyright holder, via OTRS. The Ticket Number is 2007041910024759.
User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 07:11, 24 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Will delete, agree with inappropriateness --
Samir 05:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Unencyclopedic cohesion 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)reply
also racist..DELETE..--Cometstyles 15:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - the uploader is brand new, his first edit was April 4th, also the image is currently in use on the user's page. In regards to the racist comment, while I would not want to post the image to my page and I understand other's issues with the image, WP is not censored. If the user is not active for a couple of months I would think that a Prod of the user page would be approrprate and the image deleted at that point as an orphan.--
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 22:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Except wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so
WP:NOT#CENSORED applies only to things that otherwise pass the other policies for inclusion. Also, since the image is licensed freely simply being an orphan is not a criteria for deletion. - cohesion 00:00, 6 May 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.