Appears to have no use- UE Hiddenfromview 00:06, 2 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.
Relisting IFD for further discussion. Notification of impending deletion was not placed on the image in the article. -Nv8200ptalk 00:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quality not really an issue for editors contributing to the article West Highland White Terrier, as it is not the main photograph, merely an image included to help typify a facet of the physical appearance of the "Westie" breed, namely the "happy" expression which is peculiar to a few varieties of terrier, prime amongst which are the Westie and the Cairn. Ref(chew)(do) 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though the policy for original research gives images "broad exception," trying to attribute a "happy westie expression" to an image without a direct and explicit citation for the existence of such an expression violates WP:SYN. This image is very low quality and there are already several other higher quality images of West Highland Terriers in that article. Cumulus Clouds 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like just the caption would need to be changed (or the "happy Westie expression" cited. -Nv8200ptalk 02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it's a free image, some find it useful, and it's (currently) used in the article. Debates about whether or not it belongs in the article should be made on the article talk page. So long as it's used, it shouldn't be deleted. – Quadell(talk) (random) 22:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination and move to Speedy Keep. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:49, 5 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.
That nomination was deliberate, as I view the image as being too poor quality to be worth the move. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picture was taken on Independence Day, so the number of people in the station at that time may lend a unique historical perspective in some article in the future. I don't think we should discard it. Cumulus Clouds 04:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the difference in quality between this picture (which you uploaded to Commons) and the nominated picture is only marginal. They should both be made available. Cumulus Clouds 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this picture is orphaned because you removed it after Alkivar added it to the article following your edits about station closures on July 4. It seems dubious to me for you to first remove this picture from an article, then to nominate it for deletion because it was orphaned. I also disagree with its removal from the article, since it a) wasn't detracting from the quality of the article, which at that time was somewhat sparse and b) left only your picture in the article. I'm sure you know the policy on ownership of articles, so I would hope you don't continue to make those kinds of edits to other DC-related articles. Cumulus Clouds 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the image is free and useful. – Quadell(talk) (random) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image moved to Commons and deleted off Wikipedia -Nv8200ptalk 02:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Publicity image of fictional character of unknown original origin and better replaced with a less infringing screen cap of the character from the film, as that is just a portion of the work (entire film) vs. the entire publicity image (complete work) Ejfetters 09:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cumulus Clouds 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (God rest ye, Shinzon of Remus)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200ptalk 15:19, 2 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 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.
No evidence for the claim that "this work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder". In fact, the quoted source carries an "All rights reserved" notice. High on a tree 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality Nv8200ptalk 23:01, 2 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.
Since it's used in 2 articles, I guess it's encyclopedic. – Quadell(talk) (random) 13:43, 8 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.
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
