506:- I think it's quite a reasonable argument that her looks were no more important than her acting talents in development of her notability, perhaps even less important. She was in numerous TV and film roles before her appearance in Playboy. Her career was abruptly halted as a result of her legal troubles and imprisonment, which certainly had nothing to do with her looks. We simply don't know how successful she would have been as an actress or some other career without the Playboy appearance and without the legal problems. In such a case the default decision should be not to violate copyright because of the seriousness of such a legal action.
774:
I think it's a safe bet that if we add images owned by
Playboy to all articles for playmates or other featured women from that era, we will be in serious legal jeopardy. Knowledge has always been extremely cautious about non-free content because of the legal ramifications, and there's nothing special about this case that merits an extraordinary exception. Even more serious is the likelihood that if this image is allowed to remain, many more images from Playboy will be added.
643:
572:. Unless the Playboy cover image itself is tied into to her Knowledge notability because the cover itself was the subject of commentary in reliable sources at the time (not just something mentioning she appeared on the cover, but actual discussion of the cover itself), I don't think it should be used. Another non-free file perhaps might be possible, but not this one. --
838:
She was not known for the pictorial any more than any other living playmate from that era, none of whom have copyrighted images in their articles. Your comment above, "She gained notoriety from her work with
Playboy", is quite vague. If you mean that her physical appearance helped her career, we have
773:
of the articles on living playmates have copyrighted images. It's because copyright infringement is a serious issue that requires unequivocal evidence that the fair use rationale is legitimate and not just based on a
Knowledge editor's opinion about how important physical appearance is in notability.
739:
She gained notoriety from her work with
Playboy. Her 1967 modelling, led to her 1968 cover. The 1968 cover is the issue in question. Her subsequent film work and greater notoriety came from her modelling. The only reason her court trial is notable comes from her previous celebrity. The NSA image from
1036:
You have written a lot, but I disagree. I have shown several times that everything is sourced. If you believe that there are things left unsourced, please take it to the article itself. I beleieve that I have made the point that the image is relevant. Perhaps, if you are unhappy with the quality of
1005:
to provide the evidence that the criteria of that standard have been met. So far all you have provided is your opinion about the relationship between her physical appearance and her notability. There is one thing with which I will agree with you. The discussion between you and me is not progressing
806:
Thanks for making an edit that actually supports my argument. She stated that her appearance in
Playboy actually hindered her career as an actress (which was well established prior to Playboy). And moving the image a few lines down does not address the core issue. There is no evidence from reliable
591:
the justification is that the
Playboy cover a good representative image of Dorian over any other possible non-free (recognizing no other elements on that cover have copyrightability beyond the photo), then the issue around UUI#9 is not there. (In contrast, if we were starting with a press photo, it
194:
appear to be from copyrighted sources. No free alternatives appear to be available. The image in question is referenced in the infobox used, as well as in the article. The subject can be conveyed with source text, but I believe that it cannot be properly conveyed without an image. The only derivate
889:
Let me go over facts: She was an actress, she was a model, this was in the 60's when she was young. She posed for
Playboy, more that once. Based on her first pictorial, she garnered the PM of the year, which is what the image features. This was based on her looks. The image is of her at that time.
586:
I would actually disagree with the issue this being a magazine cover. UUI#9 was designed to stop people just saying "oh, this person appeared on (magazine cover, like Time's Person of the Year) therefore that must be a usable non-free for that!" If the argument here was "Dorian was a
Playboy cover
337:
that non-free captures a visual state of the living person that is a significant factor of discussion of the article and it is impossible for a free image to capture that today. This is easily the case for a starlet of the 1960s who had a noted visual appeal that was documented then (and now), but
370:
was a child actress for a few years starting at age six, appearing mostly in TV shows. She is now age 49, has not been in the public eye since childhood, and has moved into an entirely different career (successfully). Since we can no long capture an image of her as a child, I assume based on your
1203:
There are two arguments for deletion here: one that per NFCC#1 no non-free image should be used in this article, and one that per NFCC#8 this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding. I'm not completely persuaded by the NFCC#1 argument, as I agree that a hypothetical non-free
1156:
I don't think that a picture of Vetri on the cover of
Playboy is critical to understanding the article on Victoria Vetri. The cover itself is not the subject of critical discussion - certainly her presence on the cover and its impact on her career is mentioned in the article in cited prose - but
682:
Oh, I absolutely agree that if the extent of the argument for use is "She was a
Playboy model and thus her looks were implicitly important", no, that fail both NFCC#8 and UUI#9. The justification isn't there yet. It needs to be there for that case to be cleared, and can't be the implicit case.
