Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

January 24[edit]

File:Kanye West - Champions Cover.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: convert to PD-simple czar 22:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file is too simple to be copyrighted. It is just the text "No Artwork 3" and the Parental Advisory logo, which is PD as well. I don't know if the previous 1,200 × 1,200 px cover was the same, but if it was, it should be restored to replace this one. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-license to PD-simple, restore prior version and transfer to Commons. Salavat (talk) 11:43, 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:SaintpabloOGcover.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: convert to PD-simple czar 22:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Parental Advisory alone. Other than that, this is just a {{PD-simple}} and {{Trademarked}} image. If the previous 1,000 × 1,000px cover is the same, it should be restored to replace the current file. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-license to PD-simple, restore prior version and transfer to Commons. Salavat (talk) 11:43, 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:Poly-p-ux Rocket Snail.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEU. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:19, 24 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:Pooltimelydia.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEU. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:19, 24 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:Poom.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEU. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:19, 24 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:Prajyotsingh.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEU. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:33, 24 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:Princessjanaylocket.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEU. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:36, 24 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:Princesshilariafablonia1c.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEU. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:36, 24 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:1616 Winnie after rehab.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 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 February 1#File:1616_Winnie_after_rehab.jpg}}

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:TajMahalaudio.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:44, 24 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:ChangYi.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 22:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

portrait, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 08:52, 24 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 Lewis on the role of the Investigative Reporting Workshop.ogv[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: still needs permission, tag as F11 for one-week warning czar 22:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio/missing evidence of permission; source is cited as "It was produced in-house by the Investigative Reporting Workshop team." FASTILY 08:57, 24 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:Downtown by Petula Clark UK vinyl A-side.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: kept the now free-enough image, deleted the other - Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image can't be transferred to Commons due to the UK's low standards of originality. Also, the logo of "Pye Records" looks original enough to the UK. Therefore, the US copyright of this image shall be discussed instead. Shall the image be considered non-free or free only in the US? George Ho (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the image is of an EP-cover, not of a single-A-side, wrong picture for the article. Also: download from 45cat.com, see copyright http://www.45cat.com/45_terms.php E-Kartoffel (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether to keep as non-free or delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E-Kartoffel, look at the image history—the image being discussed is the LP's sticker, not the single's cover art that was uploaded atop it (which should have been uploaded separately). I agree with GH's precaution re: the Pye logo, so PD-USonly sounds good from this end. czar 18:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vinyl record as PD-USonly, delete secondary cover for Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 czar 22:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added File:Downtown UK EP by Petula Clark front cover.jpg as separate image. Reverted the image back to UK label. George Ho (talk) 02:37, 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:Largeinsomniacportal.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image likely designed for projectspace, unused, author hasn't responded at talk page for potential future use, no future educational use czar 18:43, 24 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:Onyx Nintendo DS Lite.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image description doesn't specify but the caption at Nintendo DS homebrew is "An Onyx Nintendo DS Lite running DS Organize on an M3 Simply Flash cart". So after some digging, DSOrganize was released under the GPL v3, but still this image is too blurry to be a useful illustration of anything for the article or for any future educational use. I would encourage someone to retake it. czar 18:57, 24 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:Srfx diecast f-type 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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of the toy alone would likely be okay, but the Hot Wheels logo here is non-free. Image would either have to be converted to fair use or deleted, and I don't think there is a workable rationale for the former. czar 20:26, 24 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:Iraq Football Association 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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i have never done this on wikipedia so im sorry if i am doing it wrong. the has been removed from the iraq national team page, youth team page, womens team page etc by a user called User:Marchjuly based on a consensus from a while back. i do not agree with the consensus reached. it was decided that the iraq national team is a child entity of the iraq football association and the logo got removed. when i asked marchjuly why he had not nominated logos like france, italy, netherlands, belgium and portugal logos, which using his logic should also be considered to go against the guidelines, he ignored me and he did not bother to nominate these logos i told him about. yet, when i put the iraq fa logo back on the iraq national team page, he instantly removes it. marchjuly has something against iraq and i dont know why. he should nominate other logos not just keep picking on iraq and not other pages like the ones i mentioned above. in my opinion, national teams and the FA does not have a child/parent relationship like in a business. the national teams use the fa logo and it is necessary for means of identification on the page. also im sorry if my ip address change a lot. if it change i will tell you if im the same person. thank you, i hope situation resolve quickly! so the iraq page can be like the other pages with no discriminations. 2A02:C7F:DC08:7E00:61F0:6609:A1C8:68B1 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the two previous FFD discussion related to this particular file's non-free use can be found at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 27#File:Iraq FA (logo).jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21#Iraq Football Association logos. In addition, discussion related to the February 27's close can be found at User talk:Explicit/Archive 25#Iraq Football Federation logos, and the discussion between me and the IP (or IPs) referred to above can be found at User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2017/January#iraq logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add some context to this issue. The application of WP:NFC#UUI #17 has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 103#User deleting national football team logos and at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17. In my opinion, there is clearly no parent/child relationship between an FA and a national team. An FA cannot exist without a national team, and a national team cannot exist without an FA. They are one and the same. The national team competes as the representative of the FA in football tournaments. It is not the same as the relationship between a global bank and its corporate banking arm, for example. Furthermore, #17 of the criteria says the logo shouldn't be used "when the child entity lacks their own branding". Clearly, national football teams do not lack their own branding. These logos appear on all their shirts, training jackets and memorabilia. They are the national team logos and national teams clearly do have branding. In my view #17 of the guideline applies to corporate businesses, which are completely different to national teams. Like the IP, I also have questioned Marchjuly in the past on why he/she has not nominated so many other logos when he/she knows full well that those logos also fail the guidelines too (for clarification I don't actually think they fail the guidelines but I'm applying Marchjuly's logic) but yet he/she makes sure that the Iraq logo is removed every time it's put on. However, that's a discussion for another day. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file's non-free use was discussed in two different FFD (links provided above) and the close for each of these discussions by the relevant administrator was that the file's use was accpetable for Iraq Football Association, but not in the individual team articles. You (=Hashim-afc) started to nominate this file for discussion again with this edit, but then for some unknown reason self-reverted here. The file was then nominated by 2A02:C7F:DC08:7E00:61F0:6609:A1C8:68B1, so here we are once again.

