Copyright violation Uploader used the {{attribution}} tag, but the source (the artists' MySpace page) makes no indication to that end. It is highly unlikely that the group would allow the photo to be used for commercial use, as asserted by the template used. —Hello, ControlHello, Tony 01:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image serves no purpose but to attack/disparage its subject (it is self-made by editor, see the description) and has no encyclopedic value; it is highly unlikely it would ever be used in an article. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 03:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Someone has just deleted it. Thanks! ♪TempoDiValse♪ 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image was removed from the Boys in Red Tragedy page because it most likely does not meet Wikipedia's non-free image rationale. Kuzwa (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, unsure we need an image to show this as text itself would be a fine representative, also if to be used, it should show the opening and closing style. Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, replaced by a cropped version (out went a bunch of the grass) Image:Quadshot.jpg which was uploaded by the same user Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This image is of higher resolution than the cropped version, though. Maybe it could be moved to the Commons, if it is determined that it might be useful. —Bkell (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, sole cotribution of user, insufficent information to determine a use as a google search provided many locations with this name Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, the subject, QEC is a redlink on a disabig page, while I don't question the user creating *this* image, I question if the underlying creative force was published in a textbook or training material somewhere else. Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, recently absent uploader, WP does not have an article about this subject - if an when there is one it should be easy to replace Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 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: Kept. concerns addressed apart from "orphaned", but "somebody wants it" trumps "orphaned". Move to commons, cropping timestamp remain editorial possibilities. WilyD 16:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information provided to determine location, large date watermarking Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 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 debate was: Kept - no pressing need for deletion, someone wants the image retained. WilyD 16:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned iamge, absent uploader, lacks a lot of details about what article this could be used in, but likely Queen Margaret University but the article does not speak to the contruction. Also it is watermarked by the uploader. Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons, might be useful later. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:15, 8 November 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 debate was: - Keep - no longer orphaned - Peripitus(Talk) 11:50, 9 November 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.
orphaned image, sole contribution of user, minor issues with license plate identification, quality with photographer shadow and finally with licensing -- user added PD-self but text added states all rights reserved. Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, image is very small but it appears to be an album cover and should not be tagged as PD-self Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image is not the real Circus cover and therefore will remain unused. The cover is fan-made and was posted on the Britney.com forums by a user, not by Jive Records. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 19:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, low quality, appears to be a poor scan of a dvd cover which if correct would make this image non PD-self as licesed but non-free Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image can be deleted as the page has a better quality image already. I uploaded it when I didn't know much about wikipedia but then forgot about it. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 11:37, 2 November 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: - Delete - difficult to take does not mean not possible. Except in some limited circumstances free images of living people are deemed to be creatable so the image fails NFCC#1 (replacability) - Peripitus(Talk) 11:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, the subject of this article is still alive and free images of him may be created, making this caricature replacable fair use, n'est pas? the skomorokh 23:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. But how exactly could one create an alternative image of such a reclusive fellow? --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at his article, it seems he makes a lot of appearances, so I don't think he would be considered reclusive. Metros (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Television appearances would require a screenshot. He generally makes his living from his radio show and recently his autobiography. Neither would be considered pursuits that would have his face broadcast freely in the public eye. --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 16:35, 4 November 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.
This is claimed as a self-created image, but I doubt that because of the logo in the center of the image (compare that logo to Image:Washington Redskins logo.svg; it appears to be the same logo design with different color schemes). Additionally, this is not an encyclopedic image as it does not appear to be any official logo of the school or anything of the like. Metros (talk) 23:41, 1 November 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}
