Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 28

< June 27	June 29 >

June 28

File:Nancy Ajram Circus Moegaba 2006.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, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Used in the article about the singer to illustrate the fact that she appeared in Coca Cola ads. Fails to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 as the information is perfectly understandable as text, and the image itself is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. Whpq (talk) 00:36, 28 June 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:Fashionlook-c.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, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a poster with a fair use rationale that explained its use in 2008, but the text describing the advertising campaign that featured the poster is no longer present in the current version of the article. Even when present, it did not meet WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 02:31, 28 June 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:1971 Rupp Roadster 2 Ad.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, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially copyrighted/non-free, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Omni Flames FASTILY 10:30, 28 June 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:Madhesi Youth.jpeg

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 Ponyo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

organization logo, dubious self-work claim, likely non-free FASTILY 10:34, 28 June 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:Indian arts culture.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, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FOP for 3D works in the USA; derivative of non-free content FASTILY 10:44, 28 June 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:Rock Goddess young and free.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 July 6#File:Rock Goddess young and free.jpg. — ξ ^xplicit 01:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a, there is already another album cover in the infobox. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple covers are allowed when all of them are important for identification and are cited in the text. In this case, the cover in discussion is not the original album cover but the best known, thanks to the worldwide distribution of the CD edition. Lewismaster (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewismaster: I see, that makes sense. I'm not going to insist, I've just seen alternative album covers deleted before. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyuszika7H: The use of multiple covers has been controversial and no consensus was reached about it in more than one RfC. Identification and presence in the text are two parameters that could justify the presence of multiple covers, but not every editor would agree, hence the deletions you mentioned. Lewismaster (talk) 19:51, 29 June 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.