I removed the file from Iraq national football team because it was re-added by SPA IPs who appeared out of the blue awith no history of any editing on Wikipedia and who either (1) gave no reason for re-dding the logo (Special:Contributions/2a02:c7f:dc08:7e00:d103:43c4:1e2b:e3b7), (2) argued WP:OTHERIMAGE or WP:DELETEALL (Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:DC08:7E00:A541:A893:60DB:7CAE), and (3) argued WP:RIPPED (Special:Contributions/2a02:c7f:dc08:7e00:45cd:a783:6609:b2c3). None of the IPs who re-added the logo addressed the reasons why the FFD discussions were closed the way they were and none of them attempted to discuss things with the administrators who closed those discussions. For what it's worth, those closes were quite consistent with the way WP:NFC#UUI17 has been applied since Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, which was the first discussion regarding UUI#17 and this type of file use. They were also consistent with previous discussions related to UUI#17 and such logos such as Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#File:Lithuanian-Football-Federation-logo.png. So, if there is a problem with the way the the policy is being applied or not applied in certain cases, then that is a discussion for the policy's talk page WT:NFCC.

The same IP(s) also posted on my user talk page claiming discrimination among other things. Again, the fact that other similar images exist or have not yet been nominated by me or anyone else does not really change the closes of the previous FFD discussions about this particular logo. Casting aspersions on another editor and speculating on the reasons an edit is made like the IP(s) have done may even be considered a personal attack in certain cases. If the IP(s) feel I edited in manner that violates relevant policies or guidelines, then the place for them to discuss that is at WP:ANI and not to try and use edit warring to make that point. I have always used this one account and a diff can be found for any edit I've made on Wikipedia.

