The result of the discussion was: Delete - fundamentally as the image has a rationale for an article that it is not in, and no rationale for the article it is in. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Derivatve work of non-free advertisement. Would fail fair use because it is not the subject of commentary in the article. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: speedy close Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm listing this here to see if I can get some help figuring this out: this is an image, the photographer released the rights (under a CC license) but the subject is property of the Russian government, does anyone know if it legit to use this image or not? Here is a machine translation of the template used on the image on the Russian Wikipedia:
If there's a equivilant template or any advice whatsoever about how to handle Russian subjects like this, I can't find it. Herostratus ( talk) 03:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Herostratus ( talk) 03:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
A book cover should not be used to illustrate an article on the subject of the book. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-free TV screenshot, used in article about TV character. Article already has another non-free image; this one is superfluous. Not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary for understanding the plot summary it accompanies. Fails NFCC8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Orphaned an SVG bug. Leyo 07:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Copyright violation, The picture being used in the article shows no signs of where the file was taken also due to the fact that the picture is belonging to me and in no way was I contacted for free public use of it. The picture has also further been violated on the fact the image has be irrevocably used on other wiki sites under the same situation and lack of permission. TheAllKnowingNobody ( talk) 08:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2011 May 21. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result of the discussion was: delete because a free photo is available, even if it does look like a mugshot. If one likes, one can digitally remove the background and the numbers, but we do indeed have a free photo, which disqualifies any non-free photo that exists solely to show what the subject looked like. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Free alternative available. Damiens.rf 18:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: kept, as apparently it is official. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
This is not the University of Windsor logo. 137.207.108.135 ( talk) 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Unused near-dup of commons:File:2-Ethoxyethanol2.svg DMacks ( talk) 20:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply