Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 28

< March 27	March 29 >

March 28

File:CBS Sports 1988.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:33, 28 March 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:CBS Sports Logo 1990.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:33, 28 March 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:Palmeiras symbol - evolution.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, as these past logos aren't discussed in the article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:32, 28 March 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:Katrina Cravy Medium Headshot.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the file has an electronic tag saying that it is copyrighted Domdeparis (talk) 17:47, 28 March 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:Rami Malek.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

License at source is no-dreivatives. https://www.flickr.com/photos/disneyabc/29698633561/ Whpq (talk) 17:52, 28 March 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:Lauren Handel Zander Biography Photo.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader, User:JillBeauchesneAlban, is claiming to be the copyright holder, but the EXIF data shows that the photogrpaher and copyriught holder as Jordan Matter. WP:OTRS confirmation would be required. Whpq (talk) 22:09, 28 March 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:Smartface App Studio IDE and iOS&Android Emulator.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Querying replaceability. While the software interface itself is not replaceable, this individual photograph of the interface is, as anyone with access to the interface and a camera could take a similar picture. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 imo. You can barely see what's on the screens; this image does not enhance a user's understanding of the article text. -FASTILY 02:09, 5 April 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:Pixia 6.03c.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: remove the image within the image. Fastily, if you could, thanks. ℯ xplicit 04:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Querying status of image opened in the program. Is that image itself free? If not, this image should be replaced by an image which depicts a free image in the program, even if the aspects of the program interface depicted are non-free. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest erring on the side of caution, and excising it from the main image. Pretty easy to do, so ping me if you'd like it done. Regards, FASTILY 02:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily, easier to just blank the internal image at this point, methinks czar 07:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very unsure but no object to deletion(?) – The usage of the image is not the only issue. The article also has quality and notability issues as well. I searched for the topic from Google Books and Google News and Google Scholar. Also, I tried Bing News. Seems that I couldn't find a non-primary reliable source establishing the notability of Pixia itself. Also, the CNET review (good or bad) looks questionable as CNET, even when highly reputable, apparently is promoting the awareness of the software. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 5 June 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:1966 Topps Batman card.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly replaceable, so fails WP:NFCC#1. There are obviously instances of public domain non-sports trading cards. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a poor representation (no context to convey size) and easily replaced. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:12, 29 March 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:Chocolate Frog Card Harry Potter.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable, fails WP:NFCC#1. There exist public domain non-sports trading cards. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 - This image of a movie prop does not enhance reader understanding. Since it is not dissimilar from other trading cards (and is not an animation showing how the card is magically enhanced), it is adequately described by text alone. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 29 March 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:Marvel Sketch Cards.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable, fails WP:NFCC#1. There exist public domain non-sports trading cards. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article (unsourced), the type of card being shown has only been around since the 1990s. The examples given (also unsourced) all feature corporate characters, which are not in the public domain. Do you have an example of one that is in the public domain? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is not Marvel sketch trading cards. The subject is non-sports trading cards and as such we do not need to have a Marvel sketch trading card to provide the reader with an understanding of non-sports trading cards. As for its use to illustrate specifically to "what a sketch card looks like" as stated in the non-free use rationale, these sketch cards are essentially like any other trading card except the specific content type is an artist's sketch. If one absolutely must have such a card image in the article, File:ATC mvs 06255.jpg is a free image available on Commons which is a sketch card. As such, the use of the Marvel skect cards fail WP:NFCC#1, and really WP:NFCC#8 as well so delete -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Whpq on both points. I always list the "easiest" rationale in an FfD nomination, but WP:NFCC#8 applies to these as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Whpq. I've replaced the image in the article with the one you linked. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:53, 29 March 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:James Bond Autograph Card.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 ⚡ 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable, fails WP:NFCC#1. There exist public domain non-sports trading cards. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image is included in the article to represent an autographed card. Most if not all autographs will be from living persons who are famous for some type of copyrighted work. Do you have an example of an autographed card featuring the portrayal of a character in the public domain? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: One example is here. It's not a good example, but it satisfies requirements that a suitable free image could exist, which is all that is needed to have replaceability. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:52, 29 March 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:Sell sheet for Supernatural Season 3 cards.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 ⚡ 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable, fails WP:NFCC#1. There exist public domain non-sports trading cards. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13:, this image is not a trading card - it is promotional material for a trading card set. You nominated several images from the same article with a cut-and-paste rationale, so perhaps this was a mistake, but the lack of attention to detail makes me wonder how much consideration you actually gave to each image. Could you please provide an example of a sell sheet that is in the public domain and could be used as a replacement in this article? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: If this is not a form of trading card (and I am not at all familiar with this topic area), then it fails WP:NFCC#8. Seeing a sell sheet is not essential to the understanding of non-sports trading cards themselves. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I can agree with - this particular image doesn't even include the information the prose description says it should. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:56, 29 March 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:Walking Dead Costume Card.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 ⚡ 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable, fails WP:NFCC#1. There exist public domain non-sports trading cards. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image provides the article with an example of a "costume card". All examples of these cards given in the article (unsourced) are from copyrighted works created in the last 20 years. Please provide an example of a costume card in the public domain. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: WP:NFCC#8 is probably most relevant here, then. See here. Identification is fulfilled by a single non-sports trading card, as that is the subject of the article, not specifically costume cards. Alternatively, you could add a discussion of this specific costume card into the text of the article to meet significance. I don't believe the current text achieves it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFCC#1/WP:NFCC#8 – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:33, 12 April 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:ABC News Special Report Title Slide.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably replaceable via a "breaking news" card from a television report in the early 60s which was never renewed. Fails WP:NFCC#1 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:26, 28 March 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.