Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2[edit]

File:Detroit Titans Basketball Wordmark.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 ⚡ 04:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD-image; File:Detroit Titans wordmark.png has replaced this image in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 00:04, 2 February 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:UW Milwaukee Wordmark.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 ⚡ 04:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD image; File:Wisconsin–Milwaukee wordmark.png has replaced this image in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 01:14, 2 February 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:Oakland Golden Grizzlies O Wordmark.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 ⚡ 04:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; Transparent, PNG version available. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 01:35, 2 February 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:UIC Flames Wordmark.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 ⚡ 04:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; Now on Commons and has been replaced in the articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 01:51, 2 February 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:Canisius College Wordmark.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 ⚡ 04:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; Now on Commons. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 02:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete --evrik ^(talk) 20:40, 4 February 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:Bezbozhnik u stanka US 1930.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 02:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use rationale; completely fails our WP:FAIR policy. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say this is a fair use, it is demonstrating critical commentary against the US, by the former Soviets. As all media was state controlled, this was part of a State propaganda campaign, thus directly related to the article topic. It also is small in size, and adds understanding to the topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for sloppy nomination; amended. Wikipedia has very specific rules about fair use of images. Please read and understand it. Your argument is invalid; this was discussed thousand times until our policy was forged. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is classic educational use of a low resolution image per both fair use and our non-free policy; unless the OP can expand upon the conclusory "Invalid fair use rationale" in a way I haven't considered. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You got it vice versa: it is you who has to prove that it complies our copyright rules. This is a legal issue, not crowd democracy. We have very exact 1-2-3 rules to follow in this respect. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need an explanation Which part of the non-free content policy is this supposed to fail? WP:NFCC#8? Perhaps {{Non-free magazine cover}} should be replaced with {{Non-free fair use in}} seeing as we are using it to illustrate an example of this propaganda rather than the magazine itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that {{Non-free fair use in}} does seem more descriptive of how the image is used in the article. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a fair use. FYI - Altenmann is engaging in an edit war on Wikipedia. Altenmann has also moved to the Commons and is now nominating a number of images related to this one for deletion. This was on the commons until Altenmann nominated it for deletion. --evrik ^(talk) 20:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article And you are lynching Negroes appears to be about a specific argument used in propaganda from the Soviet Union. It seems reasonable to display an example of how this argument was used in Soviet propaganda, so unless a public domain example exists, then I suppose that this should remain in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 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:Fablelane screenshot.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 ⚡ 04:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website indicates a copyright. Public doesn't make it CC. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:22, 2 February 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:Parisdvd2.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: Kept in [1 Night in Paris]] only - Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A collage of a living person's scantily clad pictures leaked as part of a sex tape against their consent. Bosstopher2 (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The video article needs merging (or AFD), and the fair use on 22nd AVN Awards really is pushing the limits of fair use as we normally define it here. It seems more sensationalizing and bordering on BLP (since it is against her will). As I don't see valid reasons for fair use that overcome the BLP concerns, deleting is the logical conclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As long as 1 Night in Paris exists, the cover should remain there. Definitely needs removal from 22nd AVN Awards, though. — ξ ^xplicit 02:55, 10 February 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.