Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 April 29
Appearance
April 29
[edit]- Objectivist-C (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- CV - Violates the copyright under the precedent set by a previous IFD. Unnecessary, clear copyright violation, etc.
- Delete and replace - A screenshot of a private section would have more encyclopedic value. Also, obtaining a permission from a site admin isn't too much a hassle, so just do it. xyzman 10:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per policy. Jmlk17 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dempseydempsey (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Georgebech (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 01:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. JṃŁЌ17 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Princess Love (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Eric halberg (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 01:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Molochete99 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 01:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. JṃŁЌ17 21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mal funkshund (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 01:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sliat 1981 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Low Quality Terribly Distorted Image. It is nearly impossible to make out a face. It was directly coped off of KDKA's website but uses a screenshot tag. — --TREYWiki 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. JṃŁЌ17 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- SAMusoBoss (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Francesannesolomon1 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Low Quality, Unencyclopedic--TREYWiki
- Guardianangel68 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, maybe Copyright violation, user's only upload Nv8200p talk 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 01:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic depends on your definition. It's actually very good artwork. It's just a shame the artist is non notable. Nardman1 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. JṃŁЌ17 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Possible Copyright violation. Uploader claims the image is a self-created for "public use," but I'm not so sure, given the user's other contributions, which I've listed above. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete a useless image. Jmlk17 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it a useless image? — Rebelguys2 talk 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Possible Copyright violation. Uploader claims the image is a self-created for "public use," but I'm not so sure, given the user's other contributions, which I've listed above. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. JṃŁЌ17 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, Probably Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 02:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. JṃŁЌ17 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Devona.westhaven asboro33 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Probably Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 02:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete pure copyright violation. Jmlk17 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Warmachine202 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Vanity image Nv8200p talk 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the image is the national founding fathers of the fraternity and is used on the page saying so, how is that vanity? It's not a copy vio or an orphan, I don't really see why this was tagged. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is a group of guys that look like they are having a party. There are no names in the caption to indicate who these people are. -Nv8200p talk 12:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is a group of guys that are having a party. It’s the founders of the fraternity together at what is most likely a chartering banquet or a reunion party. Just because they are having fun at the time the picture was taken does not make them any less notable. They are notable by being founders of a notable organization and if they want to smile and have a group hug in their pic than so be it. This is one of the more frivolous delete nominations I’ve seen on a Greek article in a while. If a better picture of them can be found than by all means use it and yes someone (the editor who posted it) should add in captions but deleteing it is as usual extreme.Trey 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is a group of guys that look like they are having a party. There are no names in the caption to indicate who these people are. -Nv8200p talk 12:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but replace at next convenience with a more 'formal,' captioned picture. —ScouterSig 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per Scouter.—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- The image was obsolete by another image on Wikimedia Commons. I took the picture, uploaded it to here, realized it would be better suited on Commons, uploaded it to there, and now this pic just needs to be deleted. — Happyme22 02:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indicbraman (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 02:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mikehernandez (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thealgorithm (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thealgorithm (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thealgorithm (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thealgorithm (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. JṃŁЌ17 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- TheBronx2007 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. JṃŁЌ17 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Beyondce728 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Used in now speedy-deleted page "Babrachar" (see log). It is a derivative work of Pokémon-related artwork and, as such, is a copyright violation. Iamunknown 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Conflicting copyright licenses: the one says that the copyright holder allows the image to be "freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, ..." the other says "the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties." No evidence has been given to suggest which license is right and the web link is dead, so I think that this image should be deleted barring the resolution of the licensing status. Iamunknown 03:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- At the time the licenses made sense to me. You can change them so that you don't have delete the picture. This is stupid. The guy gave us permission to use the picture. Just to have something to so for the good of wikipedia FREE enclopedia. Joerite 04:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- To change the licenses I would need to know under what license the photographer released this particular image. --Iamunknown 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- You need to learn how to use the web archive xD. [1] I don't see copyright info anywhere. Apparently the images were