Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 5

< December 4	December 6 >

December 5

File:Logo.android.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 as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this logo really copyrightable? It's just a few coloured circles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. The logo doesn't appear on the linked page, though, so we don't have any evidence that Microsoft actually uses this logo for the product in the first place. If it is a fictive logo, then it should not be used in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see a logo on that source page under "Cortana" but it has different colour - darker blue.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the source page is now this one.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:12, 5 December 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:Kayne lawton.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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 14:19, 5 December 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:Karlaamor.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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - personal photo of long-gone user. Kelly ^hi! 14:26, 5 December 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:KCCO old.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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused logo. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 5 December 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:Lauren DeStefano Portrait.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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to File:Lauren DeStefano Portrait.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 14:36, 5 December 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:LonLon.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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 14:40, 5 December 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:Love1234.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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 14:41, 5 December 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:Mickeythe great.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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 14:53, 5 December 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:Drawing of Stethacanthus altonensis, M.V.2830, first dorsal fin and spine. From LUND, R. (1974) Stethacanthus altonensis (Elasmobranchii) from the Bear Gulch Limestone of Montana.pdf

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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 because it is used in the Stethacanthidae article to talk about the dorsal fin of Stethacanthidae (for which free images could be created) and not to talk about the image itself or its publication. Hop on Bananas (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with File:Fossil of a complete Stethacanthid sp. skeleton. Akmonistion zangerli specimen HMV8246 of the Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow. Photograph taken by Dr. Keith Ingham, published in Coates & Sequeira (2001).gif (see its entry below). It's used to talk about the skeleton of Stethacanthidae and not the image itself or its publication. Hop on Bananas (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, complete skeletons of these species are apparently highly unusual, I am not sure if I would expect free images to exist.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dispute the entire basis of your nominations. There is no reason why the image (as an artistic work) would have to be discussed to meet NFCC, when the purpose of the image, its creation and its use here is to discuss the fossil and the animal. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFCC#3b as it is too large. It would also appear that drawings like this can be created by experts on the subject (in this case a professor), so the image seems to fail WP:NFCC#1 as a different professor could draw a replacement image. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 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:Nkd.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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 15:09, 5 December 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:Ohio State Fair Picture 2.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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, likely derivative of copyrighted artwork. Kelly ^hi! 15:14, 5 December 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:UCSD Seal.svg

