Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 9

< December 8	December 10 >

December 9

File:Bsdgames-hunt.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 ⚡ 02:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this released under a BSD license? If so, it should be tagged as such and moved to Commons. czar 04:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This file was used on
talk, contribs) 01:59, 11 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:D'ni Alphabetical Order.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 ⚡ 12:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No potential educational use. Also not sure where simple language glyphs ends (PD text) and artistic license begins with fictional languages... czar 04:28, 9 December 2016 (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:David "Zoid" Kirsch.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 ⚡ 12:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need evidence that uploader is photographer/copyright holder to relicense this image. Not clear from minimal text. Doesn't help that the uploader only has two edits, both for this image and from 2007. czar 04:31, 9 December 2016 (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:DcVD.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No future educational use. Don't see such a logo (similar or exact) used on Dreamcast media. czar 04:37, 9 December 2016 (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:Verserk3.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 as

G5 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Even with a license this would violate

WP:NFCCP #8. Clearly not increasing the reader's understand of the article in any way. Majora (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Disagree. I think it will show perfectly what we are talking about and and the readers will like the image. Team61ROLL (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Readers "liking" an image means absolutely zero when it comes to copyright issues. That simply isn't how it works. --Majora (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2016 (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:Marios cement factory.gif

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 ⚡ 12:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The image was presumably taken by an owner of said site, although it's a copyrighted game, so that would probably put it under fair use." No evidence that the author has given permission to be distributed under this license. No fair use rationale, and none would apply here. czar 05:35, 9 December 2016 (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:IASS logo.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 ⚡ 11:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation: The IASS is owner of this image and it is protected by copyright, it was accidentally uploaded at Wikimedia Commons, because my uploading request was maybe not clear enough Sabine Iass (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2016 (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:Raga 2010 DVD.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 ⚡ 03:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are three media images used in the article

WP:NFCC#8 because there is no commentary about the cover thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film. Aspects (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

There is some commentary on the DVD image, under Reissue. Out of the two – 1971 film poster and 2010 DVD – the latter is more useful to readers, I believe, because the film had a very limited cinema release. But (and I've often wondered this): how come there's no "alternate cover" parameter in Infobox Film the way there is in Infobox Album? Both images would qualify if there were such a feature, since they have absolutely nothing in common. JG66 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is only commentary about the DVD itself that I mentioned above, there is no commentary about the DVD image itself in the release section as claimed or you would have mentioned what it was in your response. Aspects (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the purported "commentary" on the DVD cover is in fact explicatory text that merely describes the image and explains its origin rather than commenting on it in some significant way; moreover the image itself is not located in that section as policy requires. Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2016 (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

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 January 15#File:Hitler_Decorations.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.