Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29[edit]

This image is at the commons. - cohesiont 00:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Gadget850 (notify). OR; unused image; self-nom- Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)).[reply]
Uploaded by Chozie (notify). UE, also uploaded by vandal--Habap 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Chozie (notify). UE, and by vandal--Habap 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Chozie (notify). UE, and by vandal--Habap 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Chozie (notify). duplicate of Emil christensen.jpg, and by vandal--Habap 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Forster.JPG redundant with Image:Georg Forster.jpg --Sherool (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg OR, CV. Not used anywhere. Uploaded in January and no fair-use employment seems at all likely, potential mischief if the image is left just lying around. Herostratus 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unless someone comes up with a fair-use case (seems unlikely). Note that submission is misleading when it says "not used anywhere", this was recently removed from Lolicon, a page which is currently protected. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, sorry, the image was used until (I guess) a few days ago, if that was misleading sorry, I struck it out. Herostratus
  • Keep this one, Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg - if Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpgis kept, then delete this one since we don't need two different ones. Johntex\talk 02:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two cases are essentially identical... I don't see any rationale except for either keeping both or deleting both. Herostratus
  • Keep vote struck, quite clearly meets fair use rationale as Fair use and comics states: for general comic book, graphic novel and trade paperback covers, it is generally accepted that, like Compact disc or DVD covers, they can be used under fair use reasoning for the purpose of identification, as long as the image of the comic book cover is clearly captioned, identifies the series and issue number in question, credits the artists, and is used in an article containing commentary or analysis of the issue or series in question. If the article is discussing the series in question as one containing images of a lolicon nature, then that qualifies as commentary on the issue or series. We don't have to only use one if both series are discussed within the article, although that's a decision that would probably need to be agreed consensually. Hiding talk 12:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same arguments apply for/against this image as for Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. Either both stay or both go, I would think. Herostratus 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This may be a caricature of a real girl posing like this. If it is, it's also exploitation and abuse of a child, which is also against the law. Laws or not, Jimbo has a final say on what is or isn't allowed here. Would someone care to bring this to Jimbo's attention, please? --Shultz IV 03:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg (NOTICE: NSFW). Uploaded in 2004, it has never been used in a non-CV manner. It has been the subject of much dispute at Talk:Lolicon#Deletion of image Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg. Delete argument contends that since {{comiccover}} allows use only to illustrate "the issue of the comic book...{or the] series... [or the] character", and that this is not superceded anywhere else in Wikipedia:Fair Use, and none of these conditions apply, therefore the use of the image is disallowed. Further, has not been employed in legal manner since 2004 upload, and is likely nexus for mischief, so delete. Retain arguers contend variously that (1) since it being used to illustrate a genre of illustration, the looser {{art}} should apply, and/or that (2) since Wikipedia:Fair Use is a guideline not a policy it may interpreted with at least a bit of leeway, and that the use of this image in this way is consistant with (2a) common sense and/or (2b) the intended spirit of the fair-use exemption for comic book covers and/or (2c) the placement of images in many other articles. Notes: (1) Image content (image shows a half-naked seven-year-old girl holding a stuffed bear sporting BSDM regalia and a strap-on dildo) is not the issue here. (2) Image has many fans. I expect that some may come here and vote, which is absolutely fine. But I contend that this is a copyvio issue and hence shouldn't even be subject to vote. If this is done even the most blatant CV could be retained by vote maybe? Request closing admin to consider. (3) Image is also used in stub on the artist, Hikari Hayashibara. Whether this is a ploy or not I don't know, but even under more-generous {{art}} images may be employed to illustrate a genre or school (or of course an article on the image itself), but not an artist. So that is not an issue I think. Herostratus 21:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that Herostratus is quite heavily involved in the dispute. I don't really think this should be deleted until those discussions have been resolved, given there are several people talking about making a fair use case. However, I'm certainly not going to vote keep given the current situation which doesn't appear to be to be fair use to me. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fuzzie, the discussion has gone on a long time, and you have been as involved as anyone, so what is your point there? IMO no winning arguments have been made for retention. Let the people make a fair-use case here (I tried to summarize the arguments as fairly as possible in the nom, editors may redact if necessary). If the fair-use case is "writing an article about the image", the image has been here since 2004 and no article is likely or possible I don't think. Herostratus
      • I haven't put the image up for deletion or voted on the deletion, so I don't think my involvement is that relevant.. I was more thinking the suggestion of adding a paragraph or two about the subject to the author page, and keeping it there. I admit it seems somewhat unlikely to happen, though, but it's not as if the dispute is finished. --Fuzzie (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This image was uploaded in October 2004. Since that time, no one has written "a paragraph or two" about that comic because Lolita Girls Collection (the name of the comic) is itself one utterly unnotable comic book among thousands. If there is a single Wikipedia editor who even knows anything useful about Lolita Girls Collection, they have had a year and a half to write an article. The dispute has been raging for a long time, probably since October 2004, and scores of editor-hours have been poured into discussing this one image.