453:
Your insights here are very helpful on an issue that I don't know a lot about. So in the case of the image of Angela Dorian, do we need either reliable sources or a consensus that her looks were important to her career? Otherwise the "looks" issue seems rather arbitrary. I don't think we can
911:" Yet again, so vague that it's meaningless. If "went to the moon" means her picture affected her career (before and after Playboy) significantly more than anything else, what's the reliable source for that, not just your opinion? If you are referring to one astronaut's prank, how does that
389:
her visual appearance was important to her career. This might not be the case on a quick look at her article, but that's only based on its current state. Not every actor/actress from 30-40 years ago and now well out of their prime was necessary picked to act for their visual appearance.
251:
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but the alive/dead thing is not a hard and fast rule. While Vetri may be alive, her notability is as an actress and a model - she is now in her 80's. To understand why she is who she is, a photo of her at the height of per popularity is appropriate.
757:, but we have no evidence that her physical appearance has had any greater impact on her notability than her talents as an actress or other influences. On Knowledge we go by reliable sources, not the opinions of individual editors. As I said, she had numerous roles in films and TV
428:
That alone would not be sufficient, just as a starlet of the 1950s or 1960s would be insufficient. We need critical discussion (sourced to talk about how their looks were important to their career, and not just assume they were in films because of their looks).
163:
was: "This is a living person, so there is potentially a free equivalent. Uploader first indicated he got the image from playboy.com. Now he says it's from www.hollywoodoutbreak.com. In either case the image is copyrighted". I agree with that.
338:
her age today would not make that look apparent from a free image that could be captured now. I have not checked the actual mainspace article for how much her visual appear is documented, but the basic facts appear to support use here. --
915:
relate to a discussion about copyright violation and the legal impact on Knowledge??? So once again, let's separate fact from opinion. Saying something over and over doesn't make it any more true than it was the first time you said it.
792:
After reading the above comments I have moved the image from the infobox to the section discussing her career as a playboy model. To address Sundayclose's concerns, I added some more text relating her physical appearance to her career.
1393:
Although it could be below TOO in the US (whilst crossing TOO in China), if the logo is definitely copyrighted even on enwiki, instead of deleting the file, it should be reverted back to non-free logo with rationale (see revision
641:
cover or another image. It doesn't look like any other images of her were added after that one was deleted until the one being discussed here was added a few days ago. There seem to be plenty of images of Vetri to be found per
1204:
image may be more useful than a free image in this article. However, there is a long-standing consensus that cover images should not be used for the purposes of identification alone in articles not about the work itself (see
225:, I think the point here is that Vetri is alive, so there's (theoretically) nothing to prevent someone from taking a picture of her and releasing it under a free licence. This image appears to fail criterion 1 of our policy,
870:
Again, so vague a comment as to be meaningless. It's your opinion. Your saying "it's there" doesn't make it true. I could just as easily say, "It's not there". I've read it. No clear evidence beyond your opinion.
769:, and we can only go by the facts that are reliably sourced in the article. I have no doubt that physical appearance was one factor in the careers of many playmates from that era, but it's not a coincidence that
124:
890:
The pictorials affected her career. A picture of here today would not show what she looked like then. Based on her looks, her picture went to the moon. These are all facts, documented and in the article. --
620:
and was added to the body of the article, then maybe I could see an argument for that, but not really in the main infobox since she seems to have made some public appearances since she was paroled in 2018.
527:- I did a quick check of articles for Playboy Playmates (or sections of articles if an entire decade was included in one article) from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Of all the currently living playmates,
997:), the article does not have reliably sourced information that her physical appearance is more important than other factors in her notability. The only "standard" that pertains to this discussion is
233:: "Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people".
1398:
for last non-free oldid), revert to 220x64 version (if necessary) then RevDel the previous versions. When I uploaded this locally to enwiki (after the files on Commons were taken down; see also
272:
Thanks for your comments. I understand your decline because a fair-use rationale is provided. Is there another procedure for removing a copyrighted image (either speedily or otherwise)? Thanks.
472:
Yes, even for a Playboy model, don't assume her looks were implicitly important to bypass the normal non-free allowance. A spotty check of google books suggests this should be possible. --
954:
is it explained in the article that the astronaut's prank affected her career significantly more than anything else? Vague comments and endless repetition of opinions accomplish nothing.
972:
You are creating standards tat don't exist. If anything in the text does not appears be true, tag it as unsourced, otherwise we should stop this as the discussion is not progressing. --
807:
sources that her physical appearance was the predominant fact in her notability, any more so than it was for other Playboy Playmates whose articles do not have a copyrighted image.
664:)? There was no possible other non-free image that could have been used as a "good representative image of Vetri" from June 2005 to June 2019? What about a more recent photo like
646:. Not a single one of them (even if it needs to be licensed as non-free) works as well as this particular one? None of photos of her taken from around the same time are by chance
1406:) I assumed the logo to be completely non-free and thus uploaded it initially with that nominal resolution, accompanied with non-free media information and use rationale.
1050:
AGAIN, this has NOTHING to do with the narrative of the article. You are once again trying to divert attention from the actual issue. This is entirely about the image and
229:: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", as specifically clarified in
458:
a conclusion such as "She was a Playboy Playmate, therefore her looks were important to her career." Some playmates never achieve much after their appearance in Playboy.
1403:
1423:
I have serious doubts that this is below TOO in the US. Since it's only being used in the infobox of the article on the entity, there's no harm in being cautious here.
1208:). For that reason, I do not believe there is a sufficient rationale for this image to meet NFCC#8, as the cover itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. --
1006:
because, instead of providing what is needed, you insist on repeating your opinions, making meaningless vague comments, and now, diverting the discussion away from
1399:
1346:
289:, I believe this is the right way and the right place for this to be discussed. I won't comment further, and will leave it to others to determine the outcome.
38:
33:
1310:
307:
I would be interested in a suggestion for a "free" image that illustrates the popularity of the actress in her youth, and is relevant to the article. --
371:
comment that we could use a copyrighted image of her as a child to illustrate her childhood career, assuming there is no free image of her as a child?
1183:
Yes, What you say is true, but the text does not convey here appearance. What could be added to the text to increase the relevance of the image? --
668:
taken at a personal appearance in August 2018? Has any there been any attempt find or get something like that released under a free license? --
761:
to her appearance in Playboy. We have no evidence that her physical appearance was the greatest factor in landing those roles. Let's separate
552:: If the argument is that her physical appearance is primary reason she is Knowledge notable, then perhaps a non-free image could be used per
116:
531:
has a copyrighted image. Only one deceased Playmate had an image from Playboy. I checked very quickly so feel free to to double-check.
1272:
The result of the discussion was: Convert to non-free. Deleted on Commons, so it can't be transferred there, but usage as-is in the
1428:
1170:
1123:
108:
56:
630:
1395:
294:
238:
169:
17:
1213:
1058:
and wait for a consensus decision. If you have nothing new to say, this is the end of any discussion between you and me.
159:
This was nominated for speedy deletion, which I've declined as it has a fair-use rationale. The deletion reason given by
1424:
1379:
1166:
1138:
1119:
1330:
144:
1205:
907:": What's the reliable source (not your opinion) that the pictorials affected her career more than anything else? "
734:
290:
267:
234:
165:
1449:
1302:
1264:
1234:
76:
626:
1338:
1209:
650:
152:
1334:
148:
665:
1445:
1260:
1230:
1063:
1023:
959:
921:
876:
844:
812:
779:
536:
511:
463:
419:
376:
277:
72:
1432:
1415:
1385:
1358:
1287:
1217:
1187:
1174:
1157:
there's nothing that the image conveys that the prose does not, and what's discussed in the article is
1147:
1127:
1080:
1067:
1041:
1027:
976:
963:
938:
925:
894:
880:
861:
848:
829:
816:
797:
783:
744:
720:
695:
677:
604:
581:
540:
515:
484:
467:
441:
423:
414:
Thanks. Let's say she was a child model, which certainly would meet the criterion for "visual appeal"?
402:
380:
350:
311:
298:
281:
256:
242:
213:
173:
101:
197:
1294:
1244:
661:
673:
577:
1014:. Repeating the same thing over and over accomplishes nothing and eventually gets to the point of
1010:
by demanding that we tag as unsourced that which does not exist in the article. I think you have
715:
1407:
1354:
1277:
1015:
96:
1374:
1253:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.
1059:
1019:
955:
950:
is it cited in the article that the pictorials affected her career more than anything else?
917:
872:
840:
808:
775:
532:
507:
459:
415:
372:
286:
273:
160:
65:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below.
1444:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
1259:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
1229:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
71:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
1411:
1320:
1011:
691:
600:
553:
480:
437:
398:
346:
187:
134:
592:
would be no go in any situation unless the press photo was the subject of discussion). --
612:
It does sounds to me that the argument being made in favor of non-free use is more of a
1055:
1051:
1007:
998:
994:
730:
669:
622:
573:
561:
226:
191:
710:
617:
569:
565:
557:
455:
230:
1350:
634:
91:
825:
She was known for the pictorial, and it hurt her career. We can agree on this? --
560:). There is, however, another problem with this particular non-free file besides
1369:
1118:
I am unconvinced that this meets NFCC #8, regardless of the NFCC #1 discussion.
934:
This is all cited in the article. Now you're arguing against the cited facts. --
657:
1184:
1144:
1077:
1038:
973:
935:
891:
858:
826:
794:
741:
684:
609:
593:
473:
448:
430:
409:
391:
367:
361:
339:
308:
253:
222:
210:
1367:
definitely below TOO in US. on enwiki we do not have to follow Chinese law.
637:
in January 2007. You're an admin so perhaps you can tell whether that's the
1143:
I'm unclear why you don't think it meets #8. Would you please explain? --
616:
than it isn't. If the cover is particularly something considered to meet
366:
Thanks for you comment. Tell me if my thinking fits with your comments.
1273:
709:
An image created of her now would serve no encyclopaedic purpose.
1276:
article does comply with Knowledge's non-free content policies. -
1440:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1225:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1037:
the narrative of the article, you could work to improve it? --
753:
And that's almost entirely your opinion. Your opinion is fine
1278:
985:
I am not talking about (nor have I ever talked about) what
614:
Dorian was a Playboy cover model, thus we should use that
1325:
1314:
1306:
1298:
903:
Let me continue with the facts (or absence of facts). "
587:
model, thus we should us that." that would fail UUI#9.
183:
139:
128:
120:
112:
209:, but I am not sure of the copyright on that image. --
1267:). No further edits should be made to this section.
333:
allow a non-free image of a living person to be used
79:). No further edits should be made to this section.
1452:). No further edits should be made to this section.
1237:). No further edits should be made to this section.
1404:
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tik Tok wordmark.png
993:in the article. And as I have repeatedly said (but
909:Based on her looks, her picture went to the moon.
740:above was because of her Playboy work. Thanks. --
182:I'm not disputing that the image is copyrighted,
190:. Having searched, I can say that all images of
1400:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo TikTok.svg
1347:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:TikTok_Logo.svg
109:File:Angela Dorian playboy cover May 1968.jpg
57:File:Angela Dorian playboy cover May 1968.jpg
8:
857:The evidence is there, if you'll read it. --
198:"Image: a12.cdrcuf08.jpg, (630 × 432 px)"
1018:. Please wait for a consensus decision.
989:in the article. I'm talking about what
37:
1206:Knowledge:Non-free content#cite_note-3
613:
29:
7:
905:The pictorials affected her career
84:The result of the discussion was:
24:
385:It would be along the same lines
633:, but that file was deleted per
195:image I have found is this one,
18:Knowledge:Files for discussion
1:
625:was created in June 2005 and
26:
1056:Please stop being disruptive
629:was added at that time with
1012:beat this dead horse enough
627:Image:AngelaDorianMay68.jpg
1469:
1161:of the cover, rather than
184:Sundayclose and I disagree
1433:08:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
1416:04:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1386:23:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1359:10:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1288:05:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
1218:15:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
1188:23:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
1175:23:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
1148:23:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
1128:18:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
1081:23:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
1068:23:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
1042:23:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
1028:21:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
977:19:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
964:17:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
939:17:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
926:16:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
895:16:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
881:16:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
862:16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
849:16:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
830:16:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
817:15:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
798:02:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
784:17:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
745:17:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
721:03:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
696:00:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
678:23:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
660:(like many seem to be in
658:Film stills#Public domain
605:22:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
582:23:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
541:00:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
516:23:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
485:23:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
468:23:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
442:22:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
424:21:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
403:21:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
381:20:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
351:20:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
312:16:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
299:16:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
282:15:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
257:14:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
243:14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
214:12:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
174:09:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
102:16:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
1442:Please do not modify it.
1256:Please do not modify it.
1227:Please do not modify it.
