Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 December 15

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 December 15)
< December 14 December 16 >

December 15 edit

Image:Apple-logo.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Atothemax (notify | contribs). Improper license (even if you made it it is still owned by Apple), redundant to Image:Apple Computer Logo.svg. — HereToHelp 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Chilli homes.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Segs8282 (notify | contribs). orphaned image, absent uploader, no license provided, unencylopedic Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Chips.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Shweeny666 (notify | contribs). orphaned image, banned user, no license or source provided Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bf5f103f354.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by I can't find the uploader for some reason, sorry. Unused, poor quality, unencyclopedic vanity image. — --Icarus (Hi!) 01:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a commons image - not deletable here at English Wikipedia.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The person who uploaded this work (to Commons) is Commons editor Astrogeek]. He claims this image as "own work", but he claims all the images he uploads as "own work", including this which looks to be the work of a professional nature photographer and this (deleted) which looks to be screenshot or something of a professional artist's work and which carries a clear copyright notice. I have requested at Commons that all images uploaded by this user be deleted as suspect. Herostratus 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Treecutoff.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Unencyclopedic image. Also there is a bug/hack displaying this crude and inapropriate image ont eh front page for me.--Jimktrains 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has been removed by User:Paul_August--Jimktrains 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Navy Seal.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Stanley666 (notify | contribs). Orphan —Doug Bell talk 07:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:White Gold Ring.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by TomDN18 (notify | contribs). Obvious copyvio.- Francis Tyers · 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Alexander Anderson Priest.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by The Raven (notify | contribs). Copyright violation. This image has been doctored, adding the text "Gotem" at the top. The user who uploaded the image is known for involvement in fake articles and comments related to "Gotem". See Talk:Alexander Anderson (Hellsing) for a source for the original image and confirmation that this is a doctored one. We have no use for this image (is only used now on a userpage of another "Gotem" lover (as evidenced by his subpage User:Catbag/Gotem — Fram 11:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gbskevin.jpg (talk | delete) {OR} edit
Uploaded by Liface (notify | contribs). Image's only use was in article GBStv which was deleted 2006-12-08. Nominating for deletion as follow-on from article deletion. — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, --Liface 16:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Train take the 19:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Leonard francolini.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Wwwannabe (notify | contribs). OR. — cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 To Howard the Duck:
 Re All XS_* images ...
   Do what you will. This is futile anyway.
   I shall not contest, edit nor do anything
   from this point on. I shall just observe and
   see how this article evolves. Have better
   things to do. Enjoy. Thanks.
 Pmgomez 17:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:XS founders.jpg (talk | delete) edit

Note: A notice of the discussion of this and other Xavier School-related images is listed at the Philippine notice board.--Howard the Duck 15:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by Pmgomez (notify | contribs). Unencyclopedic picture, probably copyrighted too.- --Howard the Duck 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: the uploader was warned about this and the following deletion discussions, but removed the warning [1] and blanked the discussion itself [2]. BigDT 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warning did not have basis. Pmgomez 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of an image deletion warning, that tag isn't a warning in the same sense as {{test2}} or one of the other user warning templates. The warning is a notification of a discussion, rather than an indication that you have done something wrong. Images, except in cases of obvious problems, are not deleted when the uploader is not notified of the deletion discussion and so it is necessary for the closing admin to know that you have been informed of the discussion. BigDT 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks. :) Pmgomez 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image enhances text. Define unencyclopedic when image refers to history text. Pmgomez 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, all of these images look like copyright violations. Are you saying that you were the original photographer of each photo or the person who created the chart for the charts? I'm having trouble believing that you photographed the school's photos. Please note that merely making a modification to someone else's image doesn't give you rights to it. Please see Commons:Commons:derivative works for a lengthy piece on this concept - only the copyright holder has the authority to authorize a derivative work. BigDT 18:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Orphaned image of dubious value, uncertain copyright status. A Train take the 19:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re Photos: "only the copyright holder has the authority to authorize a derivative work." >>> Xavier School is the copyright holder, but I've been authorized to create derivative work. Some of the photos were taken by myself. Thus... ... Re charts: I created them by myself. I can provide the source files. Thanks. Pmgomez 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can't confirm if XS gave you permission. Also, the image page didn't have the source. --Howard the Duck 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Email