Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 October 17
Appearance
< October 16 | October 18 > |
---|
October 17
[edit]- SHOWCONFIG (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Duplicate image of Image:I Am... (Beyoncé Knowles album)-1.jpg. Already listed for deletion. Violates Wikipedia:NFCC#4. Many retailers list the album as "Beyonce Upcoming Album" with a image placeholder. No sources to validate image. Alkclark (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- SHOWCONFIG (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Duplicate image of Image:I Am... (Beyoncé Knowles album)-2.jpg. Already listed for deletion. Violates Wikipedia:NFCC#4. Many retailers list the album as "Beyonce Upcoming Album" with a image placeholder. No sources to validate image. Alkclark (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wal-Mart has delete the album's entry from their website. Because of this, image cannot be deemed reliable. Alkclark (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Actually, it seems both entries are still there (as are the images), although they're listed under "Music for DELETION". (!) But I do agree that the uncertain status of the pictures at least requires adjusting the current boilerplate non-free use rationale, which is written with the assumption that the cover art is unquestionably official. Perhaps more to the point, we're not Wikileaks: we're supposed to pay some attention to copyright owner's financial interests when using non-free material, and the withdrawal (half-assed though it may be) at least suggests the possibility that the record company might have an interest in keeping the covers secret until the album is released. (Good luck to them, I'm sure everyone and their
bldog has already grabbed a copy, but that's not really the issue; WP:NFCC#2 — and possibly #4 as well — is.) Might be best just to delete the images for now and wait until the album is officially published: then we can reupload them to illustrate both the album and, whether or not they turn out to be official, the probably inevitable "Wal-Mart leaks Beyoncé's new album cover" story. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wal-Mart has delete the album's entry from their website. Because of this, image cannot be deemed reliable. Alkclark (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete per reasoning above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Urkelkid1978 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Unused, Unencyclopedic, Low quality, uploader blocked for vandalism. Altairisfartalk 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unused, no source, Unencyclopedic. -Nard 02:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Image is encyclopedic (or at least, its subject, Lou Cowell is also the subject of an article written by the uploader) and I have added the apparent source (Lou Cowell's myspace page). That said, it is unlikely that the uploader will be able to come up with a fair use rationale. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- unused, doubtful that the image was released into public domain ThePointblank (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- This appears to be a picture of members of Chinese military. (I'm not sure of the insignia, but isn't that a Chinese firearm?) I'm not sure if works of the Chinese government are exempt from copyright, but if so, it is possible that's what this is. Image had been included in the article QJY-88. Further investigation of the article edit history suggests the image came from http://www.gun-world.net/china/mg/qjy88/qjy88.htm but I can't read Chinese to figure out what the status of the image is. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned old uploaded image for uploader's user page. OsamaK 18:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please see these ones also:
- --OsamaK 18:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, very old uploaded image. Templates are no longer need this image. OsamaK 18:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned old uploaded image, I think it has been replaced with text or math syntax. OsamaK 18:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- image watermarked w/(c); absent uploader w/history of mistagging images SkierRMH (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unlike below picture (uploaded by same person), I don't see anything here to suggest that uploader had a right to post this image. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Spyguy_999 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine location represented Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Appears to have been uploaded for 311 South Wacker Drive, was formerly used there with caption "The Sears Tower (left) and 311 South Wacker Drive (right) at night". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Further comment-- being personally familiar with both 311 S. Wacker and the Sears Tower in Chicago, I can confirm that those are the buildings shown in the image. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wendy.heah (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphaned image, absent uploader, conflicting license and permission text; text added states "This image is copyrighted. Please ask for permission before use.", therefore not free. Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- E_Pluribus_Anthony (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orpahned image, condictions provided in license state the image can "not be combined with other images" which would prohibit derivatie photo combonations. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have flagged it as a speedy for copy vio of http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=001042. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Paddy_armagh (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphaned image, was used in an AfD'ed article. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Paddy_armagh (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphaned image, was used in an AfD'ed article. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Brian.Burnell (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)