  • Keep I do not see an argument for deletion here. This looks like a content dispute about the articles in which it appears. Septentrionalis 01:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This picture shows a child with partially bare bottom hugging a teddy-bear wearing a strap-on dildo in Florida. At worst the image may be illegal as simulated child pornography, at best it is below the editorial standards we should hold for ourselves. There is a better alternative available above. Johntex\talk 02:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At least in the United States, it is not illegal. See the Supreme Court decision of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. --Carnildo 08:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a content decision that should be resolved on the article (or RF*), not here. Kotepho 20:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image has previously had deletion discussions based on legal issues and was kept (although without consensus, so perhaps it's worth discussing if someone has further arguments), see discussion on the image talk page. The rest of your argument is part of the ongoing content dispute, as far as I can tell. --Fuzzie (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, neither legality nor suitability are the issue here. Herostratus 00:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vote change, quite clearly meets fair use rationale as Fair use and comics states: for general comic book, graphic novel and trade paperback covers, it is generally accepted that, like Compact disc or DVD covers, they can be used under fair use reasoning for the purpose of identification, as long as the image of the comic book cover is clearly captioned, identifies the series and issue number in question, credits the artists, and is used in an article containing commentary or analysis of the issue or series in question. If the article is discussing the series in question as one containing images of a lolicon nature, then that qualifies as commentary on the issue or series. Hiding talk 12:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Hiding... The article doesn't "identify the series and issue number in question", and it isn't "used in an article containing commentary or analysis of the series in question". And do you know why? Because it's quite possible that there is literally no one in the world who even knows, cares, or remembers anymore what Lolita Girls Collection is about, what artists contributed, what the storylines (if any) were, what the sales figures were, anything. If there is, they've had since October 2004 to write an article. They haven't done it. Your last sentence "if the article is discussing the series in question as one containing images of a lolicon nature, then that qualifies as commentary on the issue or series" is not part of the cited text, it is just your extension of fair use, an extremely broad extension that is certainly non-standard. Herostratus
      • First, the article is protected, so can't be amended to better comply with fair use policy. Second, it's not an extension of the quoted text, Herostratus, it's what it means. I know because I wrote it and discussed it and got it consensually agreed. If the series is discussed within the article and if the discussion is germane to the article then the the image is fair use. It's not a reading of fair use that is non-standard: this was hammered out at WikiProject Fair use. It's that simple. I'm sorry you disagree, but please don't tell me my words don't mean what you think they mean: is used in an article containing commentary or analysis of the issue or series in question. is quite clear. Your reasoning would not allow the use of Image:Harpers March 2006.jpg at George W. Bush. Whilst this image is distasteful, this is the wrong reason to remove it. Simply find a better image. I have posted on the talk page details of better images to use. Once this image is removed from an article and orphaned, it can be deleted. You can't delete it for not being fair use, since that fact can be altered to make the image fair use if the page is unprotected. If we allow that we ride ramshod over process and allow anyone to remove an image, protect a page and then delete the image. I apologise, but this is simply the wrong avenue to explore for a solution to the problems surrounding this image. Hiding talk 09:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. Maybe this is a misunderstanding on my part, and I appreciate your taking the time so straighten me out. But look, to avoid future misunderstandings of this nature, I'd ask you to add the bolded text (or a some fairly near equivilant in your own words) to the template {{comiccover}}. If this had just been done in the first place we wouldn't be here. "...to illustrate: * the issue of the comic book in question; * the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part; * the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question; or * the artistic genre or technique of the cover art. Because Manga and other articles (are also in this position) Herostratus
  • Keep per the ever-wise Hiding. The image is fair use in the limited context of articles analyzing the comic or characters involved. Carnildo is correct with respect to the question of legal obscenity. Xoloz 15:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If what you and Hiding are saying is true, there is quite literally no need for categories {{comiccover}}, {{bookcover}}, {tl|albumcover}}, etc - they can all be subsumed in the more loosely restricted {{art}}. That would be just a huge, huge change in Wikipedia fair use guidelines. If people want to propose that, fine, but unless or until that's adopted, the image has to fall under the restrictions of {{comiccover}}. It just does. You can't just say "well, its really {{art}}. Because everything is "art" in a sense. Herostratus