Having posted all of the above, I am aware of Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17 and even included a link to that discussion in one of my replies to the IP(s) and have encouraged them to discuss things here and here. I also realize that a consensus can change, so this is why I have not nominated other similar logos for discussion at FFD since that time. The first FFD discussion regarding this file's use was closed long before the aforementioned WT:NFCC discussion began and the second was closed before the WT:NFCC was archived as unresolved, so there has been no change in policy or interpretation to simply state that the FFD closes no longer apply. If the WT:NFCC discussion is restarted and a new consenus is established to this type of non-free use across the board, then I would respect that consensus and it can be retoractively applied. The WT:NFCC did touch on the possibility of allowing such use in the main men's and women's team article, and I am not opposed to that. I am not so sure however, about other team articles such as youth teams, reserve teams, futsal teams, etc. The same goes for this particular file's use being discussed here. If a new consensus is established here to allow it's use in such a way then I would respect that.

With respect to this particular file, however, I think IP 2A02:C7F:DC08:7E00:61F0:6609:A1C8:68B should clarify in which articles they feel the file should be used and how each particular use is justified per WP:NFCCP, and not simply state it's unfair or other stuff exists. I also think it would be helpful, though not required, for the IP to register for an account just to make it easier to keep track of whose posting and avoid any confusion. Account registration is not really a complicated process and doing so will actually allow the IP to remain more anonymous to other editors since geolocation is not as easy, while at the same time allow other editors to know for sure that the same account is being used throughout the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain status quo I closed one of the previous FFD discussions about this issue and was contacted by Marchjuly during the time when IP users were re-adding the image to Iraq national football team. If you read that article, you can see that at times the team has had a logo separate from the Iraq Football Association. During times where there is a separate image, it is reasonable to have the separate image on the team article; During times where the team uses the FA logo, a user wanting to see that logo can go to the FA page. It is difficult to draw lines on how we allow copyrighted images to be used, but this is one that we have drawn and I am not seeing movement to change that line at this time. I have not looked at the other articles in question, but would be willing to do so in my spare time in the next couple of months if someone chose to post links to the images on my talk page. ★ Bigr Tex 01:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more research, and I found this: "Per U.S. Circ. 38a., the following countries are not a participant in the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright with the United States: Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, the Seychelles, Somalia, Turkmenistan and Tuvalu. As such, works published by citizens of these countries in these countries are usually not subject to copyright protection outside of these countries. Hence, such works may be in the public domain in most other countries worldwide". That is from the template PD-Iraq. I think this applies to this Iraqi FA logo. Hashim-afc (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hashim-afc:, If you believe that this image qualifies under Commons:Template:PD-Iraq, then you could copy it to Commons and have the discussion there. If it is hosted as a public domain image at Commons, it can be used anywhere on the English Wikipedia. I don't see evidence that it would qualify under our {{PD-Iraq}} which doesn't include your quote. ★ Bigr Tex 01:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you my friend. This discussion can be closed now, admins. Hashim-afc (talk) 12:48, 13 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:PS1DualAnalogController.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo, as stated, yes, but was the author the photographer and copyright holder? No evidence as written, and there are other free use alternatives on Commons. czar 23:31, 24 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:Tony Hawk's Underground 2 Xbox.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The artistry is sufficiently original enough in this custom Xbox to make it eligible for copyright protection. I think it would either need a fair use rationale for the artwork or to be deleted. czar 23:35, 24 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:WhitegaponFFVIIpage.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image has no future educational use, is no longer in use for whatever it was originally supposed to illustrate, likely on a talk page. czar 23:37, 24 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:Twilight heroes.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, pd-simple logo but with no expected future educational use czar 23:41, 24 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:Thesegamaster.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unlicensed, copyrighted box artwork czar 23:45, 24 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:Swan crystal.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 ⚡ 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether the uploader is the copyright holder, also would need crop and by that point, would be beyond low-res and unuseful. czar 23:46, 24 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:TMEK-LeftBack2.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of arcade machine covered with artwork. Would need permission of artwork's copyright holder to release under a free license, or else would need a fair use rationale to use in the article. czar 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a low resolution angled partial shot of an obsolete video game, so could probably be allowed under fair use rationale. Could you please add that fair use rationale? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibjoe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The arcade cabinet is already (better) visualized in the article's first non-free image, your shot of the machine in profile (though it shouldn't have been moved to Commons). czar 00:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I appreciate the contribution, but we only need one fair use image of the cabinent. ★ Bigr Tex 01:06, 6 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.