contributed to the website by individuals who mailed them in [2]. Joerite, when did you get permission to use the photos and how? Nardman1 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- To change the licenses I would need to know under what license the photographer released this particular image. --Iamunknown 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Art_Madsen (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Incongruous licenses; one says GFDL, the other says permission only for Wikipedia, I recommend deletion unless resolved. Iamunknown 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maulikthaker (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Coredesat 04:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Kunal.a.vyas (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Coredesat 04:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Kunal.a.vyas (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Coredesat 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Danielkram (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- UE, OR, and untagged. Used only on the vanity article Rachel Taylor (CSD A7'd).- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Velcrobelly (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Invalid license, source: "©2000-06, CROOKED CODPIEVE COMPANY, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED"; further RFU; — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Velcrobelly (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Invalid license, source: "©2000-06, CROOKED CODPIEVE COMPANY, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED"; further RFU; — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Peter Corbett (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Image has been made obselete by vector vesion Image:Decane-2D-Skeletal.svg — Joelholdsworth 10:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Image has been made obselete by vector vesion Image:Heptane-2D-Skeletal.svg — Joelholdsworth 10:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- No objection as uploader. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Peter Corbett (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Image has been made obselete by vector vesion Image:Butane-2D-Skeletal.svg — Joelholdsworth 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Samuelsekar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- No source information, extremely large size (13,824 bytes) could crash older computers — Blueboy96 12:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is claimed the image is a reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art, but it is infact an image of a coin. — Andrij.Dunatov 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep (rolls eyes). A coin has two-dimensional art on it, one per side. And it's a 1500 year old coin, yeesh. Nardman1 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see how can it be a copyright issue. --Rbraunwa 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that a recent Featured Article contained the image "Simeon the Great anonymous seal.jpg", which is photograph of a coin-like object with the same rationale as the image of the Olybrius coin. --Rbraunwa 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. does not apply, the process of photography creates a copyright, unless we know who the photographer is and know that he or she has freely licensed this photograph, we must delete it. --Iamunknown 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Of course it applies, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was specifically about photographs, just read our article. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the picture of a statue is not a two-dimensional work of art, and neither is the picture of a coin--Andrij.Dunatov 00:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hairs are being split here. The 3rd dimension of the face of a coin is negligible, one may as well argue that a painting is a three dimensional work of art because the thickness of the paint matters. How often do you examine the face of a coin by looking at its edge? It is essentially a 2-dimensional work of art. A statue can be photographed from many angles presenting different pictures, picking the best angle is a matter of creative choice. To give an accurate depiction of a coin, it can only sensibly be photographed face on. There is some technical skill involved in posing and lighting it so the design is visible, but this is not a creative decision, merely a technical one, just as in photographing a painting for reproduction. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is no case law that deals with the photography of relief objects, even low relief ones. If there is and I am mistaken, please present it. Until then, we only assume that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies to two-dimensional works of art, i.e. paintings and photographs, in the public domain and nothing else. This image should be deleted, it is a copyright violation, simple as that. --Iamunknown 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is case law on reproducing 3 dimensional works with exact copies. These are not usually copyrightable, see [3], which was in fact the basis of the Bridgeman decision. "But even to claim the more limited protection given to a reproduction of a work of art (that to the distinctive features contributed by the reproducer), the reproduction must contain "an original contribution not present in the underlying work of art" and be "more than a mere copy." 1 M. Nimmer, supra, § 20.2, at 93. According to Professor Nimmer, moreover, "the mere reproduction of a work of art in a different medium should not constitute the required originality for the reason that no one claim to have independently evolved any particular medium." I submit this is a mere copy with no independent originality. Nardman1 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The image has been cropped, therefore it can't be "a mere copy with no independent originality". Furthermore, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. deals with "reproductions of two-dimensional works of art", not with "two-dimensional reproductions of works of art", and therefore it can not be applied here. --Andrij.Dunatov 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is case law on reproducing 3 dimensional works with exact copies. These are not usually copyrightable, see [3], which was in fact the basis of the Bridgeman decision. "But even to claim the more limited protection given to a reproduction of a work of art (that to the distinctive features contributed by the reproducer), the reproduction must contain "an original contribution not present in the underlying work of art" and be "more than a mere copy." 1 M. Nimmer, supra, § 20.2, at 93. According to Professor Nimmer, moreover, "the mere reproduction of a work of art in a different medium should not constitute the required originality for the reason that no one claim to have independently evolved any particular medium." I submit this is a mere copy with no independent originality. Nardman1 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is no case law that deals with the photography of relief objects, even low relief ones. If there is and I am mistaken, please present it. Until then, we only assume that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies to two-dimensional works of art, i.e. paintings and photographs, in the public domain and nothing else. This image should be deleted, it is a copyright violation, simple as that. --Iamunknown 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hairs are being split here. The 3rd dimension of the face of a coin is negligible, one may as well argue that a painting is a three dimensional work of art because the thickness of the paint matters. How often do you examine the face of a coin by looking at its edge? It is essentially a 2-dimensional work of art. A statue can be photographed from many angles presenting different pictures, picking the best angle is a matter of creative choice. To give an accurate depiction of a coin, it can only sensibly be photographed face on. There is some technical skill involved in posing and lighting it so the design is visible, but this is not a creative decision, merely a technical one, just as in photographing a painting for reproduction. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dianneflory (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dianneflory (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphnaed image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. JṃŁЌ17 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dianneflory (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dianneflory (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Steliosmegelios (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL-presumed licensed, claim of an error in the text of the image User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, graphical error in image User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- This file can’t be in the public domain since single files are stil copyrighted for some decades (Einstein, Wiesenthal, maybe some others, Perelman is requested for deletion on commons — 80.90.148.83 14:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- TrueElements (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphnaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal graphic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
OB & OR - Has been made obsolete by Image:Kyle.PNG, and is not used in any articles. I say delete it. --98E 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as soon as possible. 79Bottles 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bosniak100 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Copyright violation. He claimed that the image was his. However, I found it on another site, under a different author. [4] Here is the link, the image is the last image of the page. — Vseferović 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned image. Unencyclopedic. — Seed 2.0 19:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- New user uploading a promo pic claiming permisison granted. No indication of proof, or under what license. — The JPStalk to me 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
- Tycoonalex (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Fanmade cover, unencyclopedic, orphaned. Basically useless. --Guess Who 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, image name incorrect, replaced by CFT - Low Spin Splitting Diagram 2.PNG User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, replaced by Image:Hertzsprung-Russell diagram Richard Powell.png User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- JoeBaldwin (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, tagged as PD-self, but it looks like a TV screenshot BigDT 20:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, made obsolete by Image:Unstructured grid.svg BigDT 20:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pizzini3000 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Jiggajoejoe (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Jiggajoejoe (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned, poor quality, unusable; thought I already filed this, but could not find it for Apr 13 through Apr 15 — Otheus 14:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- This image was listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 23, however, notice had not been given in image captions. Relisting without prejudice. --BigDT 21:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Orphaned? Not.. Poor quality? Hmm, not IMO - from a HiDef source. Unusable? How so? It's fine for me. Matthew 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, I'm not sure what this table is supposed to be, but it shouldn't be a jpg BigDT 21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, gif version of the above BigDT 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not orphaned. --98E 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, PNG version of the above BigDT 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Robincross224 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- General Eisenhower (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Low quality BigDT 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia does not need the image. General Eisenhower (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Samaster1991 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use BigDT 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, presumably uploaded for a deleted article BigDT 21:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, presumably uploaded for a deleted article BigDT 21:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, replaced by Image:Red triangle.svg BigDT 21:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Skier71787 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 21:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- unfree image used only outside the Main namespace. Also, source info is incomplete. Abu badali (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- MetroidPrime3 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- MetroidPrime3 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- MetroidPrime3 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- MetroidPrime3 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- MetroidPrime3 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- MetroidPrime3 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic BigDT 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use BigDT 21:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Small and thus low quality, not user-created as tagged if it was obtained from an outside source, thus I recommend deletion. Iamunknown 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. JṃŁЌ17 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, URL in image, license might not be completely free (uploader says "You are free to use this picture for depicting this breed in a good way", which seems to place restrictions on how the image may be used). —Bkell (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, I cannot determine encyclopedic usage (though others may), if this is a logo it should be tagged with {{Non-free logo}}; if it is not going to be used, it should be deleted. Iamunknown 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, banner for a Web page; probably no encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Joe Rogers (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Low-quality (due to size) image, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic value. Iamunknown 23:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)