      • Herostratus, you seem to misunderstand fair use or take too literally the text on {{comiccover}}. For instance, an image of a super hero can be used to illustrate the article on Superhero under fair use rationale, at least until a better one, (i.e. free) can be found, because it is used to illustrate the character. The first issue of Eagle can be used to illustrate an article on British comics because of its significance to the subject, and it's therefore discussed in the article. You cannot delete this because it fails to be fair use, but you can find a better image, orphan it and then delete it. At the moment this is impossible to do so because the article is protected. Hiding talk 09:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, per above. But I do think taking the text of {{comiccover}} and other templates (and also the text at Wikipedia:Fair Use) literally is not a bad thing, and it's something that editors ought to be able to do. I don't want to have to figure out Hmmmm what does that really mean. So the simple addition specified above is needed. Also, from Wikipedia:Fair Use, I used the counterexample (of a not-allowed use) "A work of art whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War to illustrate an article on the Spanish Civil War." This seemed to be quite close to "A work of art (well, not even a work of art, rather a copyrighted commercial product, but let that pass) whose theme happens to be Lolicon to illustrate an article on Lolicon". So if that example could be struck (it appears to not actually apply?) that would also be very helpful in avoiding this. Really, the text of the templates and the whole [[Wikipedia:Fair Use#Counterexamples section seem a proper mess, I relied on them over this whole issue, and they need a sigficant redacting I guess. But anyway, once you've made that addition to {{comiccover}} (and thank you!) we'll be good. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Herostratus
          • Okay. Regarding a work of art which has the spanish civil war as its theme, no, one cannot simply add it to the article on the spanish civil war. However, one can add it the article if it receives significant discussion within the article and is clearly germane to the article. That is the basis of the fair use policy on wikipedia, and a reading of the complete guidance on it should clarify that point to the reader. If we refer to the section at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images which states Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary), I hope you can see that cover art can be used in any artricle where-in it is discussed critically. As to your request that the template be changed, it doesn't need to be changed, since the usage required is already discussed, namely, to illustrate the issue or series. The cover art can only be used in articles which discuss the series in question, and then the image qualifies as fair use and is being used to illustrate the series in question. I hope that clarifies it even further. Hiding talk 21:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for raison d'état. Yes, even if this holds up under fair use. I am aware that WP:NOT censored for minors, etc. But, frankly: Do we need a screenshot with the Wikipedia logo on one side and what looks quite like child porn on the other? Used on angry won't-someone-think-of-the-children blogs or even newspaper columns worldwide and ruining the project's reputation, if not providing various unsavoury régimes with an (additional) pretext to block us outright. This risk far outhweighs the need to illustrate a non-existent article about the manga itself (which I understand is all it could be used for on fair use grounds). Sandstein 18:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As usual, obscenity outside of the legal definition is purely a subjective matter. Since the depicted child is a) imaginary and b) seemingly innocent of any sexual motive herself, I personally see nothing objectionable in it. I am uncomfortable with "raison d'etat" as a justification for deletion in a highly subjective case. Xoloz 19:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • raison d'état is a valid point (IMO), but I myself am not making that argument here, it is mixing apples and oranges. Herostratus
  • 'Comment.
    1. This image has existed on Wikipedia since October 2004.
    2. During that time, it has been used only in a manner that is clear and blatant copyvio. (Arguments that somewhere down the road someone might write an article or section on Lolita Girls Collection that can pass notability are a total red herring. That is never going to happen.)
    3. There are several editors who appear dedicated to ensuring that this image is displayed in Wikipedia. To this end there has been ceasless edit warring, requirements for page protection, scores of thousands of lines of arguments. A sub-stub on the artist exists, quite possibly solely as a ploy for a fall-back argument to display the image there.
Most edit wars are initiated by those who insist on deleting this image, even though it has been established that the majority of WPians oppose the deletion. Paranoid 13:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Therefore, if this article continues to exist on Wikipedia, it will be displayed, and in a copyvio manner.
