Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18

File:Memphis Tigers Wordmark.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD image; File:Memphis Tigers wordmark.png has replaced this image in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 00:02, 18 January 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:Lookdown.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Unidentified band. Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless without identification of subject. Uploader, who uploaded this in 2006, has no other contributions - is unlikely to provide clarification any time soon. --LukeSurl^{t c} 13:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Special:CentralAuth/Oddio13 reveals that he has 13 contributions, but Special:Contributions/Oddio13 only lists one contribution. This means that there are 12 deleted contributions. If this was added to a band article, but the band article later was deleted, then the image is presumably out of scope. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 27 January 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:Surprise surprise billy talent.png

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: no consensus. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art which is nothing but the band's name and the song's title on a black background. Seems way too simple to be treated as non-free content and probably should treated as {{PD-simple}} instead and tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that the colour decorations may be copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 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:Viking Death March.jpg

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: no consensus. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art which only consists of the name of the band and the name of the song on a black background. Seems way too simple to be eligible for copyright protection and probably should be treated as {{PD-simple}} instead. Should also be tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that the colour decorations may be copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 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:Billy talent split.jpg

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: convert to {{PD-simple}}. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art which is probably too simple for copyright protection because it simply consists of text on a black background. I think this should be {{PD-simple}} instead and tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be {{PD-simple}}. Note that we do not actually have any evidence that this is the correct album cover since no source was provided in the FUR template. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stefan2: Would this or this be considered acceptable for a source link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I assume so. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 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:After Midnight Promo CD Blink-182.jpg

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 ⚡ 08:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image which looks to be just a scan/photo of a promo Cd issued for the song. Is a picture of a CD with an all text label subject to copyright in an of itself or should it be {{PD-simple}}? Also, the image is sourced to this discogs page and the photo there says "©Stan182", but that is not in the version uploaded to Wikipedia. Is that enough for this file to need to be non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The disc itself is probably not copyrightable. The light effects which seem to have been caused by a lamp are maybe enough to make it copyrightable as a photograph. In that case, the image fails WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:34, 18 January 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:Blink Another Girl.jpg

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 ⚡ 08:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art for a promotional release which is mainly text except for the record copy logo. No source is provided for this other than "The cover can be obtained from the record label" but I don't think that's sufficient to satisfy WP:NFCC#4. I think this would be {{PD-simple}} if there was no record copy logo, so maybe a possible fix would to be remove that so there are no WP:NFCC problems; otherwise, I think the usage in Another Girl, Another Planet#Blink-182 cover fails WP:NFCC#8 since the cover art itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article and can be omitted without be detrimental to the reader's understanding at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use in Another Girl, Another Planet seems to fail WP:NFCC#8, yes. The file also seems to fail WP:NFCC#4. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 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:Make It Large, Royal Stag.jpg

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 ⚡ 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two non-free images not required on same page. This one shows the slogan of the brand, "Make It Large", and image is not needed for that. Text in prose of the article is quite explanatory for what the slogan is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:04, 18 January 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:Miami University logo.gif

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 ⚡ 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD image; File:Miami (Ohio) Athletics wordmark.png has replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 07:14, 18 January 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:Central Arkansas Wordmark.jpg

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 ⚡ 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PD; File:UCA wordmark.png has replaced this image in all articles ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 08:10, 18 January 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:&pizza logo.jpg

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 ⚡ 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image obsoleted by File:&pizza_logo.svg. – nyuszika7h (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is PD-textlogo, not non-free. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- True, it probably qualifies as that, the SVG version could be moved to Commons. I'm not sure about the proper procedure, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could do it. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found WP:MTC. Since the tag is incorrect I'll just reupload manually. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done, both versions here can be deleted now. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:12, 18 January 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:Apocalypse Now Christopher Wool 1988.jpeg

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 as is. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image free or non-free? I can see just text... and some tiny paint spots. George Ho (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho Yes, it is non-free but used under fair use (and at reduced size) because the article is about the painting itself. This is all per Wikipedia legal policy. Yes, that is what the painting looks like: irregularly-divided stenciled black text on off-white. Are you insinuating that this can't possibly be the painting as described in the article, worth $26 million? Look closer, it's a masterpiece, some of the paint is dripping. Please see the legal discussion on the image page. I'm pinging lawyer Montanabw so that she can better explain some of this stuff if it is unclear. Thanks. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:RAT and WP:NFCCP, I believe the image meets all 10 criteria, but if there is one missing, do note and we shall see what we can do. (BTW, I am not a copyright lawyer, etc., so nothing I say on-wiki in any way is intended to be legal advice). And indeed, were this not a $26m painting, I'd almost be ready to make the argument that it would be like the cover of The White Album. I told Vesu that I think I still own a set of stencils like that, used 'em to do a poster for 4-H once, dang, should have kept the poster! Montanabw ^(talk) 17:36, 21 January 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 Testament of Sister New Devil Vol.1 Blu-Ray.jpg