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: keep in University of California, San Diego, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 23:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this counts as a government work (and thus {{PD-CAGov}}). If not, then it should be removed from UC San Diego School of Medicine and User:Denisebk per WP:NFCC#9, WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFC#UUI §17. Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hid on userpage per WP:NFCC#9 and removed from " UC San Diego School of Medicine" per WP:NFCC#10c. As to whether this qualifies for "PD-CAGov", UCSD is a public university in the University of California system. All 10 UC universities in the system fall the direct control of Regents of the University of California, a semi-autonomous body, so they are not directly under the control of the state government per se.
Just for reference, File:The University of California Davis.svg, File:The University of California Irvine.svg, File:The University of California UCLA.svg, File:The University of California 1868 Merced.svg, File:The University of California 1868 UCSF.svg, File:The University of California 1868 UCSC.svg and File:Seal of University of California, Berkeley.svg are all on Commons as {{PD-retouched-user}} not {{PD-CAGov}}, but the File:UC Riverside seal.svg, File:University of California, Santa Barbara logo.png as well as the UCSD seal file being discussed here are non-free. The Commons files appear to all be user created svgs so maybe that is why they are OK there, but it's hard to tell for sure where the UCSD seal comes from since no source is provided. It is used on this website, but the "digital millennium copyright act" section near the bottom of this webpage gives the impression that it protected by copyright. the University of California, Santa Barbara has similar language on its Restrictions On Use of Materials as does the University of California, Los Angeles at Use of the University's Names, Seals, and Trademarks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 8 December 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:UNLV Rebels 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: keep in UNLV Rebels, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 23:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This violates WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFC#UUI §17 and should only be used in UNLV Rebels. The file should be removed from the other pages containing the file. Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from the sandbox per NFCC#9. Seems fine for "UNLV Rebels" since that is the main article about the university's athletic teams, but not for the individual teams per No. 17 of NFC#UUI. The men's basketball team does use a logo specific to the team on both their official Twitter and Facebook pages which possibly may be used as a replacement. According to the men's soccer Twitter account, the team also has a specific logo which can be used instead. Football also uses its own logo on Facebook and Twitter. The other teams may also have their own branding on their respective social media pages, but if not then there is always the freely licensed File:UNLV Athletics Script Logo.png which can be used. -- 21:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs)
Keep, as this is the standard way of using a logo for an NCAA athletic team. See also File:CCTigers.svg, further down this same page. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a slight difference between this discussion and the other one you referenced in that there is a stand-alone article for the UNLV Rebels, while there isn't one for Colorado College Tigers. It's quite clear which article is the parent in the UNLV case, but not so clear in the Colorado College case. The logo is fine for UNLV Rebels, but, as Stefan2 points outs, WP:NFC#UUI#17 says that usage should be limited to the parent article. What matters on Wikipedia is whether the usage of the non-free image satisfies WP:NFCC, not how the NCAA or how other third-party websites may or may not use the logo. WP:NFCC#3 says that the use of non-free content should be minimized. A major organization such as a university is often made up of various departments or subdivisions and UUI#17 has been interpreted to mean that non-free usage of the organization's logo is minimized by limiting to the primary article. For example, the use of File:UNLVSeal.png is considered fine in UNLV since that is the parent article, but it would not really be considered acceptable per UUI#17 in UNLV School of Medicine, UNLV Graduate College, UNLV School of Dental Medicine, of any other article about one of the university's departments/subdivisions. This same reasoning is being applied to the Rebels logo and its use in individual team articles and is also why the logo is not being used in UNLV. Moreover, there are notes at the beginning of each of the individual team articles which say "For information on all University of Nevada, Las Vegas sports, see UNLV Rebels" or something similar which will take the reader to the article where the logo can be seen, so using it any more than that does not really seem to be in the spirit of minimal usage at all in my opinion. As I posted above, non-free logos specific to each individual team such as the ones used on social media pages, etc. or a freely licensed logo/wordmark may possibly be used in the articles instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every single NCAA team page utilizes the exact same format/usage as this family of articles does (i.e., Florida Gators football, Missouri Tigers men's basketball, Oregon State Beavers baseball). There are literally thousands of pages that are formatted exactly like this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've seen this for awhile now -- I think it's a damn shame that Wikipedia does this. Most, if not all, NCAA programs use their main logo to identify their teams. The wordmark for a team article is just plain stupid. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 02:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just want to add a link to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 15#File:Florida Gators logo.svg, a similar FFD discussion in which the close by admin CactusWriter supported usage of the Florida Gators logo in only the main article about the university's athletic teams. I do not see any reason why No. 17 of NFC#UUI should not be applied the same way here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 4 January 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:Planned Parenthood logo.svg

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: keep as fair use. — ξ ^xplicit 23:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying raster image likely qualifies as a {{PD-logo}}, but there might be copyrightable material in the svg markup. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – under "Fair Use" criteria. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fair use.Mattnad (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The logo seems to be {{PD-textlogo}}, but this is a vectorisation of a logo. When you convert a logo from pixel graphics, you are adding something, and this something is sometimes copyrightable. I can't tell if this is the case with this file, but if it is, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1 as someone else could create a different vectorisation of the same logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fair use. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:59, 6 January 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:Maserati logo.svg

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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use in Maserati in motorsport violates WP:NFCC#8 as this is not the logo of an entity 'Maserati in motorsport'. The use in User:WilliamF1two/F1 lineups violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 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:CCTigers.svg

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: Deleted - I find Marchjuly and Explicit's points compelling. Has anyone considered putting the fine image of Jaden Schwartz at the top rather than this logo, in the hockey article ? - Peripitus (Talk) 08:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the fair use rationale for Colorado College Tigers men's ice hockey, this is a logo for Colorado College Tigers men's ice hockey. However, according to the fair use rationale for Colorado College, this is instead a logo for Colorado College. One of the fair use rationales is obviously incorrect, meaning that the file currently violates WP:NFCC#10c in the article for which the fair use rationale is incorrect.

The source is very vague ('Colorado College') and therefore makes it impossible to verify which entity this logo belongs to (and thus in which rationale the rationale writer makes bogus statements). The file currently doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#10a in my opinion.

