The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: speedy delete as CSD#I3. SoWhy 11:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original uploader, who is absent, added a freeuse provided license only requiring credit, but the source disclaimer states"Users may download, copy and reprint information from the site for non-commercial purposes so long as the GS/OAS is cited as the source of the originating material, however, they may not resell, redistribute, or create derivative works absent the express written permission of GS/OAS. " Therefore the image is non free. Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I I3'd the file. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:47, 3 November 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
orphaned image, absent uploader, its small size makes it low quality as the text is unreadable, no indication that the image is provided as free use. Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If no indication that it is free use then it should be treated as non-free. Therefore CSD#I5 should apply. Unusual? QuiteTalkQu 13:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, image page raises issues about the identication of the image subject Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orphaned, should be assumed as non free - CSD#I9 should apply. Unusual? QuiteTalkQu 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, questionable if the image can actually be copyrighted but if so there is no indication that the uploader has the right to license it Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information provided to determine an encylopdic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Image seems to depict the John Hancock Center. The licensing is somewhat ambiguous, though: there's that notorious phrase "permission ... to be used on Wikipedia" again. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The image does not allow for commercial use so a non-free rational would need to be supplied, but the very small size makes the image low quality and useless, IMO, to identify the subject. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've I3'd the file. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:23, 30 October 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
orphaned image, absent banned uploader, was likely used on a very regularly deleted article (see deletion log) Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no reason given that this image is PD. if it is nonfree, the copyright holder is not named, so it has to go as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The image is orphaned, user has left as per his talk page message (which includes his thoughts on image licensing issues), the licensing is iffy - link to email permission at User:FranksValli/John Searle email which basicly states I edit at WP and would like to use this image is an article, that ok? and there is a cleanly licesed image on commons at Image:John Searle 2002.jpgJordan 1972 (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Permission not in OTRS, not likely to be obtained, not used. MECU≈talk 03:39, 8 November 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: - Keep now - Peripitus(Talk) 11:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While public domain, this is a smaller version of Image:James-Harlan.jpg at Commons. Only use is a gallery of images by User:Brian0918 (which is really the prior version). Perhaps only the last version should be deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted. Given that the reverted version was also free (though redundant), there's no real need to delete it (though it would do no harm either). Speedy close? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: - Delete - image is taken from a speech he made in Nov 1945 - Unless the author died before 1950 it is not-free and should not be in userspace - Peripitus(Talk) 10:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no source for image of stalin Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned, but is it really unencyclopaedic? Can it not be used in something related to Method Engineering? --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, but unencyclopaedic? Can it not be used in something related to Method Engineering? --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: imaged deleted after properly tagged and attributed image was uploaded to Commons. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no source for component ship image Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
appears to be a scan (non-standard design, slightly darkened edges). likely copyvio. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Deleted by Calliopejen1 (talk·contribs) with edit summary based on an image that has been deleted as having insufficient copyright information. MatthewYeager 07:04, 1 November 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
no source for component images, probably not okay anyways because it's based on copyrighted characters Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){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}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=delete){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=history){kind=link}
