Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 24

< August 23	August 25 >

August 24

File:Dick Sargent.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 as F5 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this image is not needed because their are free images available in commons Dman41689 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the publicity shots on Commons are from 1971, that's less than 50 years from original publication -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One of them is also clearly a still taken from a screenshot (film) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2013 (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:Dick York headshot.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 as F5 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

file not needed because their are free images available in commons Dman41689 (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the publicity shots on Commons are from 1968, that's less than 50 years from original publication. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One of them is also clearly a still taken from a screenshot (film) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2013 (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:Viewfromthecenteroftheuniverse.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan St seamus mulligan (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2013 (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:Leesville Lake (Ohio) Recreation Map.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

orphan Roseohioresident (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2013 (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:French Grant in Ohio.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

orphan Roseohioresident (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Moved to Commons.--Rockfang (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Confirmed moved. There's no need to keep the local version anymore that I see. —Willscrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta ) 05:50, 11 September 2013 (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:Sandy Valley High Ohio001.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

orphan Roseohioresident (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2013 (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:BNL BigBang.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: no consensus to delete. I suggest the editors take a 6 month break from discussing this again, as 6 weeks of back and forth over a small image that no-one else seems interested in !voting on isn't really helping build a better wiki.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is itself not subject of discussion. Yes, it is the front cover of the single, the theme song of The Big Bang Theory. However, I'm sure that the cover is unneeded, unless the song itself becomes a topic of a stand-alone article. I tried free image of the band who sings the song, but someone else reverted it. George Ho (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As was explained to George, the title of The Big Bang Theory's theme song has been the subject of debate in the past. The two citations and the image are used to confirm the title of the song is The Big Bang Theory theme and not "History of Everything" as claimed by various sources and fan wikis. The constant edit-wars over the title didn't stop until both citations and the image were in place and removal of the image, which is the only visible confirmation of the title in the article, is likely to reignite that debate based on past history. Contrary to George's claim, the image is the subject of commentary, in the section in which it is included, which is titled "Theme song". The image that was used to replace this image is a generic, and not very good, image of the band, which does not aid the reader in identifying the theme song's title. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said "subject of commentary", I should mean something like Mona Lisa. Discussion of artwork must be sourced and substantial, like Like a Prayer (song) artworks. This article mentions neither the cover art nor its significance. And its topic is the sitcom. --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the passage that mentions the titling of the song is not a sufficient reason to keep this article. A reader can already understand the titling passage without this image. --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is not about the theme song, so commentary such as you would find in Mona Lisa is inappropriate. The image's use, as I've indicated, is to confirm the song's title. "This article mentions neither the cover art nor its significance" is incorrect, the article quite specifically comments on the artwork. Similarly, "A reader can already understand the titling passage without this image" is incorrect. The past edit-wars that I've mentioned clearly demonstrate that readers haven't understood the passage. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant to say: there is no text passage about stars and the bright core design, indicated in the cover art. "the cover art for the single identifies the title as Big Bang Theory Theme" is insufficient. Excerpt from "Mona Lisa" article: "Her folded hands form the front corner of the pyramid. Her breast, neck and face glow in the same light that models her hands." Also, The_X-Files#Opening_sequence explains visual details of the opening sequence. --George Ho (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mona Lisa is a 3,636 word article about the painting as a work of art. The Big Bang Theory is 8,777 words about a television show, of which only 185 words are about the theme song. The "stars and the bright core design" are not relevant to using the image to demonstrate that the theme song title is "Big Bang Theory Theme", not "History of Everything". The cover art itself does that, in a way that the text alone cannot, as demonstrated by the previous edit wars. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Those previous wars may indicate either misintepretation, misuse, or neglect of WP:NFCC. Those editors may not know how essential this policy is, no matter what reason the image must be kept. The fact that the image is removed and added back is irrelevant. As indicated, this image is too extraneous and unnecessary (#3a) and fails to be significant in many ways (#8; even WP:NFCI#cite_note-2 says that an image of the work that is not the main subject is not acceptable). It is a mere cover art whose design is not significantly covered by sources. --George Ho (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        People who were editing the article at the time were quite aware of WP:NFCC. The image was not "removed and added back", that is not what has been said at all. The Big Bang Theory is the main article for the song, although there have been attempts to create a dedicated page.[1] The song was originally just mentioned in the article, but was given a separate section because of its significance. I'm quite sure that if somebody wanted to, they could easily create a dedicated article as the song has been the subject of coverage in reliable, third party sources. WP:NFCI#cite_note-2 does not say that "an image of the work that is not the main subject is not acceptable" It says "The same rationale does not usually apply" and "the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article", which is significantly different to "not acceptable". As I indicated, the section on the theme song is a mere 185 words, of which the cover art discussion constitutes 13.5% in such a way that adequately demonstrates its significance. It significantly enhances the readers understanding that the title is "Big Bang Theory Theme" and the edit-wars prior to it being added in 2010 demonstrates that "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced why else it must be kept. The titling in the cover art is only mention; the font of the title, the stars, some nebulus with rings, etc... You need to find other sources that mention the cover art itself. Otherwise, I still see this image as redundant, even if it was meant as merely a branding package and a marketing strategy. As for the 13.5% thing, that could equate to 20 to 30 words. Actually, the cover art constitutes just 14 words; titling is mentioned only. --George Ho (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The titling of the cover art is the significant point. You are welcome to expand with descriptions of stars etc, but it's really trivial in the article. The entire sentence is relevant to the cover-art, not just the phrase that you've cherry-picked. