Summary states that "Permission must be granted before you can copy and use this image in any manner" which conflicts with license tag. Nv8200ptalk 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Absent uploader Nv8200ptalk 02:32, 3 April 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
keep, borderline but has article potential that wasn't perhaps appreciated at time of nomination (given that it was orphaned). No pressing need to delete, anyway. BencherliteTalk 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200ptalk 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will put into an article - but unencyclopedic??? No way. It is the single Geysir from which all geysers derive their name. How is that second criterion evaluated? Do you pay any attention to the images? deBivort 15:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without the image being in an article or a better description of what the image is about, there is no context to determine the image would have any use in an encyclopedia. -Nv8200ptalk 14:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The context is in the title and the caption: "Geysir". If you google it, it takes you to the exact object that is depicted. Also Geysir is already an article on wikipedia - the one into which the image will be added. Those seem like obvious approaches to determine encyclopedicity. Perhaps you thought that word was the standard english word for a generic geyser. deBivort 19:53, 4 April 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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 (significance) and text should not be represented as an image anyway. You can type text, even Arabic text, directly into the article. —Remember the dot(talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader states that the picture is an own work but as with any material of Harry Potter films, copyright exists and belongs to Warner Bros. Copyrigh violation Pichote (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and just remove that false claim. --Lord Opeth (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - agreed. Chances are that the uploader was new enough that he thought he had to identify the possibly altered image (or cropping, saving as lower resolution or whatnot) as his own work on the primary image. Just remove the claim of ownership. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