The picture additionally violates WP:NFCC#8 in Colorado College as there is a different logo in the infobox and as there is no sourced critical discussion about the logo in that article.

The picture additionally violates WP:NFCC#8 in Battle for Pikes Peak and Battle for the Gold Pan as there is no sourced critical discussion about the logo in those articles. Finally, the logo violates WP:NFCC#9 in User:Donallmac/sandbox. Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from usersandbox per NFCC#9. According to Colorado College Varsity Athletics, it looks like this is the logo for the school's various sports teams. Same logo is also used on CC Tiger Athletics Twitter and Facebook pages. If that is the case, then this would be ideally be best in an stand-alone article about the university's athletic teams as a whole, but no such article currently exists. Maybe the best place for it is in "Colorado College", but not sure. Don't think the usage should be allowed in the hockey team's article per No. 17 of NFC#UUI. Image should definitely not be used in "Battle for Pikes Peak" and "Battle for the Gold Pan" per WP:NFCC#8 and I've removed the image from those articles per WP:NFCC#10c. Is it possible to take the wordmark from this photo from the Athletic Department's Facebook page and turn it into a freely licensed "PD-logo"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the logo on the jersey of the hockey team. It most definitely meets the requirements of identifying the team so it should certainly be used on the ice hockey team page. It is possible for something to be the logo for two things, especially in the case of a college and their teams. I have no problem removing it from the two Battle pages. -DJSasso (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Djsasso, this is the standard way of using a logo for an NCAA athletic team. I also echo the end of Marchjuly's comment in the hope that someone will come along and extract the text-only wordmark for use in other places where the use of the copyright logo is not appropriate (i.e. the two "Battle" pages). Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just want to add a link to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 15#File:Florida Gators logo.svg, a similar FFD discussion in which the close by admin CactusWriter supported usage of the Florida Gators logo in only the main article about the university's athletic teams. I do not see any reason why No. 17 of NFC#UUI should not be applied the same way here. Logo could possibly be used in Colorado College if the subject of sourced commentary since there is currently no "Colorado College Tigers" article, but it should not be used in any individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usage in Colorado College does not enhance the understanding of the article nor would its removal be detrimental to that understanding, and usage of Colorado College Tigers men's ice hockey is a prime example of how this image violates point 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. — ξ ^xplicit 23:18, 27 January 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:Jazz Knights 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: remove from The United States Military Academy Band, West Point, New York (album). — ξ ^xplicit 23:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#8 in The United States Military Academy Band, West Point, New York (album) and violation of WP:NFCC#10c in The Jazz Knights. It might be a work of the United States Government, but I can't figure out the logo designer's employment status. Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 5 December 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:Victory of the Daleks.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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Victory of the Daleks as the image is not critically discussed in the article, and WP:NFCC#1 because text alone can describe that The Doctor (Doctor Who) is standing in front of five Daleks.

Fails WP:NFCC#9 in Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 June 9. Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hid image in Help Desk archive thread per WP:NFCC#9. Not too sure whether the non-free usage in "Victory of the Daleks" isn't OK because image is being used in the infobox to identify this particular episode so in can been seen as kind of "cover art". Non-free screenshots seem to be being used for the same purpose in other Dr. Who episode articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free screenshots are not equivalent to 'cover art' and are frequently deleted for violation of WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 8 December 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:CheckersRallysLogos.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 ⚡ 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned free image; File:Checkers logo.png & File:Rally's logo.png have replaced this image in the article. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 22:18, 5 December 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:Badboy.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: keep in Eric Fischl, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 23:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in 20th-century Western painting#Neo-expressionism, History of painting#Neo Expressionism and Western painting#Neo-expressionism as the painting is not critically discussed in these articles. Also technically violates WP:NFC#UUI §6 as it is enough to link to the article about the painter in order to find information about the painting. Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 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:Balthusnude.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: keep in Balthus, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 23:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in History of painting#Figurative, Landscape, Still-Life, Seascape, and Realism as the painting isn't discussed critically in the article. As in the above listing, it is enough to link to the article about the painter in order to see what his art style looks like. Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 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:Magicprism.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 as G10 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly unencyclopedic spam image that was uploaded only to vandalize PRISM (vandalism there has since been reverted.) Soren121 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 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.