    2. Therefore the image must be deleted. Herostratus 00:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the stub about the artist shows that it's rather unlikely be a "ploy" about the image because the image was only added to the article in January, way after the article was created (admittedly, the image was apparently only added as a way to stop the image from being deleted while orphaned - but a single edit to add an image does not make an article a ploy). Please at least try assume good faith. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Struck. Herostratus
  • Insofar as this is a vote/discussion, please delete. Wikipedia is still playing far too many games with "fair use." If someone someday finds a proper fair-use context for this image, I'm sure there will still be a copy of this image somewhere. -- Visviva 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Everything about this has been said many times before. This is not a copyright issue, this is a content issue. And I think it has been resolved before. Paranoid 13:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, while it's true we wouldn't be here if not for the content, on the other hand I'm trying to separate that, here, from the fair use issue and just discuss the fair use issue. I mean, you can't just say about any image Well the content is OK, so we can't even discuss fair use issues about the image. As to being resolved, has this image been RfC'd for either content or fair use? Herostratus 02:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can delete this image under some other rationale, but not fair use. In the article [Lolicon], this image is a strong fair use case under: the tranformability clause (discussing lolicon & this is good example), substantiability clause (only the cover out of a complete comic book), marketability (only the cover, no lost commerciality), and the nature of the work (covers are intended to be promotional and shown). --Muchosucko 01:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has ever argued that it does not fall under U.S. fair use laws, but our fair use guidelines and policies. Kotepho 20:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I said anyone did. Also, fair use is a legal term, Wikipedia cannot have "fair use" policies outside those defined by US copyright law. Should wikipedia invent new "fair use" guidlines, it should be named something else. In my experience with fair use on wikipedia, there is no such thing: if the image qualifies under fair use under US laws, it will be used on Wikipedia. If by "fair use guidlines" on Wikipedia, you mean some content guideline, please say so explicity (i.e. "Wikipedia Guideline"). That way, you will not mix the universally understood and well-fleshed-out legal theory of "fair use" with an unrelated Wikipedia internal guidline. --Muchosucko 16:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This may be a caricature of a real girl posing like this. If it is, it's also exploitation and abuse of a child, which is also against the law. Laws or not, Jimbo has a final say on what is or isn't allowed here. Would someone care to bring this to Jimbo's attention, please? --Shultz IV 03:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See this is a bloody good point and would have been a much better effort. This type of decision needs to come from the top down or in a centralised discussion rather than hashed out on a backwater deletion debate being used for the wrong damn reasons. I'd love to vote delete because it is a nastyimage but I'm just too process wonked to be able to do so. That's my bad. Hiding talk 21:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stuff it. I've weighed this up whilst working all weekend, and the PR implications weighed most heavily. Delete, because I think it is distasteful. I appreciate that isn't a valid reason, runs counter to Wikipedia not being censored, but actually, wikipedia damn well is censored, otherwise we wouldn't have AFD. And in any case, WP:IAR. Hiding talk 21:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are illegal that should be dealt with by the board and the foundation's lawyers and no Jimbo does not have the final say as the board can overrule him. Kotepho 21:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced. If they are illegal then they should be removed by anybody. Wikipedia should not break the law. That said, I appreciate the question of what breaks the law needs some discussion and may require guidance from the board and their lawyers. Hiding talk 22:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. The image is unnecessary and divisive. -Will Beback 04:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Boths images are child pornography. They are simply in extremely poor taste and will offend a lot of reasonable people in the community. We don't need them for the same reason we don't need a picture of a man ejaculating on a woman's face in the pornography article, or a graphic XXX depiction of rape in the rape article. I do think a photograph would be helpful to the article, but let's find one that is a little less per se child porn, like a fully dressed child licking an ice cream cone in a provocative manner. In fact I think I'll do it myself. Apollo 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done Image:Kanon-Anthology05.jpg Apollo 14:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As noted/discussed over at Talk:Lolicon, that comic book cover doesn't seem to be Lolicon. --Fuzzie (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. That little girl sucking the egg is a perfect lolicon double entendre. But don't use it, I could care less. Just don't put child pornography into the Wikipedia. I think you are going to hear some rather vigorous protest if this becomes known to the general community. Apollo 20:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're gonna find out. Herostratus 03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had hoped to stay out of this but I just need to respond to some things. Yes, the article does not contain any critical commentary on the image, but it has been protected many times and saying that because no one has added it that no one ever will is tenous at best. The issue was not even brought up until recently. If you object to the image on aesthetic grounds we can always {{linkimage}} it so that only those that want to look at it can. Kotepho 20:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was trying to separate the content issue from the fair use issue, and get a deletion on copyvio grounds. If the image is copyvio, then a time-wasting discussion on the content could be avoided. However, Hiding has convinced me that from a copyvio standpoint, the image is probably OK, or anyway on the bubble. And also per the above discussion it's just not possible for people to separate the content from the copyvio question. Therefore the question in my mind is (1) take the image to RfC, which will probably result in a great deal of editor time spent on heated discussion, and no consensus to delete, after which I'll request a WP:OFFICE deletion, which will almost certainly be honored, followed by much backbiting and discussion of how Jimbo is no better than Hitler, or (2) go straight to WP:OFFICE. I'm choosing the latter, despite the desirability of everyone having their say, because I don't wanna waste people's time, and the image is (probably) gonna be deleted no matter what. I hope this doesn't piss anyone off too much, it just seems the best path to take by the light that's been vouchsafed to me. Herostratus 03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Request to Close with No Consensus to Delete. See above. Clearly no consensus to delete. Herostratus 03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I disagree that this image meets customary fair use.
