Uploaded by Zonerocks (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Photo from a football game, tagged as GFDL, but the description says, "Sports Illustrated is the Source"- BigDT 06:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Dark Tichondrias (notify | contribs). OR UE. Was used in the previous version of Template:Common definition of Asian box as a background and border framework in one. Aesthetically questionable, requires inelegant table code, not scalable to the browser font, doesn't conform to Wikipedia's formatting conventions, wouldn't work with user CSS skins, probably unfriendly to some printer setups, steel motif has nothing to do with Asian people, blah blah blah. I've wikified the template, and the image is now orphaned. I do not believe it has any real use in a well-designed website, wiki or otherwise.—NeonMerlin 07:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm certainly interested in this image not being deleted, but I don't have any good reason for it -- I just thought I'd show up and note that :P
All that being said, here's the wiki-lawyer in me going (tongue-in-cheek) to bat: It's no longer orphaned, and it's an artistic rendition of a living person Wikipedia has objectively deemed notable in multiple articles (yours truly), rendering it encyclopedic.
This nomination entry was deleted by User:65.13.3.52 with the edit summary of "(Image listed here by accident, gfdl to begin with, tags fixed)". This claim may be true, but only User:Nv8200p should truly cancel the nomination. And when cancelled, should be leaving the entry here and tagging it with the strike-through tags <s> and </s>.--Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 12:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination was re-deleted by 65.13.3.52 with the edit smmary of "(removal nomination has no merit, no reasons listed, image is gfdl.)". Once nominated, it should be community consense that determines if there is no merit or not. Also, there were reasons listed, "OR, UE" as noted above, which convert to orphan and unencyclopedic. Both these are valid reasons for nomination. If the orphan issue has been resolved, that would be a factual thing, but unencyclopedic needs to be based on a community basis. Plus, nominations are not usually removed from the page, regardless of the success or failure of the nomination. I will be placing a copy of this reply on the anon user's talk page.--Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry, not sure what OR means it this context. It can't be original research surely as all art would fall into that category ultimately. As to orphaned, this image is not- it clearly illustrates a notable subject. The use of computer technology to depict a famous hacker is clearly appropriate. I don't think we should stray into deciding whether artwork is encyclopedic- the very act of doing so is POV. It is an image of a notable person in a relevant context and is therefore relevant to Wikipedia. -WJBscribe(WJBtalk) 01:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. No longer orphaned. howcheng {chat} 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by T.sando (notify | contribs). OR, OB, LQ, AB; Was only used on Fever, where I've replaced it by an SVG version on commons Image:Fever-conceptual.svg which doesn't have compression artefacts and is scalable. —pne(talk) 15:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. An important part of the SVG file's history. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by EnigmaBurn (notify | contribs). orphaned image, license and text in conflict, copyright violation. Text added states owner "grants limited use so long as citation is made and a promiment active HTML link in the article or near the image is used" Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 22:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Madivan (notify | contribs). A magazine cover, but it isn't used to illustrate the magazine (as required by the fair use rationale) but rather to promote a game. The image also doesn't have any source information. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 23:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
