Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 22

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22

Cheap Trick cover version cover art

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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art for Cheap Trick cover versions of the songs Ain't That a Shame and Don't Be Cruel. Each file has a non-free use rationale, but neither usage seems to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The files are not being used in the main infobox of either song's article, so they're not needed as the primary means of identification per WP:NFC#cite note-2; in addition, each cover art itself is not the subject of any sourced discussion in its respective article so the context required by NFCC#8 is lacking. The Cheap Trick versions are just one of many cover versions mentioned in each article, and the cover art does not need to be seen for the reader to understand what is written. I could see how using these files would satisfy WP:NFCC in stand-alone articles about each version, but not as a (small) part of the main article about the songs themselves. Suggest delete for both, unless the NFCC#8 concerns can be addressed in a way that satisfied NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 22 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:Cheap Trick Lap of Luxury Let Go 1988.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 Let Go (Cheap Trick song). — ξ ^xplicit 06:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art being used in the album Lap of Luxury and the single Let Go (Cheap Trick song). According to this Rolling Stone review cited as a source in the album's article, this does seems to be the cover art for the album, so it's usage seems to satisfy WP:NFCC for "Lap of Luxury". Usage in the single's article, however, is not clear since no valid source is given and usage does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite note-2). So, suggest keep for "Lap of Luxury" and remove from "Let's Go (Cheap Trick song)", unless it can be shown that this is also the cover art for the single as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 22 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:Cheap Trick Busted album 1990 Back 'n Blue.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 Back 'n Blue. — ξ ^xplicit 06:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art being used in the album Busted (Cheap Trick album) and the single Back 'n Blue. According to this Rolling Stone review cited as a source in the album's article, this does seems to be the cover art for the album, so it's usage seems to satisfy WP:NFCC for "Busted (Cheap Trick album)". Usage in the single's article, however, is not clear since no valid source is given and usage does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite note-2). So, suggest keep for "Busted (Cheap Trick album)" and remove from "Back 'n Blue", unless it can be shown that this is also the cover art for the single as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 22 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:Meiki.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 ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused private image, no encyclopedic value FASTILY 04:11, 22 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.

Cocteau Twins Blue Bell Knoll

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 the first file. — ξ ^xplicit 06:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art being used in Blue Bell Knoll. Each file has a non-free use rationale, but I don't think the CD sleeve file satisfies WP:NFCC#3a or WP:NFCC#8. The CD sleeve is basically the same image as the album cover and no new information is really being provided to the reader, so both files are not needed per NFCC#3a; moreover, the sleeve itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so the context required by NFCC#8 is lacking. Suggest keep for "File:CocteauTwins.BlueBellKnoll.lp.jpg" since this seems the be the album's cover art according to www.allmusic.com/album/blue-bell-knoll-mw0000197517 and delete for "File:CocteauTwins.BlueBellKnoll.cd.jpg". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 22 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:Green Day - I Fought the Law cover.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 ⚡ 08:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art for Green Day's cover version of the song I Fought the Law. File has a non-free use rationale, but I don't think this kind of usage is allowed per WP:NFC#cite note-2. The cover art itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. In addition, Green Day is one of about 40 other artists just mentioned by name in I Fought the Law#Other versions and simply adding an infobox does not seem to be sufficient justification for using a non-free image. I could see using this file in a stand-alone article about this particular version, but not in a decorative manner such as this. Suggest delete, unless the non-free usage issues can be sufficiently addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 22 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:Seahawksstaduim2002clip.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 ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-res crop of File:Seahawksstadium2002.jpg FASTILY 09:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: I'll transfer it to Commons. MB298 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seahawksstaduim2002clip.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 24 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:GarrettHerrin091708BrunswickNewsArticle.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 ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image, no foreseeable encyclopedic value FASTILY 09:11, 22 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:Congratulations Obama-Biden.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 ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image, no foreseeable encyclopedic value FASTILY 09:11, 22 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:Mlcad screenshot.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 ⚡ 08:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proprietary software screenshot. The uploader cannot release it into the public domain. Wcam (talk) 18:05, 22 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:Twa-529-linkage.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that commons:File:Twa-529-linkage.png is now correctly spelled, the local copy should either be deleted or moved elsewhere to resolve the shadowing issue - asking for commentary on which action to do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only difference between the local file and the commons file is the style of the text. Other than that, they are duplicates that serve the same purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 16:49, 30 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:The College of Law logo.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: Keep (non-admin closure). The file is back in use, therefore the reason for nominating the file has been addressed. Cloudbound (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo. Cloudbound (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – Per nominator. Obsolete logo that don't really have a place in the University of Law article. CT Cooper · talk 22:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's now used in the article, I have no objections to keeping it. CT Cooper · talk 23:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've transferred to Commons and inserted into article as old logo. MB298 (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Oops - mistake on my part. Delete. MB298 (talk) 03:23, 24 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.