Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 September 29

< September 28	September 30 >

September 29

File:Dexigner logo.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete Dexigner_logo.svg Leventozler (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2015 (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:Angels Cry Screenshot.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no presumption in favour of non-free music video screenshots in song articles. I can't see any reason that we would need a screenshot of this video- this particular image doesn't seem to be adding anything in particular. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a screenshot which is of a small resolution size from the video on YouTube. I'm illustrating their collaboration together. What's wrong with it — Calvin999 08:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to patronise, but: There is no presumption in favour of non-free music video screenshots in song articles. I can't see any reason that we would need a screenshot of this video- this particular image doesn't seem to be adding anything in particular. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So all video screenshots are non-free? — Calvin999 08:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what's wrong with this one? That it doesn't have critical commentary? — Calvin999 08:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice said what the issue is. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not pass
WP:NFCC#8 and is easily describable by words. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:27, 2 October 2015 (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:On Liberty (John Stuart Mill book) first edition.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 ⚡ 07:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book was published in the 1850s, and is hardly obscure. There is no way we can justify a non-free image. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a more modern cover that was used for this article, that was removed by J Milburn, with an edit summary saying to use the original cover. In an effort to address those concerns, a file depicting a first edition copy was added. I don't think this photo of the book even meets the threshhold of originality, so a free license could potentially be appended to the file instead. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 03:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you use the frontispiece/title page from an early edition? We have both File:On Liberty (4th Edition).djvu and File:On Liberty (3rd edition).djvu, both of have pages which could be "extracted" for infobox use and which are definitely PD. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be "extracted". You only need to use the "page" parameter:

Or does the infobox template prevent you from using that parameter? --

Stefan2 (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, that's very useful. I've switched the image in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2015 (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.