Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2010 January 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:52, 1 January 2010 editFastilysock (usurped) (talk \| contribs)28,154 edits Adding discussion for File:Rihall.jpg. (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:52, 1 January 2010 edit undoFastilysock (usurped) (talk \| contribs)28,154 edits Adding discussion for File:SBSnewcolourcardreader.jpg. (TW)Next edit →
Line 350:		Line 350:
	====]====		====]====
	:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand lx">] (]}}}} delete] \| ] \| \| )</span> - uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> \| ]).		:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand lx">] (]}}}} delete] \| ] \| \| )</span> - uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> \| ]).
			*OR, UE, use not stated. ''']'''<sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 09:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

			====]====
			:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand lx">] (]}}}} delete] \| ] \| \| )</span> - uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> \| ]).
	*OR, UE, use not stated. ''']'''<sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 09:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)		*OR, UE, use not stated. ''']'''<sup><small>]</small></sup></span> 09:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:52, 1 January 2010

< December 31	January 2 >

Back cover in no way significantly increases reader's understanding - fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 05:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image that is essentially the same as another one in the same article. The small differences can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 05:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted media has no listed artist, publisher and copyright holder per WP:NFCC#10a, nor is there any reliably verified critical commentary on the image provided as required by WP:NFC#Images. The supposed rationale further claims a purpose of "or easy identification of the episode in question" when no such purpose exists, nor does this copyrighted image provide it. — pd_THOR | 07:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image that is very similar to another one in the same article. The small differences can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 08:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

non-free image that adds nothing to reader's understanding of the topic and lacks any sort of rationale for use. fails WP:NFCC#8 and various other bits. Peripitus (Talk) 08:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Non-free image that is very similar to another one in the same article. The small differences (it's black and white) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a)

According to the caption this is a "limited edition tin" .... we need to see a photo of this tin why ? The rationale is the usual boilerplate for an album cover and has no relation to this image. Fails WP:NFCC#8 as not adding significantly to reader's understanding , NFCC#1 as it could (without significantly impairing that understanding) be described with text and NFCC#10c as the rationale is completely off base Peripitus (Talk) 08:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image that is very similar to another one in the same article. The small differences ( it's the logo from the first cover with a plain background ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 08:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image that is very similar to another one in the same article. The small differences (it is the insert section from the other image ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 08:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image that is very similar to another one in the same article. The small differences (the text states "The uncensored version features a deeper shade of purple and a parental advisory" ) can easily be described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding. As replaceable with a free alternative this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is excessive us of non-free content (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 08:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)