Low quality, Absent uploader, Taken from a website with no evidence uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Nv8200ptalk 02:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200ptalk 02:09, 25 January 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200ptalk 02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was some talk of possibly using this in the Boy article; not sure if it will be, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons - Nomination is poor and given that he has used the same reason for a mass of nominations, he is simply spamming. The image provides an excellent representation of what a boy looks like and should be used on the Boy article as it is considerably better than some of the poor images on there at present. To call it "Unencyclopedic" is nonsense as it shows exactly what it is supposed to, again more spammed rationale. Also to say "Absent uploader" is even more nonsense as he has no idea if I am here or not and obviously I am, and again more spammed rationale. To conclude the nomination is not in good faith and is simply one of many images one person has nominated with poor rationale. Patrice58 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is orphaned. With no context for the image, it is just a non-notable kid so the image is unencyclopedic. Both of these are common reasons to nominate an image for deletion. User had not made a contribution in two weeks. Looked pretty absent to me. All the other images nominated have the same or similar issues.
This is a decent quality image, I would move to commons rather than deleting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the image moved to Commons then move it. You don't have to wait for anything. An admin can then just delete it off Wikipedia -Nv8200ptalk 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My absence? I am here every day or if not every other day and for you to base your absenteeism thoughts, on me not posting in the last two weeks is quite frankly laughable as I am a new member. I vote for it to stay as is not hurting anybody if it stays and as is said above it is due to be used in the boy article. B.T.W. If you check my talk page User_talk:Patrice58#Boy_image you will see the person that removed it thought it was a good picture and had merit, he removed it because he wanted a discussion on if it should be used as seen here. Talk:Boy#Human.jpgPatrice58 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the removal didn't generate a great deal of discussion at Boy and a consensus has not yet formed on the issue there -- since its addition is being considered, it would appear the photograph has an encyclopedic use. The removal was also not on the photographs merits, only because photos are automatically removed because so many people upload pictures of themselves or relatives, so I don't believe the photograph being orphaned is a concern. I'm also having a hard time swallowing "well you weren't around for a couple of weeks" as a reason to assume the uploader left, especially since no conversation was had with them first. Essentially, I don't see any reason to delete the image at this time -- if Patrice58 would like to move the image to Commons (I'd imagine a new name will have to be chosen), I would be happy to facilitate the move. Shellbabelfish 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader requested assistance for Commons move -- move completed Image:Browneyedboy.jpg and image deleted here on Wikipedia. Shellbabelfish 18:52, 30 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.
Image on user page no longer in use. No need to keep it. No need to notify myself as I was the uploader. — BQZip01 —talk 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
likely copyvio, and having pictures in an article on scratch and sniff isn't really helpful anyways Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
likely copyvio, and having pictures in an article on scratch and sniff isn't really helpful anyways Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
derivative work of post-1923 copyrighted sculpture, only used in general article about its subject (St Anne Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-free derivative work of post-1923 engraving/sculpture, used only in general articles about its subjects Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need 8 images from Danny Phantom: The Ultimate Enemy video game. Actually, we don't really even need one. These are all unnecessary screenshots that add nothing to the article. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need 8 images from Danny Phantom: The Ultimate Enemy video game. Actually, we don't really even need one. These are all unnecessary screenshots that add nothing to the article. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need 8 images from Danny Phantom: The Ultimate Enemy video game. Actually, we don't really even need one. These are all unnecessary screenshots that add nothing to the article. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need 8 images from Danny Phantom: The Ultimate Enemy video game. Actually, we don't really even need one. These are all unnecessary screenshots that add nothing to the article. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need 8 images from Danny Phantom: The Ultimate Enemy video game. Actually, we don't really even need one. These are all unnecessary screenshots that add nothing to the article. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need 8 images from Danny Phantom: The Ultimate Enemy video game. Actually, we don't really even need one. These are all unnecessary screenshots that add nothing to the article. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need 8 images from Danny Phantom: The Ultimate Enemy video game. Actually, we don't really even need one. These are all unnecessary screenshots that add nothing to the article. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need 8 images from Danny Phantom: The Ultimate Enemy video game. Actually, we don't really even need one. These are all unnecessary screenshots that add nothing to the article. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Near the bottom of the page it clearly lists the copyright of the aerial image. As much as I like the picture, it should be deleted. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:19, 25 January 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}
