orphaned image, questionable PD-self license, there is a perfectly acceptable free image already in use on
Al Santos; even if free, the watermarking on the image makes it less desirable for use.
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
14:10, 7 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 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.
orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo -- I have deleted from the image page the user resume, and have also listed his user page, which had the same resume, on
WP:MfDJordan 1972 (
talk)
15:25, 7 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 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 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.
As a lot of people are talking about how disputed images should be sent to IfD rather than admins doing the obvious thing, I present this image. The catalogue covers are not discussed, the catalogues themselves are barely discussed and this massive image is simply used to decorate a 'timeline' section. Attempts to remove it from the article were met with contempt, tagging as having a disputed fair use rationale was reverted without comment. Of course, if I was to delete this, that would leave me the villain, so I offer to you a week of discussion which will no doubt get pile on angry 'keeps', as proof that the IfD process does not work.
J Milburn (
talk)
17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, this image represents a SUBSTANTIAL amount of research, scanning and photo-retouching. As far as I know, these images exist no where else digitally. Also, since I got the assistance of the head archivist at the Edelbrock museum (who essentially speaks for the president), these catalog covers are not only used with permission, but I may be able to get permission to release this image as free. Would that carry any weight here? another note: What exactly is minimal usage? Does that mean it's only used once? How many images on wikipedia fail THAT???
If Edelbrock releases one or more covers freely, then those covers could definitely be re-uploaded. Minimal usage means that we use as little copyrighted material as possible. Since this image, by definition, uses as many copyrighted covers as seem are available, it fails that criterion.
PiracyFundsTerrorism (
talk)
17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I guess I'll have to talk to Vic. I'll get the big man himself to authorize these covers as free and then re-upload it (as I'm sure that Mr. Milburn will win this round in his campaign against my stuff). And please don't block ME for a week for speaking ill of a admin.
MiracleMat (
talk)
15:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, delete. It fails
WP:NFCC points 3 and especially 8; its presence certainly does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." —
Bkell (
talk)
18:00, 7 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.
Unused in articles. The text on the image description page specifically disallows use outside Wikipedia (twice), so this is not a freely licensed image. —
Bkell (
talk)
18:02, 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.
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.
Unused. The text on the image description page specifically states (twice) that this image is not to be used outside Wikipedia, so this is not a freely licensed image. —
Bkell (
talk)
18:12, 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.
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: Delete. The subject is obviously under 13, and we remove any personally identifiable information about children of that age.
J Milburn (
talk)
18:42, 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.