Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 26

< March 25	March 27 >

March 26

File:Cherry Popscene.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 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 23#File:Cherry Popscene.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this image's presence in the article would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding therefore failing

WP:NFCCP #8. Uploader claims that it is being used to identify the subject of the article, the song, however we already have the cover art and a sound bite. Both of these items are also under fair use. The multiple fair use items on this page raises further issues with NFCCP #3a. Majora (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there! I'm the uploader of the file and I have to say that I strongly believe that the image really is important for the article. In the video of the song, the artist is most of the time playing tennis against herself, which the image tries to represent. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Does not meet NFCCP#8. Does not illustrate the song, illustrates the video - and the portion of the article that talks about the image is unreferenced and appears to be
Original Research. ★ Bigr Tex 02:42, 21 May 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:Brochosomes1.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already exists on Commons as an identical image by the same uploader as commons:File:Brochosomes1.jpg, but it apparently it's not the same file in terms of SHA-1 hash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The file here has several stages of improved versions uploaded, and the Commons file is newer still, so presumably it's the "best". DMacks (talk) 17:03, 27 March 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:MandyRoseWWE.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 ⚡ 06:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the

WP:NFC#UUI#1). Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 17:31, 26 March 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:Epoth Biosyth.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality (resolution and file-format). Replaced by File:Biosynthesis of epothilones A & B.png. User:Georginho also reports a factual error in the diagram itself: "Module 7 contains an MT domain (methyltransferase) instead of an ER one (enoylreductase)." DMacks (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and also File:Epoth Biosyth II.gif. DMacks (talk) 19:35, 26 March 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:HitchcockCameoToCatchAThief.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is used in

WP:NFCC#8 because there is no commentary about the screenshot thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the topic and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the topic. Aspects (talk) 20:02, 26 March 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:JYP Twice Logo Orange.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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there are free images of the band in the article/infobox, the logo's non-free use rationale is outdated. Most bands do not have a logo in the article, and I don't think it is necessary for Twice. (See

WP:BANDLOGO.) Random86 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Support deletion: When I uploaded this file, it was to represent the band until free-use images of the members/band were available. Now that they are, the file is no longer necessary. I say feel free to delete it. It's served its purpose. Katzenlibrary (talk) 15:27, 31 March 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:Stand up (The Triffids song).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: convert to {{

PD-ineligible-USOnly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 01:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Fairly sure that only coloured text is not

PD-ineligible-USOnly}}. It may also be renamed as it's shadowing a Commons redirect but that can wait. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Change license to {{
PD-text}}. Letters alone are not protected by copyright. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was relisted from Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 5#File:Stand up.jpg. (The file has been renamed since this discussion was initiated.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep marked as non-free. The random orange/brown splotches on the image near the right and top right seem to throw the image's uniqueness above the threshold of originality. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, these splotches don't appear to exist in other variations of that cover art. A ring shaped trace does show however, not certain that it's actually part of the cover though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That's the thing: With all of these variations, it's difficult to say. However, the current image has the distinct spots, and I recall that when I looked for this image via search engines two months ago, they all had those spots. My thought is that unless all of the colors in an image are solid and consist of only geometric shapes, the image is then unique and copyright-able. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 23 May 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.