Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

Weird image of a water tank with questionable encyclopedic value. A clear photograph without the effects would be far better. PC78 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a funky image, though it does illustrate the concept. I uploaded it at the request of the creator, and had no involvement in its creation. If folks here think they can find a better image then that'd be great. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not very encyclopedic, watermarked, black & white, uploader made only two edits (one to upload image, another to place it in an article), no response to queries about a possibly better version. Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Watermarked and therefore not free use. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and unencyclopedic - Headshot from modeling agency, tagged as PD but it's doubtful uploader has rights to image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replaceable non-free use image. Has deletion tag that expired on Jan. 25, issue not addressed. Replaceable as Vegas is the tourist capital of the USA, and there is more than likely plenty of people who snapped images of this fire, and this just happened. Plus, the non-free image has no known origin. Delete. Ejfetters (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, Orphan - non-notable graffiti tag Gimboid13 (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm nominating three of the four non-free images of karen graham from the article. maybe we can make a good case for one image because she was a cosmetics spokesmodel so her appearance was very important, but having four is unnecessary. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm nominating three of the four non-free images of karen graham from the article. maybe we can make a good case for one image because she was a cosmetics spokesmodel so her appearance was very important, but having four is unnecessary. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm nominating three of the four non-free images of karen graham from the article. maybe we can make a good case for one image because she was a cosmetics spokesmodel so her appearance was very important, but having four is unnecessary. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC #8. Logo is only used decoratively and is unnecessary in the article. Doesn't increase reader understanding. Spellcast (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]