me or call me. We can meet in person about this and I can show you the necessary permissions. Pmgomez 14:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where did these pics came from? From the annual? --Howard the Duck 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this image looks identical with the image found at this page, and with the homepage expressing copyright all of these images might be copyvios. --Howard the Duck 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found the sources. They're here. --Howard the Duck 15:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pmgomez, if you really authored any of these photos and created the charts, can you upload better versions of them? They are all small (like a picture from someone's website) rather than large (like most user-authored images used on Wikipedia). If you can't, then well, I think you can see where this is going. BigDT 16:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just this one ... OK. If you could give me your email address, I could email them to you. Reason why all are small is because I needed to save them as small files as accessing Wikipedia is a pain from where I am. Anyway, to go to the extreme, let's just revert to the page before my edits. That way, I don't step on anyone's toes. Thanks. Pmgomez 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on my username to go to my user page, look to the left side of the screen in the "toolbox". You will see a link that says "E-mail this user". You can use that to email me. BigDT 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, just in case an administrator is looking at this trying to decide what to do with these images, I never received an email from Pmgomez (or anyone else on this issue). So my opinion is delete as a likely copyvio. BigDT 05:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:XS frdespoint1.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Pmgomez (notify | contribs). Unencyclopedic picture, probably copyrighted too.- --Howard the Duck 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image enhances text. Define unencyclopedic when image refers to history text. Pmgomez 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Image enhances nothing, as it is not included in any articles. Plus possible copyright infringement, etc. etc. A Train take the 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, image lives at Xavier School. Copyright issues persist, however. A Train take the 19:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unencyclopedic; it doesn't add anything to the article. Also, the copyright status is in doubt. --Howard the Duck 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't help the article at all, article can live without it. Berserkerz Crit 16:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:XS seals.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Pmgomez (notify | contribs). A duplicate of Image:XS seals1.jpg.- --Howard the Duck 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look closely. Two diff images. Pmgomez 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked closely and although the logos are very slightly different, they look practically the same. Also, the two pics can't be GFDL since logos are copyrighted. --Howard the Duck 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're pins, in case you were blinded by them. And yes, I photographed them myself. Pmgomez 14:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha (lol). So this is the first time I've seen an image of pins on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the logos, in whatever form they, are still copyrighted. And do we really need an image of pins on an encyclopedia? --Howard the Duck 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, there is no metadata on the image description page to indicate the the image was taken from a digital camera or was scanned. --Howard the Duck 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Commons:Commons:derivative works. Taking a picture of somebody else's creative work (like a lapel pin, Winnie the Pooh doll, painting, etc) doesn't give you rights to it. The owner of a copyright has sole authority to authorize derivative works. So unless you own the copyright to those pins, you cannot take a photo of them and call it free. BigDT 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change license. There is a separate license template for logos ({{logo}}) (please refer to its text to see why this will allow you to retain the logo image/s). However, for simplicity, can't we just stick to one logo? I don't see the need for including the historical logos on this article (unless you're considering this article to be a substitute to the Xavier School handbook). --- Tito Pao 15:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:XS orgchart.png (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Pmgomez (notify | contribs). Unencyclopedic picture, we don't need an organizational chart for every organization.- --Howard the Duck 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image enhances text. Clearer and easier way of understanding the structure / hierarchy of the organization. Pmgomez 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't need an organizational chart for every organization. It adds nothing to the article, and the article can survive without the pic. --Howard the Duck 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Propose something better than just deleting. Pmgomez 14:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a nifty article that didn't need an organizational chart and other fancy images to become a great article. Also, going around the argument won't help. You'd have to explain why this shouldn't be deleted. --Howard the Duck 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the Xavier School handbook---this is a piece of information that is useful only to the students and employees of XS. And for all practical purposes, this may also be the same org chart for a hundred other schools elsewhere in the world (i.e. it's not entirely unique) --- Tito Pao 15:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:XS values1a.png (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Pmgomez (notify | contribs). Unencyclopedic picture.