Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 17

< August 16	August 18 >

August 17

File:Awesome page of awesome.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

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Awesome page of awesome.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E08-No-One.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image was added for use in the article No One (Game of Thrones), but when the same user nominated the page for GA status User:Miyagawa told them that the image needed to go because of its poor fair use rationale. AffeL complied initially, then a few minutes after the page was promoted logged into the sock account User:PeterD12 and readded the image. There was already "consensus" on the GAN to remove the image, even if one of the parties was lying (read:with the image in the article, the GAN was effectively null and void), so I have now reremoved the image. It is not currently used anywhere on the project, and this situation is unlikely to change. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This image was added back to the article with the slightly cryptic explanation that it had been nominated here. In any case, its use pretty clearly does not meet
NFCC#8. As a community, we've done a great job in recent years of cutting back the use of random screenshots in episode articles, and the general consensus is that while a single cover/poster image is acceptable in an article about a film, we do not need to use screenshots in episode articles (and I'm sad to see that GoT articles appear to be bucking that trend). Screenshots that are necessary for readers to understand the article are of course acceptable, but this certainly doesn't seem to be a case of that sort. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Huh. I was actually going to withdraw the above once I saw that the uploader had been notified that the file was a candidate for speedy deletion, but apparently speedy deletion is no longer on the table now that the image has been added back to the article. @

GAR?), I can't imagine why you would bother. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 21 August 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:Jabberjaws.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comic book cover is used in the Other appearances section of Jabberjaw accompanying the sentence "He also appeared in Hanna-Barbera Presents: Superstar Olympics (issue #6) published by Archie Comics in 1996 and Cartoon Network Presents (issue #23) published by DC Comics in 1999." The image has two fair use rationales. One states that the comic book cover is used "For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article.", but this is incorrect since the topic of the article is the television show and not the comic book and there is already the title card in the infobox identifying the television show. The second states the comic book cover is used "Illustration of a specific point within the article." which is half of a sentence. Readers do not need a comic book cover in an article to know that it exists since the text already states that.

The comic book cover fails

WP:NFCC#8 because there is no critical 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) 08:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. The comic book cover is to illustrate a point in the article covering the character's appearances outside the medium of television (in this case comicbooks) which is why its located in the "Other appearances" section. This upload not only illustrates this but will give readers a visual to see the character appearing in another form of media outside of its original medium hence the Illustration of a specific point within the article. That was the whole point of the upload. It was to give a visual on how the character has evolved past its original TV incarnation. So when it states For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article it does so by illustrating a point (or sub-topic) in the main article itself.Giantdevilfish (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the comic book cover does not have any real discussion about in the article that would be sufficient to meet
WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the appearance of the character is substantially similar to show character and as such the claim to provide a visual, which itself is not sufficient, becomes even weaker. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 17 August 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:Grapeape.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comic book cover is used in the Other appearances section of The Great Grape Ape Show accompanying the sentence "Grape Ape had his own short-lived comic book series called The Great Grape Ape that ran 2 issues in September and November 1976 published by Charlton Comics." The image has two fair use rationales. One states that the comic book cover is used "For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article.", but this is incorrect since the topic of the article is the television show and not the comic book and there is already the title card in the infobox identifying the television show. The second states the comic book cover is used "Illustration of a specific point within the article." which is one sentence. Readers do not need a comic book cover in an article to know that it exists since the text already states that.

The comic book cover fails

WP:NFCC#8 because there is no critical 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) 08:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. The comic book cover is to illustrate a point in the article covering the character's appearances outside the medium of television (in this case comicbooks) which is why its located in the "Other appearances" section. This upload not only illustrates this but will give readers a visual to see the character appearing in another form of media outside of its original medium hence the Illustration of a specific point within the article. That was the whole point of the upload. It was to give a visual on how the character has evolved past its original TV incarnation. So when it states For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article it does so by illustrating a point (or sub-topic) in the main article itself.Giantdevilfish (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the comic book cover does not have any real discussion about in the article that would be sufficient to meet
WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, the appearance of the character is substantially similar to show character and as such the claim to provide a visual, which itself is not sufficient, becomes even weaker. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 17 August 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:ManilaPeninsula PressConference.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of img suggests it is likely a screenshot from a newscast, but file description (falsely) claims it is a free img (to the extent of my knowledge screenshots and/or visual content of Philippines newscasts are always copyright and not freely licenced nor in public domain). JWilz12345 (talk) 12:22, 17 August 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:CheneyClowDescendantscelebrating67anniversary.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photo of a newspaper article used in

WP:NFCC#1. The fact that one of the descendants was married 67 years is adequately described with text and does not require a non-free image of a newspaper article to understand that. Whpq (talk) 12:23, 17 August 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:Elsa Cladera de Bravo.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that this photography really is free. The rationale from the file page (Quote: "SINCE THE NEWSPAPER'S PUBLICATION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPHY WAS FOR OFFICIAL USE IT'S IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN") is wrong (not anything which was published for official use is in the public domain). XXN, 13:50, 17 August 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:Kimwani 200px.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously wrong license tag – Train2104 (t • c) 13:52, 17 August 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:Zirid map.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of a template map. Can we use the template itself instead? – Train2104 (t • c) 13:54, 17 August 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:Nessaea obrina Jari.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the permission for use is unverifiable :( XXN, 14:07, 17 August 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:Ellwood Family Cemetery.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

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Ellwood Family Cemetery.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Steven Reineke.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In source page was stated "Members of the media may download these high-resolution images for use in publication." But the license wasn't specified and we are not sure under which conditions is ok to publish and use this photo. XXN, 15:15, 17 August 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:AdinathDada(Vataman).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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (statue). Note that the image itself also appears to be a scan of another image (i.e. this is a derivative of a derivative work?!) FASTILY 23:33, 17 August 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:Divine encounters jain.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused in mainspace, low-res, missing verifiable source, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:34, 17 August 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:Soul Attracting Karma.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 ⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dubious self-work claim, numerous tineye hits FASTILY 23:36, 17 August 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.