Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 25

< January 24	January 26 >

January 25[edit]

File:Theatre of magic pinball.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pinball machine artwork here appears to be more than de minimis since it is the focal point of the photo. I suggest converting to fair use, if appropriate, for the main article, and removing all other usage. A silhouette could be used for the purposes of an illustration in the pinball stub. czar 00:03, 25 January 2017 (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:Rikko.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of the uploader, doesn't specify whether the copyright was transferred or who took the photo czar 00:14, 25 January 2017 (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:Rtw bi campaignmap goals.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of image deleted as fair use czar 00:18, 25 January 2017 (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:Rogue Unix Screenshot CAR.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright needs clarification. Is this a screenshot of Rogue or not? And why would it not be released under the same license as Rogue? If it is a manual recreation in the style of Rogue, we need more information on what has been changed and why it still has the fidelity to illustrate Rogue or just roguelike gameplay. czar 00:36, 25 January 2017 (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:Project Warcraft test1.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; "direct manipulation" indicates it is a derivative work, and thus covered by Blizzard's copyrights Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks derivative of copyrighted artwork (by Blizzard). If it isn't, we need clarification from the author that it was just done in their style but isn't a derivative artwork. czar 00:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Orc and Night Elf is Blizzard artwork stylized. Havok (T/c/e) 22:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Havok, do you mean that it's a filtered version of Blizzard's artwork? Trying to surmise whether it's freehand and inspired by Blizzard or a direct manipulation of their image. czar 01:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Direct manipulation. Havok (T/c/e) 19:06, 8 February 2017 (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:Redspot.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing permission of artwork's creator. Current permission appears to only address the photograph. czar 00:39, 25 January 2017 (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:Stema e Bashkisë Belsh.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: Relicense as PD-Albania-exempt Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 licenses, which is correct? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 07:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this license issue seems to be a problem with other municipalities of Albania (Template:Municipalities of Albania). The seal is public domain if the municipalities fall under the definition of "public authorities". Given the definition (couldn't find one in Albania's copyright document) of a public authority is "any authority with the legal mandate to govern public life of state, province, municipality [1], I would say that the "non-free logo" template should be removed in favour of "PD-Albania-exempt". Salavat (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 04:50, 25 January 2017 (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:Playstation rising dragon pack.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon artwork is copyrighted, needs free use release from the author or a fair use rationale to keep the image in the article. (Or delete.) czar 05:43, 25 January 2017 (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:Prod t2ePro.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted artwork on dance pad, even if the uploader is the image's copyright holder, we don't have the permission for the artwork displayed. (Note that we already have many other examples of dance pads.) czar 05:46, 25 January 2017 (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:Pdiaspora shottingsat.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of copyrighted software. SourceForge has it under a zlib license but I can't confirm on the project's website czar 05:52, 25 January 2017 (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:Charles Edison (draft registration card, 1918).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: relisted on 2017 February 21. czar 16:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Edison (draft registration card, 1918).gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Shenmue-II-logo.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This text is more artistic than a standard typeface... I would say that it's above the threshold of originality and thus needs to be marked as non-free with a fair use rationale. If it isn't, it's not in use, so it should be deleted. czar 06:04, 25 January 2017 (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:Stgigaprize.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: relisted on 2017 May 28. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stgigaprize.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Sm4mzxfurry.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per their descriptions, derivative of non-free, Super Mario series pixel art czar 06:21, 25 January 2017 (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:Chinmayi Sripaada.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 czar 01:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would potentially go in Chinmayi but there is reasonable doubt of authorship and plenty of free use alternative available. Would need permission from copyright holder czar 01:23, 2 February 2017 (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:Chibi-Robo! icon.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, under the assumption that it reasonably could be an official logo Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (logo) FASTILY 06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble finding a compilation of Super Smash Bros icons that includes an image like this, so it's hard to tell whether this is an official silhouetted logo or a reimagining by the uploader czar 06:36, 25 January 2017 (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:Chaudhary Nizam Ud Din Bhatti.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 czar 01:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strange photoshopping (subject's face appears to have been pasted in...). Dubious encyclopedic quality FASTILY 06:26, 25 January 2017 (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:Reign online.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot says the game is copyright of "Fortyeight Network". We would need confirmation of permission to relicense from a representative for copyright holder, not necessarily just the co-developer. czar 06:27, 25 January 2017 (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:Château Rauzan-Ségla 1993.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 czar 01:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