- --Howard the Duck 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Text refers to image. Pmgomez 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it is redundant. --Howard the Duck 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not redundant. Text REFERS to image, not EQUAL to image. Pmgomez 14:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the text can stand alone. --Howard the Duck 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. So XS has this so-called table of values---now, what? What for? This is better left to the school handbook, at most it's something best left to an internal policy document , and of little use to anyone else outside of XS. Per Howard, WP is not a repository of indiscriminate trivia that is of no practical use to the general public. --- Tito Pao 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Picture is like an advertisement of Xavier School's values, with even the whole article looking like an advertisement of XS. Berserkerz Crit 16:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:XS values2a.png (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Pmgomez (notify | contribs). Unencyclopedic picture.- --Howard the Duck 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Text refers to image. Pmgomez 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it is redundant. --Howard the Duck 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not redundant. Text REFERS to image, not EQUAL to image. Pmgomez 14:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the text can stand alone. --Howard the Duck 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. See also my comments to the preceding item (re values). --- Tito Pao 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:XS 6Cs.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Pmgomez (notify | contribs). Unencyclopedic picture.- --Howard the Duck 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Text refers to image. Pmgomez 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it is redundant. --Howard the Duck 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not redundant. Text REFERS to image, not EQUAL to image. Pmgomez 14:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the text can stand alone. --Howard the Duck 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. See also my comments above (re first values image) --- Tito Pao 16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per copyright status and article can stand without it. Berserkerz Crit 16:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:XS canlubang.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Pmgomez (notify | contribs). Do we really need a picture of vacant lots?- --Howard the Duck 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Text refers to image. Look closely. Markers in image to depict land area. Actual site. Pmgomez 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, Wikipedia shouldn't be adding pictures of vacant lots, if a building exists already or if the building is at under construction I won't object. --Howard the Duck 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the guideline. Pmgomez 14:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. A picture of an empty lot doesn't give context. Again if a building is constructed I wouldn't have a problem. Would adding a pic of a vacant lot would add anything to the article? --Howard the Duck 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A vacant lot is a vacant lot is a vacant lot. And since the photo by itself is too generic, it could be mistaken for another vacant lot elsewhere in the world; just by looking at it, how do we know this vacant lot is in Canlubang and not in, say, Ilocos, Bicol or Bukidnon? --- Tito Pao 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:PETA dumpster incident dead animal retrieval.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Omegatron (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) This image violates WP:FAIR#Policy #10 - that the image description page must contain proper attribution. Further, the description page says that it may actually originally be a media photo in which case it would violate WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. "Fair use" doesn't mean, "someone found this image on the internet and we want to use it". Fair use, in general, allows Wikipedia (or anyone else) to use a work for purposes of commentary on the work itself or, possibly, on the creator of that work. But this photo is being used to illustrate the subject, not to comment on the author's skill as a photographer. As such, it does not qualify for the legal definition of fair use. BigDT 15:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
    • "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."
    • "If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles."
    • I'm now looking for more accurate attribution information. — Omegatron 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't dispute that no free equivalent could be created ... but the photo is of a news worthy event - the photo itself is not news. Honestly, if it were known to come from a law enforcement source, I wouldn't be as bothered by that, but news media photos absolutely have to be off limits (except for obviously iconic photos like Iowa Jima, Kent State shootings, etc) if Wikipedia is going to be a free-content encyclopedia. When a news photographer takes a photo and sells it to newspapers, the AP, whoever, that's their livelihood. We can't turn into an archive for CV news media photos. I looked at the other pictures on the sources on the description page and this one looks nothing like the law enforcement pictures (the ones from the local law enforcement look like they were shot with a $15 camera), so I'm guessing/assuming that it's a news media photo. I'm not as bothered by promo photos as some people are ... but honestly, nothing good can come from using news media photos. BigDT 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: CS 16:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Idleguy 16:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Necessary to illustrate the opoint in the article.