  1. If this was any other textbook or encyclopedia, the owner of the image would be contacted and asked for permission to use the image. The owner would either give permission or not. There may or may not be a fee for use if permission is granted. Because Wikipedia really does not want to use copyrighted material we don't follow the customary practice. Instead, we have carved out our own broader fair use criteria that may one day get us in trouble if some pushes the point with us.
  2. I also think that it is morally wrong for us to use the artwork of other people with out paying for it or getting permission to use it with out payment.
  3. Wikipedia Foundation wants the encyclopedia to use free images. In the United States, fair use laws allows use of certain images. This is good in situations when nothing else is truly available and important information will be lost with out it. Wikipedia guidelines direct editors to use free content when it is available over copyrighted content used under fair use. In every discussion that I have seen on this topic that Jimbo is involved, he points this out. IMO, the Foundation and Jimbo want users to aggressively look for free images instead of using fair use for convenience sake.
  4. IMO, this image depicts a child being sexually exploited. The act of exploiting a child is a terrible. Selling material that shows children being exploited is terrible. But showing a single image as an example is not terrible, it is desirable to inform the public about the topic. This image does it in a way that is less offense than most any other image available. For educational purpose, I think this image could be available by displaying it either very small or hidden with a link to click. That said, if the community consensus is to delete I will agree without question. Understandably, the community may want to avoid this very sensitive topic. FloNight talk 04:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Tonyfurey.jpg. The claim that this is a personal photo is false. This image was cut from the larger image at Image:PrizesFullerton.JPG, which has since been deleted, which was a photograph owned by St. Columb's College. This Furey image and the Image:PrizesFullerton.JPG image photo were both being used in order to try to prove notability of the John Fulleton article. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But see Image:Fullerton1.jpg, which is a really terrible version of the PrizesFullerton image, which does still exist. It's hard to see, but the image of Tony Furey is the same on both pics, and the Image:Fullerton1.jpg is clearly from a book of some sort (probably a yearbook). User:Zoe|(talk) 00:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Fullertonfootball.JPG - uploader claims the image is public domain, but it looks like a newspaper photo and there is no explanation as to who the copyright holder is who has released it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Trebio.jpg (talk | delete)
Uploaded by Blinkman (notify). Possible copyvio--Deskana (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Been on the article awhile, but as the policy stands, images from google image search shouldn't be used on WP. Kareeser|Talk! 01:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Pam2006.jpg CV agency image false norightsreserved tag. Arniep 23:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Nazichildren.jpg UE picture used in false article. Barcode 23:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Old lady raped.jpg and Image:Old woman raped.jpg OR UE. Pics are too poor quality to be an encyclopedic illustration of anything and are orphaned. These are duplicates and sources are given but dodgy - one is non-existent and the other has no English on the site so I can't verify copyright status. Uploader hasn't responded to any post on his talk page in 11 months despite other copyvio and deletion notifications ~ Veledan • Talk 00:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe this image was previously in Nanking Massacre. If it is what it purports to be, it is probably at least fair use for that purpose. Let's find someone who can interpret that non-English site... BD2412 T 01:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • OK but that was just a side comment: my reasons for nominating these were OR and UE. I don't think they are good enough to be used in an article. Uploader has given us dozens of pictures relating to the Nanking Massacre. We can't use them all and these are somne of the worst quality ~ Veledan • Talk 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_March_29&oldid=1123672884"