derivative of non-free content (label) FASTILY 06:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth converting to fair use, considering the variety of free use alternatives that could work here czar 01:24, 2 February 2017 (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:Regeneration.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, niche icon, no expected future educational use czar 06:30, 25 January 2017 (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:Team Aqua 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A set of minor logos from within the Pokémon series—one or two are definitely PD-simple and the rest are borderline, but my question is whether they have any potential educational use in the first place. I don't think they do. czar 06:38, 25 January 2017 (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:Mishima-Ushi(Bos taurus).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: in OTRS processing, file tagged as ticket:2017012510011069 czar 01:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use this file needs to be sent to OTRS by the copyright owner, which may or may not be the Nodai Genome Research Center, Tokyo University of Agriculture; until that permission has been received and logged, the image can't be hosted here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realise that - the system isn't the clearest in the world. Loweredtone (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (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.

Non-free images in "Hollywood Sportatorium"[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: stadium photo now on Commons & remove poster czar 18:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images being used in Hollywood Sportatorium in a manner which does not comply WP:NFCC. Neither image is the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking.

The poster art is also not needed per No. 6 of WP:NFC#UUI because it is being used in the main infobox of Led Zeppelin North American Tour 1971 where it can be seen and a non-free image is certainly not needed for the reader to understand "Less than a month later, on September 1, 1971, Led Zeppelin stopped at the Sportatorium on its North American tour." which is the only sentence mentioning Led Zeppelin in the entire article. So, I suggest remove from "Hollywood Sportatorium" for this file.

The photo of the interior is captioned as "The interior of the Sportatorium prior to a 1982 Van Halen concert", but again there are only trivial mentions of Van Halen throughout the article and nothing which requires the reader to see a non-free image to be understood. There is also no specific sourced discussion related to the interior of the arena which requires that this image be seen to be understood, and unless it's non-free use can be better justified I can see of no reason to use the file. So, I suggest delete for this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph of the interior of the long-since demolished Sportatorium has nothing to do with Van Halen and everything to do with the interior of the arena, it being the only known photo of the interior. There is no specifically sourced discussion about the exterior of the facility, but there are two photos of the exterior accompanying article. Additionally, the photo was taken by Suzzy Hald, who also--enthusiastically, I might add--agreed that the photo be included in the article. She indicated her assent in a now-closed Facebook group about the arena, and can be readily contacted to re-affirm that assent if needs be for any licensing concerns or questions. I suggest keep for this file.

As to the poster art, I agree, it is not strictly needed, but it is from the tour during which Led Zeppelin played at the arena, and is arguably pertinent in that regard. Given that it also adds to the aesthetics of the article by breaking up what would otherwise be a lengthy block of text, I suggest keep for this file as well. -Jhw57 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wishes of the copyright holder of a non-free image are not really relevant when it comes to the file's usage and Ms. Hald's permission is not needed unless she wishes to release the file under a free license compatible for Wikipedia. If it's possible to find sourced discussion the interior, then consider adding it to the article because that would strengthen the contextual connection between article content and image which is required by NFCC#8. Otherwise, you basically have a photo of the interior which is pretty much just shows some seats and stage that does not need to be seen by the reader to understand any of the article content and which would be pretty much indistinguishable to most readers from the layout of a similar concert venue.

