Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 29

< August 28	August 30 >

August 29

File:Tal-seal.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually identical to Commons image File:Seal of Tallahassee, Florida.png, but this doesn't have a transparent background, so it's not F8 speedy deleteable. For some reason, the copyright tag was recently removed, but the Commons image is in the public domain, so this clearly is as well — the only reason for deleting it is that we don't need a version of this image with a white background when we also have one with a transparent background. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy it per common sense. If the only difference is transparency, it should still qualify for a speedy deletion, in my book.

Wha? 23:46, 29 August 2013 (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:Mario Impemba and Rod Allen on a Fox Sports Detroit telecast, 2012.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how any of the uses meet

WP:NFCC#1 in articles for the individuals shown in the screenshot, as there is no critical commentary in any of the articles. Mosmof (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2013 (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:Gundam-Century.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 Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

This is a non-free image that has been translated and redrawn. While the information itself is likely not copyrightable, the arrangement and presentation of it is. There are numerous other, less unique, methods of presenting a timeline that could be used without running into derivative works issues.

Wha? 23:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Revert to original NFCC criteria until a replacement can be made. The work is unlikely to meet the requirements as a derivative work as it stands. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do that. If an image is non-free but could, in theory, be replaced by a new free image, then we can't keep the non-free version, even as a temporary measure. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to fairuse JAPANESE version. The version currently found in the file is defective, as it cuts off the labels for several of the lines -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather use the original, which is challenged and asked to make this version, if anyone can make a version that contains the same information, I am happy with it. I see no reason to delete it, the reason given is just enough to support a redraw, which I currently have no tools to do. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any free licence and would violate
Stefan2 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This is a non-free derivative work, and a free replacement could be created if anyone thought it important enough to do so. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:51, 29 October 2013 (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.