Not used, not ensyclopedic, someone tried to PROD it earlier, but that process doesn't work for images. Sherool(talk) 01:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not used (the Holly Haynes article was deleted), also not entierly clear if she actualy released the image under the indicated licenses or if the uploader just grabbed it from her blog or website soemwhere. Sherool(talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, low quality, watermarked and probably not ensyclopedic (article about subject has been deleted). Sherool(talk) 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image for a speedied article. Subject is either non-notable or a hoax. --Muchness (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2007 (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.
Orphaned, Uploaded soley for a deleted article Thomas KruegerB (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Commonsbleed
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.
All by the same author as M-103.gif, all unused and redundant to SVG images in the form "Image:M-x.svg", where "x" is the number. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 10:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No longer needed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopaedic joke image, used only for vandalism of the Jesus article. EALacey (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. This is an historical image. We should not be deleting FREE images. --Zcflint05 (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any readers who doubt my description should simply view the image. It shows a crucified Christ with a dinosaur head superimposed over his face and a caption reading "EXTINCTION FOR OUR SINS." It's a joke, and not even an amusing one. EALacey (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image fails WP:NFCC policy #8 on "Significance" for this article. The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (Fox News Channel). It is only used for decoration. Ilse@ 10:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fox News Alerts, illiustrated by this graphic, are a trademark (figuratively, not literally) of the network. This image should stay. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The visual style of Fox News is discussed in the article. 65.96.121.145 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image fails WP:NFCC policy #8 on "Significance" for this article. The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (Fox News Channel). It is only used for decoration. Ilse@ 10:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image fails WP:NFCC policy #8 on "Significance" for this article. The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (Fox News Channel). It is only used for decoration. Ilse@ 10:39, 27 December 2007 (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.
Oppose deletion until nominator expands rationale. Free images of important landmarks like the Mission District in San Francisco should be kept. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I marked as "Move to Commons". – Quadell(talk) (random) 17:28, 2 January 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.
Comment Now on commons. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:53, 30 December 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Fair-use cover art used as a general example, particular DVD is not discussed in the article. Jackaranga (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Jackaranga (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasoning behind the nom is very poor, in my opinion. Where, exactly, in Wikipedia policy does it say that an article on a genre, director, band, etc must discuss a specific work in order for it to be covered under "fair use"? I think fair use definitely covers specific works used as general examples. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (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 source explicitly states that they don't want people re-using this photo without buying licensing rights. —Remember the dot(talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept - Fair use allows us to use copyrighted items without the owner's permission. MECU≈talk 16:10, 3 January 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 discussion was:
Moved to PUI. – Quadell(talk) (random) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence that uploader is owner of image. sourced to copyrighted website Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. The website does say "My Favorite Sites: Hair Weave Info on Wikipedia", linking to the article this image is used in. It could well be her. – Quadell(talk) (random) 17:33, 2 January 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 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.
