< January 16 | January 18 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image with no good encyclopedic value, could all be replaced with plain text and or simple explanation -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image with no good encyclopedic value, could all be replaced with plain text and or simple explanation. Also includes additional images that may or not be owned by uploader. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image with too many edited filters and graphic work that there is no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unrealistic photo of a school with a person's head (presumably Don Bosco) superimposed into the sky. This image is beyond any reasonable use in an encyclopedic -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to be a CGI created image with no encyclopedic value. Also says "Justin McMenamin" on image, which may or may not be the uploader and/or creator -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan highly edited photo with no encyclopedic value. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image of a clothing patch that reads "evil inside" made to look like Intel's Intel Inside logo. Image is blurry for the patch, and there is no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan poor cropped personal photo with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan image is low resolution, no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free photograph showing players of a football team celebrating a victory, used in history section of team article. Typical case of notability and NFCC#8 criteria being mixed up: while the historical situation from which this is taken may be important and notable (for purposes of this article), the image itself offers the reader no factual information about that situation that couldn't be conveyed in words. The only things it conveys is that the players were happy, and that they wore red garb; both of these are trivial.) Per multiple precedents, we don't use non-free images for such cases.
Also has a blatantly false rationale, copying the boilerplate "the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article" (which is obviously factually untrue.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NFCC#3a since there already is a different cover image in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NFCC#3a: there is already a different cover image there. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NFCC#3a: there is already a different cover image there. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NFCC#3a: there is already a different cover image there. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the underlying work is protected by copyright in the United States. This looks like a utilitarian item which are usually ineligible for copyright in the United States. Additionally, there is no licence for the photographic aspects of the photo. Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]