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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 on List of The Testament of Sister New Devil episodes since the image is of a DVD cover for an volume of episodes and not of an image covering all episodes. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether the volume contains all of the episodes or only some of them seems completely irrelevant. The purpose of including an image is to better identify the series covered by the list, and an image from a single volume does that just as well as any other image from the series. A better question might be whether including an image at all helps understanding of the article, but I think it does. Someone who isn't sure what series is being talked about or who only knows it by its Japanese name would be able to identify it much easier with an image. It is also standard practice for anime/manga articles to include such an image, and seems widely accepted in featured lists (almost all the lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Quality articles#Featured Lists include an image of the first volume of the series). Calathan (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What other image would identify and illustrate the subject better? The answer to that question is a matter of personal opinion than anything else. But I feel that this nomination boils down to be about the sexually provocative pose the cover character is in. All of the DVD covers have female characters in similar sexually provocative poses, but the first cover is the only one to feature the title character. The other covers feature supporting characters. The rational itself is strange is a rather strange one as it doesn't fit with common practice with how WP:NFCC#8 has bee enforced in the past. That would mean that thousands of cover images for novel series, comic book characters, comic series, magazines, newspapers, academic journals, etc. would not qualify under WP:NFCC#8. —Farix (t | c) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

..."...this nomination boils down to be about the sexually provocative pose the cover character is in." Umm, interesting red herring. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to comment that I think Farix's allegation that the nomination was based on the sexually provocative pose of the character was totally inappropriate. Nothing in Steel1943's nomination in any way suggested that he was concerned about that. Calathan (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Calathan's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from List of The Testament of Sister New Devil episodes. WP:NFC#UUI §6, §14 and §17 all state that we should only use non-free images in the main article but not in certain dependent articles. List of The Testament of Sister New Devil episodes is dependent on The Testament of Sister New Devil in the same way, and therefore it is enough to display a cover image in The Testament of Sister New Devil. That article currently contains a different cover image and doesn't seem to need an extra image. The image could be used in an article about the product it displays (Shimmai Maō no Keiyakusha Vol. 1), but that product currently doesn't have an article, presumably because it doesn't meet the notability criterion. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of WP:NFC#UUI §6, §14 and §17 seem even remotely related to how this image is being used (they are about company and event logos, and about images with their own articles, neither of which is the case here). I don't think it is reasonable to infer from those specific cases that the way this image is used is inappropriate. Calathan (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are about precisely the same thing: the situation where we have a parent article and a dependent article which share some imagery. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are very different. The main reason for each of those criteria is that the image is being redundantly used on multiple pages. In this case the image is not being used on multiple pages. I know you are suggesting that the different image on the main article could suffice, but that is still a significantly different situation. This is much more like the cases which NFC#UII #14 and #17 say are allowed, where a different image is acceptable on the child pages, but not the same image as the parent page (in this case, the parent page has an image of the original light novel cover, while the episode list has an image of a cover of the anime). Also, for NFC#UII #17 part of the issue is that the logo doesn't represent the sub-entity, but instead the parent entity (i.e., the usage was actually incorrect, not merely redundant), while in this case no such inaccuracy exists. Furthermore, going back now and reading the discussions that resulted in some of those criteria being added, there is no way the discussions could be interpreted as a consensus on anything beyond what is specifically written in the criteria. Calathan (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is redundant: both images identify the same product, and we then only need one image of the product. For the same reason, we do not keep former company logos because we only need one company logo. The part you are quoting is where a parent and a child articles are identified by different imagery (for example, two different logos), but in this case, both of them are identified by the same imagery (the same set of covers). And then we only use one cover from that set of covers. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to argue that you don't think the image is necessary. I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. However, what you are arguing is not what NFC#UII #6, #14, and #17 are saying, and not what the discussions that established those guidelines were about. While you could argue that some new criteria should be added to the list that excludes this sort of usage, it is unequivocally wrong to say that the current criteria reject how the image is used. You are basically arguing for what you think should be in the guidelines, but there isn't any consensus for that. I highly doubt that you would find a consensus that we should pick a single image and use it for all parts of a franchise, even when they are different media. Would you really suggest that, say, the use of film posters at Jurassic Park (film) isn't appropriate because there already is an image of the novel cover at Jurassic Park (novel)? How is that any different than using the image of a novel cover on the article primarily about the novel series and using an image of the anime TV series on another article about the TV series, as is being done in this case? While I know just because something is done frequently on Wikipedia doesn't mean that it is correct, in this case what you are suggesting would amount to a vast change to image usage on thousands of articles. Given that such use is pervasive (including in featured content as I pointed out above), I strongly believe that you would have no hope of finding a consensus for what you are suggesting. Calathan (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I am arguing is precisely the situation described in §6, §14 and §17. You also have WP:NFC#UUI §2: we don't use cover images in discographies, only in the individual articles about each product. An episode listing is similar to a discography in that both are lists of related media, and if we don't use cover images in discographies, then we should not use cover images in episode listings either. Also, Jurassic Park is different in that the book and the film get separate articles, whereas in this case, the TV series only gets a two-line section in the article about the book series, plus some notes about voice actors in the character section. You can compare this to MOS:FILM#Soundtrack: we don't illustrate film articles with film soundtrack covers. If a TV series doesn't get a separate article but only a section in a related article, then the TV series doesn't seem to be notable on its own. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would this image be considered acceptable for the list article? It seems to be the cover art used for the first thirteen episodes, though it does not seem to be Blu-ray. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain, but my impression is that that is a pirated version and not an official release. Normally, these late-night anime get released as high-priced individual volumes, and wouldn't get a whole season collection in Japan (or perhaps would get one years later if the series sold very well). The back cover of that copy lists Chinese, English, and Malay subs, which also seems typical of a pirated version and not an official release. So I don't think that is something we should use in an article. Calathan (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Calathan: What about this image? I found it on the the official "Goods" page for the program. It seems more acceptable to me per WP:NFLISTS since it is more of an ensemble image showing multiple characters and thus being more representative of the series as a whole than the cover art for a single DVD/Blu-ray volume. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to not reply right away. I think that image would be fine to use in the article, but I don't think switching the image would address any of the concerns that people have about the current image. It seems to me that those in favor of deleting the image don't think the list should have an image at all. Also, I think that image is actually the same one that was used for the 6th DVD volume, so it probably wouldn't be any different than the current one in terms of being representative of the series as a whole. I don't really see any reason to change the image being used. Calathan (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not convinced that the use of this image meets WP:NFLISTS. Non-free images in list articles are not required, nor are they encouraged. In regards to articles that become featured lists, that's an other stuff exists argument. In the past, there was an instance where an article filled with copyright violating text went through the featured articles candidates system and made it all the way to the Main Page before someone noticed (it took me a few good minutes, but I found this and this); I think it's safe to say that smaller infractions will go by just as well. Back to this image, I don't see it abiding by any of the aforementioned bullet points NFLISTS, so I'm inclined to believe that this images violates WP:NFCC as a result. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I was initially posting about this image here, I read WP:NFLISTS and came to the conclusion that the image does pass the criteria there. I admit this isn't an area I work on a lot, but my reading of WP:NFLISTS is that it says the following: Don't include a bunch of images when one will suffice (this is the only image in the list, so it passes this), if an image is discussed in the article use that one rather than another one (no images are discussed in the article, so this isn't relevant), use an image that is representative visually rather than one that isn't (I think this one is representative of the series, so it passes), if another image elsewhere shows what you would show in the image in the list, refer to that image instead of using one in the list (this is the point that I think is most in contention in the above discussion, but as I've said above I think it is appropriate to include an image from the TV series in the list, as the other image in the main article isn't from the TV series and isn't really visually representative of what the list is talking about), don't use images of living people unnecessarily (clearly not relevant here), and only use images for major elements (again, since this image is meant to be emblematic of the TV series as a whole, I think it passes this). Again, I see the image passing all these criteria, and think only one of them is even reasonably in contention. Calathan (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to elaborate further on what I was saying about featured lists, Wikipedia:Featured list criteria encourages lists to have images. I don't think it is right to say that non-free images are not encouraged in lists, since images are encouraged, and if there aren't free images available, those images must naturally be non-free. For an anime series, there generally aren't free images available, which is why most anime episode lists use a non-free image. My understanding is that the cover of the first DVD/Blu-ray volume is what is normally used because that seems to the image that would best pass WP:NFCC. Since a DVD cover is being used to sell the series and is widely available to view online, it seems the best image to choose to comply with WP:NFCC#2 (i.e., we aren't giving away any content that the publisher hasn't already chosen to display for free). Also, the first volume cover is generally chosen to be representative of the series, so it seems to be the best choice with respect to NFCC#8 (i.e., the first DVD cover does a much better job of visually explaining the series than most other images would, and thus adds a lot to the article). In the case of the specific image being discussed here, I think the image does an excellent job of letting readers know what the series is truly about (that being scantily clad/naked girls), and does that in a way that couldn't really be captured with text, thus passing WP:NFCC#8. Calathan (talk) 20:07, 17 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:Mike2.jpg

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 ⚡ 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user photo? No foreseeable encyclopædic use. Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 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:Manuel Goded Llopis.jpg

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: DEleted - I see that the free commons image is in use in this article in many other Wikipedia language editions. Only we were using the non-free version - Peripitus (Talk) 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be replaceable by the file with the same name on Commons. See WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't replace an actual image of the subject with that of a drawing just because the latter is in commons. 72.208.76.150 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 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:Notch.jpg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 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:Francois.jpg

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 ⚡ 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userphoto or something. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 18 January 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:Red circle.png

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused circle. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 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:Rugby.jpg

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 ⚡ 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overwritten file: two in one.

File uploaded by Imnayef (talk · contribs): Uploaded here in December 2007, but used here in October 2007. Delete per c:COM:NETCOPYRIGHT.
File uploaded by U3964057 (talk · contribs): Dupe of File:Rugby 2.jpg. Delete per WP:F1. Stefan2 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 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:Necrologo.jpg

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 ⚡ 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo of unclear notability. No foreseeable encyclopædic use. Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 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:Tosin Abasi.jpg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, very low quality. Is c:File:Tosin Abasi.jpg the same person? Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 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.