Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, new user, see [1] for what this band is and why I claim not notable (there may have been an article) MECU≈talk 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image appears to be a crop of something related to Lilo and Stitch. It is currently licensed under the GFDL which is wrong: such an image would be unlicensed for free use. Since it is only used only in a BJAODN page, it should be deleted. Iamunknown 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image appears to be a crop of something related to Lilo and Stitch. It is currently licensed under the GFDL which is wrong: such an image would be unlicensed for free use. Since it is only used only in a BJAODN page, it should be deleted. Iamunknown 02:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was uploaded without a tag on 2006-05-11 (see first revision). It was then tagged by Orphanbot ([2]). A user then replaced the deletion tag with {{GFDL-presumed}} ([3] and [4]). Then final revision by that user, however, indicated that he or she thought "this is from b3ta based on its content but it may well have been uploaded by the user." I assume that the user meant that the image may be from http://www.b3ta.com/. While GFDL-presumed was appropriate to tag untagged images with prior to 2007-01-31 (it is now only appropriate for untagged images uploaded prior to 2006-01-01), I believe that there is absolutely no basis to presume that this particular image is licensed under the GFDL. There is no indication on the home page of www.b3ta.com that any content on the site is licensed under the GFDL. Further, this image is unencyclopedic and is used only on a BJAODN page and on a single user page. Thus, based on the indication that it originates from a site we cannot assume would license it under the GFDL and, further, because it is unencyclopedic and used on two non-main space pages, I argue that it should be deleted. --Iamunknown 04:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Comment by tagger on image talk page: Image is not your own work, it’s a copy of another image you just darkened the borders as you said in paint. I have asked the tagger to let us know the original source. ~ BigrTex 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to User:D.Kurdistani who tagged the image, this is the original image. It is not clear to me what the copyright of the original image is. ~ BigrTex 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concur. This website that has been presented as the original source has no information either, and is practically a blog for Iraqi Turkmens, which means that it is possible that the person who uploaded could have been the one that uploaded to the other website to begin with. Copyright vio is when there is clear indication that the work belongs to someone else, otherwise we must assume good faith. Baristarim 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see it, but it is one of a few uploaded by the same user who did nothing with them, nominated for deletion by a similarly named account who seemed to work in concert with the uploader. ~ BigrTex 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. -- BJBot 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Original nomination is here, apparently the image was orphaned at the time. On 25-Feb, the image was added to a page diff, but the {{ifd}} tag was never removed. ~ BigrTex 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see it, but it is one of a few uploaded by the same user who did nothing with them, nominated for deletion by a similarly named account who seemed to work in concert with the uploader. ~ BigrTex 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
personal pic used for now-deleted biography. No possible use. Uploader has not made any other contributions. Hbdragon88 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unlikely this photo was taken by a US government worker even though it was used in playing cards released by them. Yonatantalk 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from de.wp, request for deletion there (uploader confused years ago “press photo” with “public domain”), here no licence given — 80.90.148.83 21:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nv8200ptalk 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images serve no purpose, purely cosmetic, the names on the articles should be text anyway. Chrischeesewhine 22:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than "I don't like them", what's the rationale here? There's no copyright problem I'm aware of. --Calton | Talk 01:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is "Images serve no purpose, purely cosmetic". Chrischeesewhine 01:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete images such as these from the article pages they appear (using an anodyne edit summary) on before you propose them for deletion, or if you do, mention this IfD in the articles to which the images belong. Otherwise other users will never learn of the proposed deletion, and it will appear to be a bad-faith nomination. ProhibitOnions(T) 11:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I share the concerns regarding unnecessary images, these are a new addition that use the appropriate typeface (Calvert) designed specifically for the Metro, and not otherwise widely available. Let's see how they develop. ProhibitOnions(T) 11:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vested interest - I created these image files. As far as I'm concerned, they are effectively the 'logo' of the station (being displayed at the entrance and on the platform of each station) and serve the same purpose as any other logo featured in an article. The articles have plain text tiltles, the images merely appear in the station infoboxes (and display appropriate ALT tags) - so there are no accessibility concerns. Similar nameboards were also designed for and used in London Underground article pages. DrFrench 11:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Calvert typeface cannot be typeset, therefore the nameboards are not redundant or "purely cosmetic". The name boards should be tidied up though, to conform to a standard image height etc as I indicated at Template talk:Infobox T&W Metro station previously. johnwalton (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: the images are themselves harmless, so there is no pressing need to delete them. However (as I have already stated elsewhere) I agree with those that say that the station name in the infobox should be in text rather than an image, in case the image server is having a bad day, or a reader can't display the image for another reason. An alternative home could be found for these images elsewhere in the relevant articles. --RFBailey 12:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Image consists of a non-notable and unreliable source's (basically OR) conjecture and it is mistagged as well.- (→Netscott) 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is OK in articles about wikipedia, but this image is orphaned, so delete on that ground. -- SelketTalk 03:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, sourced from long-banned spammer MyWikiBiz. --Calton | Talk 05:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan, unencyclopedic. Only possible use I could see would be on RuneScape or related articles, but Image:Skillsp2p.PNG already fills the role. — ComradeTux 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Marfot.gif&oldid=52602872){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Marfot.gif&oldid=52911565){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Marfot.gif&oldid=52911618){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