As for the poster art, simply because Led Zeppelin played there does not make it pertinent to the article anymore than adding concert posters for all the bands who played there would be pertinent. Using a non-free image for aesthetic reasons basically implies decorative use, which is something that is not really allowed by the NFCC. If the main reason for using the image is just to break up a lengthy block of text, then any relevant freely licensed image could be used to do that or the text could be broken up without using an image at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 07:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhw57, have you contacted Suzzy Hald about releasing the photo under a free use license? That would resolve the issue here (see Wikipedia:Consent). As for the poster, I agree that there's currently no contextual justification for the non-free image. czar 07:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not, but I will. Easy enough to do since she (or someone) edited the media file page to put her email address on it. -Jhw57 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhw57, any news? czar 04:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I just reached out. I'll report back when I hear from her. -Jhw57 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I heard from Suzzy Hald -- she indicated she was willing to upload the photo herself, but wanted to make sure she would retain her rights. I told that she would and was granting a non-exclusive license, but referred her to this discussion and WP:CONSENT and WP:CC BY-SA to better understand. I also gave her to the link to the new release generator at Commons:COM:ET. -Jhw57 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: The image has been released under a free use license, and that version is now being used in the article. -Jhw57 (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 17:02, 25 January 2017 (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:Hitler Decorations.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: relisted on 2017 May 28. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hitler Decorations.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Musa khan at school.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly has US copyright restored by the URAA (if it was out of copyright at that time). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:26, 25 January 2017 (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:Kazuma Kiryu in Yakuza Zero.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: Deleted both as failing NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a. If someone wants the suited image in the infobox they can be swapped - I leave this as an editorial decision - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These two images fail Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 (no contextual significance). The article Kazuma Kiryu already has a single fair use (infobox) image to identify the subject. The other fair use images need textual justification—such that their removal would be a detriment to the reader's understanding of the topic. We don't need additional visualizations of the character apropos of nothing. If the full-body shot is important for identifying the subject, use it in the infobox instead of the other image. czar 19:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe image with the razor is there to signify that Kazuma Kiryu has been recognized in pop culture within Japan and that they used the character for promotion. That doesn't happen often for video game characters and it highlights his prominence in my opinion. Also the other image is supposed to be a full body shot to show how the character dresses generally, I think it does enhance the article as the current image of his face doesn't do that - although that image is important as well since it is the most recent (Yakuza 6).

Keep the one from the razor considering the impact it has on the character. The other image, in the other hand, is debatable because de could a full shot of the characters body in yakza 0 or 6 so se could remove one.Tintor2 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using ga Cloud Strife and FA Lightning Final Fantasy as examples. Both use their first appearence as well as full shots as examples. Other nonfree images used in the article come with good reasons. Therefore, I suggest using the first image of Kiryu in the infobox.Tintor2 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the topic can be understood without the fair use images (that their removal would be detrimental to the reader's understanding). It's hard to argue that the point of the razor image cannot be conveyed without the image—if the point is that the character was used in promotion, it can be explained in text. The non-free content criteria exists to keep fair use image use to a minimum. I wouldn't use those other articles as metrics, as they also need paring. If you want to swap the infobox and full-body images (deleting the non-infobox image), that would make sense to me. czar 18:24, 26 January 2017 (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:Nathan Drake Uncharted.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 (contextual significance): This image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". The nature of the character's shirt color and type of tuck is perfectly understandable from the prose alone, and if an illustration of the tuck was necessary (though it is not), a free use alternative could easily be made. This image might fit better in the infobox than its current fair use image. czar 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe main image does not easily illustrate how the character typically dresses. Take Kratos (God of War) for example, the main image is the most current but scrolling down the page there is a full body image to show the readers how the character typically dresses. This in my opinion enhances the page, there's no harm in keeping them and I don't understand the urgency in their removal. Osh33m (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Osh33m, see the NFCC#8 link from the nom czar 18:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move it to the top and remove the one from the infobox. I dont know toó much about Uncharted but I think the full shot is easier to recognize. Then delete the uncharted 4 image unless there is commentary info about it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the best solution, so I've made the switch czar 18:11, 26 January 2017 (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:National Cycling Centre 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: image in use czar 01:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused non-free logo The Banner talk 20:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion. This kind of issue depends on the article's consensus: it shouldn't be deleted as long as it's in use, but it can be deleted via {{orfud}} if it remains unused for a few days. Given WP:CSD's prohibition of most types of speedy deletions for pages that have survived XFD discussions, this FFD could be seen as setting a precedent (whether for this specific image, or for orphaned images in general) that it shouldn't be setting. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner left a note at my talk, asking about my meaning, but I think it's better to reply here. This image does have an article (National Cycling Centre) from which it's currently absent; among other things, the image gets deleted faster if you tag it with orfud than if you bring it here. I'm unaware of the image being discussed before. Could you explain why you asked that, since I don't see anything in my words that would lead to such an idea? Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2017 (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:CITY OF BALLAARAT at Southern Cross Stn.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appeared to be uploaded to ask one personal question in 2012. Not needed further on enwiki, not in-scope on Commons. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:51, 25 January 2017 (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:KelisiattheTaj2010.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 czar 01:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader depicted in photograph. Dubious own work claim. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of tripods and delayed shutters? Case closed. Kelisi (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelisi, would you please update your image(s) to clarify this, then? czar 18:11, 26 January 2017 (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.