orphaned image, no indication that image was released under GFDL - sumarry states "Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" and as such is likley a non-free image froma newspaper
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)00:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
(Not an orphan) News media photo scanned from an Athlon magazine used soley to illustrate the subject of the photo - flagrant copyvio
BigΔT02:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
(Not an orphan) Photo of a college football player scanned from an Athlon magazine, used soley to illustrate the player, not for commentary on the news magazine - blatant copyvio
BigΔT02:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Copyright violation No evidence uploader received permission from copyright holder to release image under the GFDL as tagged. -
Nv8200ptalk 03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Nv8200ptalk03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Copyright violation No evidence uploader received permission from copyright holder to release image under the GFDL as tagged. -
Nv8200ptalk 03:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Nv8200ptalk03:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Image is almost surely copyrighted as it has no source, rational or license information and seems to have been taken from an online website.
Wikidudeman(talk)04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This variation of the en-Wikipedia logo was uploaded about 3 years ago and seems to have been orphaned for some time. It seems that the author removed the anti-aliasing around the edge of the globe, attempted to fill the "dent" (apparent missing puzzle piece at top right edge), and altered the shape of the grey/shaded puzzle piece somewhat. Also, it seems to have overall darker shading than the current version of the logo. This was probably made with good intentions, but seems to be a result of not understanding the logo very well, and (I'm guessing) was before the logo's copyright was assigned to the Wikimedia foundation or there were clearer guidelines in place on how to use it. If there are no objections I'd recommend this file be deleted.
heqs·:.10:28, 5 July 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.
There seems to be some contention regarding whether this image's rationale is sufficient. Rather than simply deleting it I am bringing it to IFD for further discussion.
After Midnight000115:30, 5 July 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.
Unencyclopedic banner, likely Copyright violation (images of logo and actors likely copyright by someone other than the compiler)
BigrTex15:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
No source information to verify the claim that this is promotional material (it's most likely material produced to enchance a movie's official webpage). Screenshots are a safer bet for fairly illustrating ficitional characters. Abu badali(
talk)16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see why this isn't a straightforward I6 (sorry for reverting BTW, I didn't realize you were working through the backlog of I6 images). All the image says is, "Claiming fair use as an educational and also a promotional photograph widely available on various sites on the Internet", which IMO isn't even a weak rationale -- it's no rationale at all. It's also not clear that this is really a "promotional photograph" as the tag claims; it looks more like an official portrait of a head of state. —
Angr19:14, 5 July 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.
Orphaned, unencyclopedic, fair use violation. It's been used in monorail articles (not newspaper ones). Editor with 8 entries in blocklog has re-uploaded this 3 times. --trey20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comments Several of your deletion reasonings are invalid/incorrect. The image is orphaned because you removed it from the article right before the article was protected (so it can't be re added anytime soon), the number of entries in a users blocklog are irrelevant to the validity of an image they upload, and it was re uploaded because it'd been previously speedy deleted before the user had a chance to figure out how fair use criteria worked. --
Maelwys20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Image is from the Airbus website, so the licensing here is obviously wrong, and there's absolutely no need for a nonfree image given how many free images we have of planes already. — Rebelguys2talk20:24, 5 July 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.
Conditional keep, if the "permission" can be documented better. If the permission really says what the tag says it says, there's no problem, because it really is a free release. But the page currently doesn't state where the image was taken from and through what channel the permission was given.
Fut.Perf.☼05:46, 6 July 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.
Tagged as PD, but description implies by-permission (and that the person granting permission didn't even know who the copyright holder is). Abu badali(
talk)20:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If this image is from either www.gc-chronicles.com or www.mtv.com, I do not think that the copyright holder (presumably one of those websites) would have irrevocably released all rights to this image.
Iamunknown21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If this image is from either www.gc-chronicles.com or www.mtv.com, I do not think that the copyright holder (presumably one of those websites) would have irrevocably released all rights to this image.
Iamunknown21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This image appears to be a professional rendering of the proposed start-up
Fly Gibraltar. As it appears to be a professional rendering, I have doubts that the uploader is the copyright holder. Currently it is unused, and I do not think that it would add much to the "Fly Gibraltar" article. Per concerns about copyright and encyclopedic nature, I nominate it to be deleted.
Iamunknown23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - I already brought this up at PUI. I seriously doubt the uploader was sitting on another plane and able to take this pristine shot.
The Evil Spartan21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply