Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 4

< June 3	June 5 >

June 4[edit]

File:Frankensteinpinball.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of photo is copyrighted artwork (not available under a free license). Article already has a fair use image for identification. czar 00:04, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Funtastic.png[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple logo for deleted article, no potential future use czar 00:05, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:FFXIIPotionPremium.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle might not be copyrighted/unlicensed, but the box art behind it is czar 00:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would claim fair use as this was a limited edition product, only made for a short time ten years ago; it is not possible to get this now. If we're going with copyright on the box design, then there is no free equivalent out there. Of course, this image is not linked to anything anymore as someone took it out of the article I added it to long ago... Robaato (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bottle itself seems to be a utilitarian object and thus not subject to copyright; I don't think the same could be said about the packaging itself based upon what is written at c:COM:PACKAGING and I don't think "de minimis" could be claimed here since a major part of the photo seems to be the box itself. If the packaging needs to be non-free, then a non-free rationale and a non-free copyright tag would be needed in addition to the free license for the photo. The usage of the image would then be subject to WP:NFCC and since the file is currently not being used in any article, it would fail WP:NFCC#7. Moreover, WP:NFCC#8 would also need to be satisfied which can be rather difficult sometimes, so simply adding a rationale and then sticking it some article might not be such an easy thing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2016 (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.

File:Mystery Mansion printscreen.JPG[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the image is copyrighted/unlicensed text-based video game czar 00:21, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Prov bank.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 16#File:Prov_bank.jpg

Non-free logo being used in National Provincial Bank and National Provincial Bank v Charnley. The file has a non-free use rationale for each, but no soure is provided for the image to verify whether the copyright information required WP:NFCC#10a. The article about National Provincial Bank says it originated in 1833, so perhaps the logo is old enough to qualify as public domain. If the logo needs to be non-free, then it's usage in "National Provincial Bank v Charnley" fails WP:NFCC#8. The article is about involving the bank and the rationale's claim that the file is needed "to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey" is simply the boilerplate text the template automatically adds when the editor adding the rationale fails to properly fill it in. There's no reason for the bank's logo to be used here. Suggest keep for "National Provincial Bank" if a source can be found, and remove from "National Provincial Bank v Charnley" unless the file can be converted to a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for National Provincial Bank. The coat of arms is mentioned in the article and a source is provided there. The arms have not been in use since at least 1970 and the armiger was legally dissolved in 2016, so use in National Provincial Bank v Charnley seems reasonable. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is www.rbsbc.com/history/default.aspx the source of the image you're referring to above. That looks like a different file to the one being disucssed here. I think we need something showing this particular file not something similar to it or something which was partly derived from it. In addition, I'm also not sure if seems reasonable is proper justfication for using the non-free image in "National Provincial Bank v Charnley". That seems to be an article about a legal case that the bank was involved in and not an article about the bank itself, right? How are all 10 non-free content crtiteria satisfied for such a usage? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the image at National Provincial Bank v Charnley, so this discussion is moot. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file still is lacking a proper source which I believe is needed to verify WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a. It looks like the image may have come from here, but only the uploader knows for sure. The uploader Chrisieboy was notified of this discussion, but has yet to comment. I am unable to determine anything specific about the image's copyright status from that website, so I cannot say whether it is old enough for PD or whether is has already been freely licensed. Finally, if the freely licensed File:001 National Prov Bank Holyhead 18.08.13 edited-2.jpg is considered acceptable to identify the bank in "National Provincial Bank v Charnley", then it might also be considered acceptable to identify the bank in "National Provincial Bank" as well. If that's the case, then a non-free image would not be needed for the main infobox per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2016 (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.

File:2004 1029Image0047.JPG[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible derivative of non-free content (toys) FASTILY 01:48, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:TVS802.JPG[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible derivative of non-free content (toys) FASTILY 01:48, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:RI4310.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible derivative of non-free content (toys) FASTILY 01:49, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:TVS2018 2.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible derivative of non-free content (toys) FASTILY 01:52, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Okehlogo.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this logo safe to upload to Commons? The font is cursive, so I'm unsure about how original the logo is in the US to be copyrightable. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found proof that the logo was used before 1923: the 1919 vinyl. More: [1][2]. --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC) My mistake, that was the predecessor to the current logo. --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current incarnation of the cursive logo was first used in 1935. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 1935 Okeh script logo is still being used by Okeh catalog owner Sony Music. See the official Okeh Records web site at [3]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a correction. The Okeh label was discontinued by new owner American Record Corporation in 1934 in favor of their Vocalion label. That also retired the original Okeh script logo. After CBS bought ARC and discontinued the Vocalion label, CBS's renamed Columbia Recording Corp revived the Okeh label, the familiar script logo still used today was introduced in 1940 in a demonstration record found at [4]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Patent and Trademark Office web site at http://uspto.gov shows that the original Okeh script logo was introduced in 1920 and, as noted above, was discontinued in 1934. As mentioned already, CBS's Columbia Records revived Okeh with the new script logo still used today in 1940. The USPTO web site in another listing shows that the Okeh word mark was registered by current owner Sony Music in 1995. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find the copyright registration for the logo in catalogs via archive.org. I guess that would make is free to use? By the way, can you indent your responses? They look confusing to read. George Ho (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, this brand name was discontinued in the 1920s, so I assume that the logo was published somewhere in the 1920s or earlier. At that time, a work would need a copyright notice whenever it was published. It's unlikely that a logo would satisfy that requirement as logos are used in advertisements, on signs and everywhere. Additionally, it's below the threshold of originality – see c:COM:SIG#United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2016 (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.

File:Vincenzo lancia.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced on Italitan Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:AlfaRomeo2600 1962WP.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly unsourced at Italian Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Ar1750gs4r sx WP.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly unsourced at Italian Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Felled tree.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, most likely own work, but not possible to prove definitively. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:EDCTP proposed expenditure.png[edit]

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 discussion was: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 16#File:EDCTP_proposed_expenditure.png

Referral to FFD, as there was a recent discussion on commons about what license to apply to EU works. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:North 036.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an unused personal photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Alfa Romeo logo.png[edit]

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 discussion was: Remove from Alfa Romeo Avio. ★ Bigr Tex 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17 in Alfa Romeo Avio. Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from "Alfa Romeo Avio" and Keep in "Alfa Romeo" per nominator. "Alfa Romeo Avio" says the company was founded as a divison of "Alfa Romeo" which would make it a "child entity" per No. 17 of NFC#UUI. It's possible that separate branding for the company was used and if that can be found then it should be fine to add that to the article; however, the logo of the parent entity should not automatically be used by default if separate branding cannot be found or did not exist. Moreover, the non-free use rationale added for "Alfa Romeo Avio" looks as if it was just copied-and-pasted with the |article= parameter changed. Simply adding a rationale does not make non-free usage valid; it only prevents it from being tagged for speedy per WP:F6 or removed per WP:NFCC#10c. The source link provided in the rationale shows no connection at all to "Alfa Romeo Avio" and the rationale says the logo was introduced in 2015. This was almost 30 years after Alfa Romeo is supposed to have sold its Avio division to Aeritalia (according to the article), which means using this logo in "Alfa Romeo Avio" makes no sense at all per WP:NFCC#8 as well. Decorative usage simply to add a logo to an article, even in the main infobox, is not really allowed per WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong KEEP, this Stefan "bot" only wants to delete something, hes not real editor -->Typ932 ^T·C 11:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 is not asking for the file to be deleted. He just is saying that it should be removed from "Alfa Romeo Avio" because it does not comply with WIkipedia's non-free content policy. I happen to agree with his assessment. So, if you feel the image should remain in the article, then it would help if you explained why you feel its usage satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria instead of making personal comments about Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: I mistakenly opened another FFD for the same purposes (which has now been closed). My arguments were those Marchjuly has expressed above with more eloquence, so I say remove per Marchjuly. BethNaught (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2016 (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.

File:Rio All Suite Hotel and Casino at night.JPG[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No listed photographer, assume own work? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:The Cardinal Greenway Delaware County.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Direct link to image, No cited author. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Tivoli-Stemma.png[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low res but in use, sourcing is vauge. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Associated British Foods Logo.svg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted as G8 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiring whether the local copy is needed when commons:File:Associated British Foods Logo.svg exists under the same name. According to the only reply I received on commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#TOO_question merely coloured text with no deviations from standard fonts may not meet even the United Kingdom's relatively low Treshold of originality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, that only seems to be speculation. No actual evidence was presented on Commons, so the correct copyright status is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is text alone and is perfectly allowed on Commons. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2016 (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.

File:Tufts cannon.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission, Low res, in use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:DLJ.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sourcing, where did the original come from? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Manic Street Preachers Live 2014.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image; fair use is claimed but it's difficult to see how such a claim can be valid when we already have images of the band on Commons, and when further free equivalents can reasonably be created or obtained. PC78 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Lamarck.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, No original publication data (nothing in source site), low res. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Penum paku.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious permission. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Terence Dickinson.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead source, so can't verify the status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webarchive does still show the source and searching for the text on other websites indicates it's been reposted. No copyright information alas.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 14 June 2016 (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.

File:Fra 1st.JPG[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be an unused profile photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Hannibal-Melkart.gif[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, but referenced in a talk page discussion so not obvious CSD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Inamistokehredjoe.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 16#File:Inamistokehredjoe.jpg

This image is used in two articles. If free, shall the image be transferred to Commons? If unfree, how valid is a usage in each article? George Ho (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Emory-university-candler-library.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supsect own work, but no way to show it definitivly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:Alfa Romeo logo.png[edit]

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 discussion was: Procedural close. Duplicate nomination; continue at #File:Alfa Romeo logo.png. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeking the deletion of this image but rather that it should be removed from Alfa Romeo Avio and its fair use rationale for that page ruled invalid. This is the 2015 Alfa Romeo logo, but Avio split off long before that and merged with another company, meaning it has independent branding and this logo is not applicable. Therefore it fails WP:NFC#8 and WP:NFC#UUI 17. Pinging Typ932, Stefan2. BethNaught (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @BethNaught: The same file was also nominated above by Stefan2. Stefan2 does not seem to have been asking for the deletion of this file; he was only asking that it be removed from "Alfa Romeo Avio" for the basically same reason as you have given here. I suggest combining this FFD into the above since that was the first posted to avoid any confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2016 (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.

File:Poin1t.gif[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This avatar seems to have been derived from game artwork. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:The Mirror.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, appears to be out of scope. Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:GentlmninKh1.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:GentlmninKh1.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image should be kept at en.Wikipedia and deleted on Commons, because it shows an image created before 1923, but no one has proved that it is in the public domain in England, where it was created. I have corrected the license at en.Wikipedia -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The artwork on the object is not copyrighted in the United States as it was published before 1923, whereas the copyright status in the United Kingdom is unknown. However, as it is a 3D object, we also need permission from the photographer, which we currently do not have. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2016 (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.

File:Ace of Base all that she wants re-release cover.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is the cover of the 2014 rerelease / remix. There is already the other image, so the 2014 image should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2016 (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.

File:TheSign2.jpg[edit]

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 discussion was: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 16#File:TheSign2.jpg

This image is the US cover of the single by the Scandinavian band, Ace of Base. Although the song is a worldwide hit, I'm sure omitting this image wouldn't affect readers understanding of the song or the release, would it? There is already the European image, so the US image is no longer necessary. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with your flawed understanding and analysis, George Ho. You really just don't get it, do you? You have zero justification for why this image should be removed. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.235.50.4 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@165.235.50.4: Can you explain why my rationale is "flawed"? I said that we can't retain two front covers because they have the same purpose: identifying a release. George Ho (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, let me say that while deletion discussions tend to produce all sorts of iffy comments and votes, that one might be the most inexplicable I've come across. This person clearly has a fine command of the English language and that command was used to cast a vote that will get totally ignored because it ignored policy and provided no substance, all for the sake of insulting an excellent editor. I kind of want to strike it just to amplify how useless it is.

That said, I don't agree that the only purpose of images like this is to identify subjects. I think having the additional image underscores something I've always found fascinating: creative works getting packaged differently for different places they're sold. See, for an obvious example, the album this song is from. Did they think the differing versions maximized sales potential in the US versus the rest of the world? If so, why? That could be a neat discussion to have, and if there is an answer, I actually believe it would help readers more fully understand the song. RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been dealt with before in other situations, RunnyAmiga. In central discussions, consensus decided to keep just one unless there is enough sourced critical commentary. There is no need to present more than one cover to represent packaging. Just one image with substantial caption is enough, isn't it? Well... if individual discussions don't have votes of either sides, usually images are deleted. If keeping the extra image is reasonable, there must be sources about the individual covers themselves. There is a list of worldwide charts; isn't it enough for a reader to understand? Did I tell you before that the band is Scandinavian? --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find reliable sources discussing the covers in Google Books and Google News. --George Ho (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus has been achieved, I don't understand the point of instigating this discussion in the first place. Delete it per the discussion in question. And even though I'm speaking as someone who hasn't been made privy to previous discussion(s), I'll say that "sourced critical commentary" is a truly bizarre standard. Is there sourced critical commentary for the single's main cover? Why does that standard apply to one image and not the other? Why isn't the US cover displayed on the article while the rest-of-the-world cover is up for deletion discussion here?

And I absolutely don't buy the idea that "[t]here is no need to present more than one cover to represent packaging." That is, on its face, false. The US version isn't some obscure, one-off, limited-edition image. There were at least a million copies of both covers manufactured. That's not to mention that, even if this were an obscure, one-off, limited-edition image, why would that matter? Are we really here to present the absolute bare minimum? RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:village pump (policy)/Archive 108#Adding extra cover arts in album and singles articles and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40#Alternate covers for albums/singles.... Anything else, RunnyAmiga? Also, the point of the discussion is keeping or deleting this image. Ask any administrator if you can. George Ho (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2016 (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.