564:and that has to do with
68:Please do not modify it.
1425:The Squirrel Conspiracy
1167:The Squirrel Conspiracy
1139:The Squirrel Conspiracy
1120:The Squirrel Conspiracy
1001:, and the burden is on
1054:, so it belongs here.
662:c:Category:Film stills
186:on the application of
1349:might be copyrighted
839:no evidence of that.
735:Justlettersandnumbers
291:Justlettersandnumbers
268:Justlettersandnumbers
235:Justlettersandnumbers
166:Justlettersandnumbers
1295:File:TikTok logo.svg
1245:File:TikTok logo.svg
1421:Convert to non-free
1210:AntiCompositeNumber
1016:disruptive editing
995:you refuse to hear
952:Where specifically
948:Where specifically
618:WP:NFC#cite-note#3
566:WP:NFC#cite_note-3
227:No free equivalent
47:
46:
1460:
1384:
1328:
1318:
1285:
1284:
1281:
1258:
1142:
738:
718:
713:
688:
655:
649:
597:
477:
452:
434:
413:
395:
365:
343:
271:
208:
206:
205:
142:
132:
99:
94:
90:
70:
43:
32:
27:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1450:deletion review
1368:
1324:
1293:
1282:
1279:
1265:deletion review
1254:
1248:
1241:
1235:deletion review
1136:
728:
716:
711:
686:
653:
651:PD-US-no notice
647:
595:
556:(see item 1 of
475:
446:
432:
407:
393:
359:
341:
265:
203:
201:
196:
188:Knowledge:FREER
138:
107:
97:
92:
88:
77:deletion review
66:
60:
53:
48:
41:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1466:
1464:
1455:
1454:
1436:
1435:
1418:
1388:
1343:
1342:
1319:– uploaded by
1270:
1269:
1249:
1247:
1242:
1240:
1239:
1221:
1220:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1178:
1177:
1165:of the cover.
1151:
1150:
1131:
1130:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1076:Okay by me. --
1071:
1070:
1045:
1044:
1031:
1030:
980:
979:
967:
966:
942:
941:
929:
928:
898:
897:
884:
883:
865:
864:
852:
851:
833:
832:
820:
819:
801:
800:
789:
788:
787:
786:
748:
747:
723:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
623:Victoria Vetri
568:and item 9 of
546:
545:
544:
543:
519:
518:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
387:if and only if
354:
353:
335:if and only if
329:Under NFCC we
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
302:
301:
284:
260:
259:
246:
245:
217:
216:
192:Victoria Vetri
157:
156:
133:– uploaded by
82:
81:
61:
59:
54:
52:
49:
45:
44:
36:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1465:
1453:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1437:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1419:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1392:
1389:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1378:
1377:
1373:
1372:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1351:🌸 1.Ayana 🌸
1348:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1322:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1275:
1268:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1251:
1250:
1246:
1243:
1238:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1159:the existence
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1140:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1082:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1043:
1040:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
983:
982:
981:
978:
975:
971:
970:
969:
968:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
946:
945:
944:
943:
940:
937:
933:
932:
931:
930:
927:
923:
919:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:
900:
899:
896:
893:
888:
887:
886:
885:
882:
878:
874:
869:
868:
867:
866:
863:
860:
856:
855:
854:
853:
850:
846:
842:
837:
836:
835:
834:
831:
828:
824:
823:
822:
821:
818:
814:
810:
805:
804:
803:
802:
799:
796:
791:
790:
785:
781:
777:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:as an opinion
752:
751:
750:
749:
746:
743:
736:
732:
727:
724:
722:
719:
714:
708:
705:
697:
693:
689:
681:
680:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
652:
645:
644:Google images
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
619:
615:
611:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
590:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
548:
547:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
523:
522:
521:
520:
517:
513:
509:
505:
502:
501:
486:
482:
478:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
450:
445:
444:
443:
439:
435:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
411:
406:
405:
404:
400:
396:
388:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
369:
363:
358:
357:
356:
355:
352:
348:
344:
336:
332:
328:
325:
324:
313:
310:
306:
305:
304:
303:
300:
296:
292:
288:
285:
283:
279:
275:
269:
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
255:
250:
249:
248:
247:
244:
240:
236:
232:
231:the guideline
228:
224:
221:
220:
219:
218:
215:
212:
200:. hq.nasa.gov
199:
193:
189:
185:
181:
178:
177:
176:
175:
171:
167:
162:
154:
150:
146:
141:
136:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
105:
104:
103:
100:
95:
87:
80:
78:
74:
69:
63:
62:
58:
55:
50:
40:
35:
28:
19:
1441:
1439:
1420:
1390:
1380:
1375:
1370:
1364:
1344:
1271:
1255:
1252:
1226:
1224:
1200:
1162:
1158:
1115:
1002:
990:
986:
951:
947:
912:
908:
904:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
725:
706:
638:
588:
549:
528:
524:
503:
386:
334:
330:
326:
202:. Retrieved
179:
158:
85:
83:
67:
64:
1163:any details
1060:Sundayclose
1020:Sundayclose
956:Sundayclose
918:Sundayclose
873:Sundayclose
841:Sundayclose
809:Sundayclose
776:Sundayclose
533:Sundayclose
508:Sundayclose
460:Sundayclose
416:Sundayclose
373:Sundayclose
287:Sundayclose
274:Sundayclose
161:Sundayclose
1339:upload log
570:WP:NFC#UUI
558:WP:NFC#UUI
456:sythensize
368:Missy Gold
204:2015-09-02
153:upload log
1446:talk page
1396:953624703
1261:talk page
1231:talk page
731:Marchjuly
717:(discuss)
670:Marchjuly
631:this edit
574:Marchjuly
562:WP:NFCC#1
73:talk page
1448:or in a
1391:Comment:
1331:contribs
1263:or in a
1233:or in a
913:remotely
712:Hawkeye7
554:WP:FREER
145:contribs
75:or in a
1335:uploads
1307:history
1052:WP:NFCC
1008:WP:NFCC
999:WP:NFCC
767:opinion
726:Comment
656:or per
639:Playboy
525:Comment
327:Comment
149:uploads
121:history
51:June 19
39:June 20
34:June 18
1326:notify
1299:delete
1283:ASTILY
1274:TikTok
1201:Delete
1116:Delete
991:is not
550:Delete
504:Delete
140:notify
113:delete
86:Delete
1408:Ntx61
1321:Ntx61
1311:links
1185:evrik
1145:evrik
1078:evrik
1039:evrik
974:evrik
936:evrik
892:evrik
859:evrik
827:evrik
795:evrik
765:from
759:prior
742:evrik
635:WP:F7
449:Masem
410:Masem
362:Masem
309:evrik
254:evrik
223:Evrik
211:evrik
135:Evrik
125:links
42:: -->
16:<
1429:talk
1412:talk
1402:and
1376:uidh
1365:Keep
1355:talk
1345:Per
1315:logs
1303:talk
1214:talk
1171:talk
1124:talk
1064:talk
1024:talk
960:talk
922:talk
877:talk
845:talk
813:talk
780:talk
771:none
763:fact
733:and
707:Keep
687:asem
674:talk
666:this
596:asem
578:talk
537:talk
529:NONE
512:talk
476:asem
464:talk
433:asem
420:talk
394:asem
377:talk
342:asem
295:talk
278:talk
239:talk
180:Keep
170:talk
129:logs
117:talk
93:Bigr
31:<
1341:).
1003:you
589:Iff
155:).
98:Tex
1431:)
1414:)
1357:)
1337:|
1333:|
1329:|
1313:|
1309:|
1305:|
1301:|
1216:)
1173:)
1126:)
1066:)
1026:)
987:IS
962:)
924:)
879:)
847:)
815:)
793:--
782:)
694:)
683:--
676:)
654:}}
648:{{
603:)
580:)
539:)
514:)
483:)
466:)
440:)
429:--
422:)
401:)
390:--
379:)
349:)
331:do
297:)
280:)
252:--
241:)
172:)
151:|
147:|
143:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
115:|
89:★
1427:(
1410:(
1381:e
1371:b
1353:(
1323:(
1317:)
1297:(
1280:F
1212:(
1169:(
1141::
1137:@
1122:(
1062:(
1022:(
958:(
920:(
875:(
843:(
811:(
778:(
737::
729:@
692:t
690:(
685:M
672:(
610:
601:t
599:(
594:M
576:(
535:(
510:(
481:t
479:(
474:M
462:(
451::
447:@
438:t
436:(
431:M
418:(
412::
408:@
399:t
397:(
392:M
375:(
364::
360:@
347:t
345:(
340:M
293:(
276:(
270::
266:@
237:(
207:.
168:(
137:(
131:)
111:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
