CV. Claimed to be GFDL-self, but clearly incorporates a panel from a comic strip showing Superman. Can't be fair use because it's designed for userspace. —
Mangojuicetalk17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC).reply
Orphaned, replaced by
Image:North South Divide 3.PNG. Also, please note that if this image is kept, the licensing needs to be clarified. The image from which this is derived is PD, so this one can be PD, GFDL, or anything else.
BigDT02:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. This is a very old image and the description page does not explicitly state that the uploader is the creator so moving it to Commons would be problematic.
BigDT02:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 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.
ROFL. Claimed PD-US,Gov, but the link to the source idenifies the photograph as an AP - Associated Press. Commercial photograph, not fair use.
hbdragon8804:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I thought that because the picture was taken of him leaving a federal case that it qualified for the government license. If it doesn't than go ahead and delete it. But now, there will be no way of getting another image that I know of since he has been entered into the witness protection program and will most likely be hidden for the rest of his life. --
Nehrams202004:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)reply
PD-USGov is for when a government employee has taken the image. If it's attributed to the Associated Press, the government didn't take it. Anyway, really? Shucks. I have American Terrorist on my desk, but it doesn't contain an image of Fortier (just Nichols, and McVeigh's close family). Are there any non-press agency photographs from the 1997 trial when Fortier testified?
hbdragon8804:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I haven't been able to find any. This has been the first image I have ever seen of Michael Fortier anyway. My best bet would have to be if I could find somebody that has the image on another website and see if I can get approval to use it on Wikimedia Commons. I guess I'll have to keep looking unfortunately. --
Nehrams202005:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)reply
If I change the tag, would the image be allowed to stay (along with a detailed fair use rationale, of course)? In response to his witness protection program and this picture, I'm sure he looks extremely different than what he looks like in the image here. I highly doubt there will be a problem of somebody finding him based on this image. --
Nehrams202001:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Deleted - news media photos are not acceptable for fair use unless the photo itself is iconic. (eg the Kent State Shootings, Iwa Jima, etc) --
BigDT12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned image - hasn't been used in any article for some time. Only article that it may have been used in, Stern Fan Network, has been deleted. -
Optigan1305:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 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.
Delete/Comment: I don't mind the image being deleted, as it is, indeed, orphaned. But I'm not sure if it is copyright violation, as I made that up from scratch without using any real logo as base. However, it is likely that the style of the logo is copyrighted.--
thunderboltz(TALK)02:51, 27 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 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.
Unnecessary non-notable unfree image of a magazine cover used only to decorate a text passage that simply mentions the magazine issue existence Abu badali(
talk)21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This was originally uploaded as the primary image for the
Duran Duran article, long ago. It was later replaced by a more recent press kit photo, which has also unfortunately been recently deleted in the "replaceable fair use" crackdown. Would it be acceptable to use this image as the infobox image in the DD article, at least for now? (I have written to the band to ask for a freely licensed photo, but I don't expect a quick response.) Is there any acceptable fair use for this image in Wikipedia? —
Catherine\talk22:04, 26 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 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.
It's not obsolete. While the exist has been completed, the map is completely accurate and I see no reason why it should be deleted. Ideally, the completed exit could be recoloured grey now, but it doesn't make the image obselete. Merely the caption is obselete.
TheHYPO07:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)reply
There are three identical images in three different formats (GIF, JPG, PNG). My impression is that this would actually be best as a SVG. I don't care which one we keep, but I do not think that we need to keep all three. I nominated the two that are not used in the article and used obsolete to mean 'not needed' as the jpg is in use. ~
BigrTex09:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)reply