Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Scratchspin images

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Scratchspin images

I will also be listing Template:ScratchspinImg for deletion. This is an unnecessary page describing that template, which shouldn't be there in the first place. I asked User:Carnildo about this before I moved on it, and he said: "The terms of use on that site restrict re-use too much. In particular, it doesn't allow non-website use, it does not allow certain classes of commercial use, and it does not appear to allow modification of the images. I'd shoot the template and list the images for deletion -- there's nothing special about the images, so they don't qualify under Wikipedia:Fair use." — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Since you've apparently already listed all the relevant images for deletion as copyright incompatible with GFDL, edit this page with an explanation why the licenses were incompatible and slap a {{historical}} tag or {{rejected}} tag on this page. So I guess that makes my opinion a weak keep though I wouldn't argue with a "delete as unnecessary" once all the images have been cleaned out. Rossami (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll place one of those tags on, but I'd still argue for a delete. I don't feel that this would be a policy Wikipedia would ever contemplate, and, thus, there's no need to archive; it's more like spam than anything else. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• The template has now been deleted, and the image issues seem to have been sorted out as well. This project page is no longer needed: delete it, but keep a brief summary somewhere regarding the fact that it was rejected, just in case someone tries to bring it up again in the future. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.