| Revision as of 21:38, 26 December 2009 editDamiens.rf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,536 edits Adding discussion for File:Maria Luisa Arcelay.jpg. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:52, 26 December 2009 edit undoMarine 69-71 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users80,126 edits →File:Maria Luisa Arcelay.jpg: KNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| :<span class="plainlinksneverexpand lx">] (]}}}} delete] | ] | | )</span> - uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> | ]). | :<span class="plainlinksneverexpand lx">] (]}}}} delete] | ] | | )</span> - uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> | ]). | ||
| *No hard evidence this image is really pre-1923 (when the subject was less than 30 years old). The copyright holder is not identified. As a "''source''", only ] is provided. ] 21:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | *No hard evidence this image is really pre-1923 (when the subject was less than 30 years old). The copyright holder is not identified. As a "''source''", only ] is provided. ] 21:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - Before 1923, the subject was already a successful businesswoman who owned a needlework workshop which employed 400 workers. The attire in the photo is typical of those used in the early the 1920s. The tactic of stating that ''As a "''source''", only ] is provided'' to maybe persuade others is interesting, even though I do not believe it is a valid one. However, if the nominator can prove that the source indeed is a proven copyright violator, I myself will gladly delete the image with no further due. To the nominator, I do not wish to interact with you here due to your name-calling in the past. Direct whatever you have to say to the community in general and not to my person. Thank you ] (]) 22:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:52, 26 December 2009
| < December 25 | December 27 > |
|---|
December 26
File:Colonial warrior pin.jpg
- File:Colonial warrior pin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Franksed (notify | contribs).
- Although licensed as an original creation, this seems not sufficiently transformative from the original, distinct and copyright design to substantiate a claim of "author's original work." As a fair-use image, it lacks an FUR and is orphaned. --EEMIV (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as above; this is an invalid license. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
File:FTL Jump -- Battlestar Galactica (2004).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:FTL Jump -- Battlestar Galactica (2004).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Matthew (notify | contribs).
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2009+December+26%23File%3AFTL+Jump+--+Battlestar+Galactica+%282004%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- No discussion of the image's content (i.e. specifically what, when, where, why) it depicts. No discussion of the production or development of the underlying special effects. Wholly fails to meet WP:NFCC #8. --EEMIV (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- delete as gratuitous eye candy on gratuitous article I just sent to AfD. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
File:Tommy Knight.jpg
- File:Tommy Knight.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sfxprefects (notify | contribs).
- The image is someone else's work from Flickr, and the owner does not give the appropriate licensing to use on Misplaced Pages. Ωphois 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Maria Luisa Arcelay.jpg
- File:Maria Luisa Arcelay.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).
- No hard evidence this image is really pre-1923 (when the subject was less than 30 years old). The copyright holder is not identified. As a "source", only a link to a copyright vilolating web-site is provided. Damiens.rf 21:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Before 1923, the subject was already a successful businesswoman who owned a needlework workshop which employed 400 workers. The attire in the photo is typical of those used in the early the 1920s. The tactic of stating that As a "source", only a link to a copyright violating web-site is provided to maybe persuade others is interesting, even though I do not believe it is a valid one. However, if the nominator can prove that the source indeed is a proven copyright violator, I myself will gladly delete the image with no further due. To the nominator, I do not wish to interact with you here due to your name-calling in the past. Direct whatever you have to say to the community in general and not to my person. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