--Ramdrake 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but sometimes there are images that we just plain can't use, even if they would be nice, helpful, pretty, or even "necessary". Far too often on Wikipedia, someone finds an image somewhere on the internet and says, "ooh, this would be a nice picture to use. It's copyrighted, therefore it must be fair use." Well, that's not what the fair use doctrine is. It's not a license to use an unlicensed picture. Unless someone can demonstrate how this picture meets Wikipedia's fair use policy, it needs to be deleted. BigDT 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless source information found - ithout knowing the source for this image, we can't be sure if we are violating the commercial rights of the copyright holder. For all we know, this image was lifted directly from a competing encyclopedia. Also, do we even know for sure if this image depicts the same event described in the article, do we? Johntex\talk 19:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- technically, this could be speedied as lacking proper source and license information. Jkelly 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BigDT. Not a dog 20:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyright violation; not fair use.128.237.245.169 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't 100% see good evidence that fair use criteria in WP:FU is not applicable, on the balance of probability. Perhaps it is fair use legally, but still blocked under policy; that would be slightly different. And if the editorial question is whether possible media photographs should be excluded despite potential fair use, that's a separate question that doesn't deny fair use exclusion. Under WP:FU there are Copyright Act, and policy considerations. Copyright Act: - it's possible to argue that publication will destroy or damage its value to the copyright owner. But I don't think that holds up well. Even if Wikipedia published it, others will have to demonstrate independently whether they have fair use- ie, it's not automatic that anyone else on the planet does. So it's hard to argue that one fair use by and within an encyclopedia, is devastating or significantly eroding the market for the image. And of course, all other terms are favorable. Policy - criteria to meet: - points 1-9 met (point 2 see above). Point 10 is stating that ownership must be documented. If the use is fair then the lack of known ownership isn't necessarily a barrier to legal fair use; although it is Wiki-policy that images ought to have that imformation for completeness, the legal fair use rationale can likely be evaluated without it. Policy - counterexamples: - 5 and 9 need considering, the rest are not at issue. I'm unsure whether 5 applies, but 9 probably doesn't, for the same reason as above - provenance is not necessary to establish fair use under law, provided the actual legal criteria can be reasonably evaluated for the material, and in any event this section of counterexamples appears to be primarily advisory not mandatory according to its wording. Hope some of this helps. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that legally it is fair use - even aside from Wikipedia policy. You can't just take a press photo and use it claiming fair use. Selling rights to their photos is how press photographers feed their families ... if it were legitimate to claim their photos as fair use, that business would go dry pretty quickly. BigDT 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That might be relevant if we were somehow preventing them from making money off of their image. Our use of the image to document the event is not replacing the original market role of the original copyrighted media. It's not even in use in newspapers anymore. Any money to be made from its use has already been made. — Omegatron 05:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was a court case [3] in which the court found that a trivia book containing Seinfeld trivia was violating Seinfeld's copyright even though the producers of Seinfeld had never even considered creating such a book themselves. In other words, the fact that they aren't actively marketing the image is irrelevant. But at any rate, you can't just call something fair use in order to avoid paying royalties, which is what we would be trying to do with this image. Nowhere anywhere have I seen anyone in authority claim that using a non-iconic media photo could be considered fair use. It just doesn't make any sense. You can NEVER use my work to comment on a third party. You use my work to comment on the work itself. Anything else just isn't fair use. Also, all of this is completely irrelevant - if we can't credit the copyright holder, we can't use the image under our own policy. BigDT 08:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The copyright holder information has been updated and confirmed by the newspaper. No one from the paper has responded to my emails yet, but this falls pretty squarely under fair use anyway. — Omegatron 04:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a press photo, it fails WP:FAIR#counterexamples #5. Just saying it is fair use doesn't make it so. --BigDT 15:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is absurd. Avoid Copyright Paranoia. Every other image in the article is copyrighted. We now have permission to use the image. What will you bring against it next? — Omegatron 18:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Permission is not really considered any more. We don't use by permission only images ... it needs to be released under the GFDL or another acceptable free license, or it needs to qualify for fair use. We delete media photos here constantly ... there's no difference between this photo and any other media photo here. All of them are of one-time events. While permission is nice and while we appreciate their permission, that's not Wikipedia's policy to use those images. What did you ask specifically? Did you ask if he would be willing to release the image under the GFDL or an acceptable free license? If he would, then we can use it and this issue is over. If he will not, then the image needs to be deleted. BigDT 05:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Omegatron. Important image to the article, can never be reproduced (thank God!), and we have permission from the author. Deleting it would be against the spirit of our rules, even if observing their letter. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Permission is interesting, but irrelevant. We don't use by permission only images unless they meet our fair use criteria, which this image does not. BigDT 05:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I humbly continue to disagree. It's an important image to the article that can never be replaced or reproduced - that's exactly the point of fair use. The permission is, correctly, not the be all and end all, but does show the effort to which the contributing editor went. Our contributors should be respected, and their constructive efforts should not be dismissed lightly. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing is being dismissed lightly. But as of 1.5 years ago, Wikipedia stopped using "by permission", "non-commercial", and "education only" images. They can only be used if they would qualify for fair use even without the permission. We don't use media photos and WP:ILIKEIT aside, there's nothing special about this one. Just about every media photo is of a one-time event (otherwise it's not news) ... but that changes nothing. It's long been established that we don't use media photos and if we can't use it without permission, we can't use it with permission. BigDT 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Qualifies for fair use. Most media photos are of people asked to pose for the photographer, making for highly reproducible events. Most of the others are of events which, while not strictly reproducible, are of types that occur all the time - politicians making speeches or signing documents, sports players scoring goals, even horrific accidents or shooting victims. I realy, really hope there will not be another incident of PETA killed animals being found in dumpsters ever again. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Zum zine issue six.jpg (talk | delete) {OR} edit
Uploaded by Peteashton (notify | contribs). Image is now orphaned after deletion of Zum! on 8 December; several days have passed since article deletion without it being contested, suggesting it will not be re-created in the near future. — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:DeKlyn's Chocolates - 1922.JPEG (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). orphaned, low quality (blurry phone camera capture from odd angle — Not a dog 18:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sweetest Day Named For Everybody.JPEG (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). orphaned, low quality (blurry phone camera capture from odd angle — Not a dog 18:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Celebrate Wildroot Week.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). orphaned, low quality (poorly cropped phone camera capture from odd angle, unreadable — Not a dog 18:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Page 4 Full Page Sweetest Day Editorial.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). orphaned, low quality, made obsolete by Image:Full Page Sweetest Day Editorial (1922).jpg — Not a dog 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sweetest Day Founder - L E Gruber.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). orphaned, low quality camera phone capture — Not a dog 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:"Owner" changed to "Employee" HBK 1930.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). orphan, screenshot of manipulated scan with little encyclopedic value — Not a dog 18:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Altered Census Form Herbert Birch Kingston 1930.JPEG (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). orphan, screenshot of manipulated scan with little encyclopedic value — Not a dog 18:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:KINGSTON 1930.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). orphan, unreadable scan of document — Not a dog 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:KINGSTON 1920.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). orphan, unreadable scan of document — Not a dog 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:KINGSTON 1910.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). orphan, unreadable scan of document — Not a dog 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Game maker ui2.PNG (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Pythonpoole (notify | contribs). Obsolite. Game maker ui2.PNG obsolited by Gm interface.png — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Golden Creature.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Pikminlover (notify | contribs). Low-res image which is only featured on User:Pikminlover's userpage. Quality is too poor for use in articlespace. A Train take the 19:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to locate a notice to the uploader about this nomination per step 3 of nomination process. I will add a notice today - the 5 day discussion period should begin from time of notification.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you guys are right about by image. If the image is deleted (Which it most likely is), I will try to make another copy of it in higher graphic quality, since I have the image on my desktop. Thank You, Pikminlover Meep!" 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then and again, it is only used on my page, so can I keep the image? Pikminlover Meep!" 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the image as it is only used on his user page. This page is rarely visited by anons and other users. Patelco 19:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what the image is supposed to be, but in general, as long as it isn't abused, we have pretty wide latitude on our user pages. BigDT 08:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Noislam.gif (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by The_Vindictive (notify | contribs). Intended for use in a userbox, not necessary anymore.- The Vindictive 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:UASeal.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Ham2265 (notify | contribs). Obsoleted by Image:UASeal.png. — NMajdan•talk 22:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to locate a notice to the uploader about this nomination per step 3 of nomination process. I will add a notice today - the 5 day discussion period should begin from time of notification--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Map of the Chase Line.JPG (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Our Phellap (notify | contribs). Obsolete. Replaced by better image - Image:Tivedshambo_2006-08-14_Chase-Walsall_map.png — Our Phellap 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Unable to locate a notice to the uploader about this nomination per step 3 of nomination process. I will add a notice today - the 5 day discussion period should begin from time of notification--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I (the uploader) nominated the image, I didn't see any point in notifying myself! Our Phellap 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Pelliccia.jpg (talk | delete) edit
Uploaded by Lemasta (notify | contribs). OR, UE. Used on now-deleted vanity bio. — Calton | Talk 23:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_December_15&oldid=1138513656"