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is titling significant enough to keep the image of a subtopic whose notability is insufficient enough to guarantee a stand-alone article? As I said, I can understand which title the cover art chooses without this image, and the text about the song titling already exists, implying that the image may fail either "contextual significance" or "no free equivalent" criterion. --George Ho (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC does not preclude the use of non-free media in such situations. All articles contain content that is not notable enough for a standalone article; such content forms part of an article that is about a notable subject and that is the case here. The cast section of an article may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article but that doesn't stop the inclusion of a cast photo. While you may be able to understand the titling, you are just one reader. History has shown this is not the case with many readers, as has been explained at length. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is so significant about this images besides helping readers locate the image itself and identifying the product in question? As for cast photos, how are they not essentially different from singles covers? And how would omission affect the quality, aside from history log? --George Ho (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"What is so significant about this images" - I've already explained this at length in my very first post here,[2] as well as at Talk:The Big Bang Theory#Delete File:BNL BigBang.jpg?. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just explained that the titling wouldn't be understood without the image and that edit warring may indicate the image's significance. But I haven't heard why else the image must stay in Wikipedia. Ah well, what's the use of changing your side? Perhaps, since the article mentions interpretations of lyrics, you can replace this image with the audio sample of theme song? --George Ho (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the main reason, and a very significant reason, for its retention. Of course it also serves to identify the single but its main use here is visible confirmation of the title, which was subject to edit-warring before the image was added, and hasn't been since. An audio sample is, just like the image of band members that you used previously, not a suitable replacement because it doesn't confirm the episode's title. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is irrelevant and may prejudice readers into keeping the image without adequate reasoning. The matter is the image's ability to help readers understand the song. As is, the cover is too decorative and, as the song is not the main topic, irrelevant to the song. --George Ho (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is very relevant here. The fact that there was edit warring before the image's addition and not since then clearly demonstrates that its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic (in this case the topic is the theme song), and its omission was detrimental to that understanding. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image was uploaded in 17 November 2010. Looking through old revisions: the one from 31 December 2011 didn't say much about titling. 17 November 2010 revision didn't have an image, but the theme song was already understood without the image. January 2012 revision didn't mention titling, and neither did prior revisions beforehand. Logs of November 2010 do not indicate edit warring on the song. Say, when did editors add in the song title? When did edit warring on the song occur? --George Ho (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the claims you've made here would be WP:SYNTH if we added them to articles. "17 November 2010 revision didn't have an image, but the theme song was already understood without the image" is one such claim. Prior to then there were several cases of the title being changed to "History of Everything" demonstrating that it was most definitely NOT "already understood without the image", even when we included citations. The image now serves serves several purposes, drawing attention to the section and demonstrating that the title is not "History of Everything" being two of them. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would an average reader not fully grasp what the passage says without the image? By the way, what year and month did THAT occur? --George Ho (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although they should, readers don't seem to bother checking citations unless they have a specific reason to do so. We see this all the time. Even though something is clearly cited, edits are often made that are contradicted by an obvious citation or note. That's what happened with The Big Bang Theory title theme. It didn't happen in any single month, changing the title happened over a long period of time after I first edited the article in May 2009 and probably happened before then. IPs don't tend to provide accurate edit summaries and during that time alone there were over 2,000 edits to the article before the image was added so it's hard to find specific edits that demonstrate this. However, since the image was added nearly 3 years ago, there have been only 1 or 2 changes that have needed to be reverted, despite there being around 4,700 edits to the article. Clearly, the image is having an effect. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting the image for reducing edit wars over titling? I'd say that improved research skills and context enhancement were related to that effect. With text describing what the cover art says, I would expect that scrupulous/disruptive editors won't erase valuable text just to keep the less-than-significant image. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The changes didn't stop until after the image was added, no matter what "context enhancement" we included. There's a clear correlation, demonstrated by numerous edits in the 2,000+ edits prior to addition of the image and only 1 or 2 changes in the 4,700 edits since. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who added the cover art title and alternative title then? Oh wait, too hard to research... Well, WP:NFCC#1 explains that an image must be irreplaceable by free content. Guess what? We have a free context about titling already. Quote: ["Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.] WP:NFCC#8 says that an image must increase significance. Guess what? If a troublemaker deletes that valuable text, that editor would be warned (and in big trouble if that person repeatedly does the same thing). And semi-protection (or "pending changes") would be adequate if a person sockpuppets or too many edits try to ruin the valuable text. And an image is too excessive, failing #3a. Why should an image prevent warring if protection isn't enough? The policy doesn't list protection or prevention as a criterion for non-free content. Unless WP:IAR is used to justify prevention of edit warring, WP:NFCC can triumph the image's failure to meet these criteria. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no free alternative to the cover-art. It's a copyrighted work and the free image that you previously added (an unrelated photo of the band) does not serve the same purpose. Your claim about trouble makers deleting "that valuable text" is irrelevant. The text that has been changed has typically been just the song title and warning editors doesn't stop it happening. The changes typically don't warrant semi-protection or pending changes protection as it was n't something that was persistent, just common enough to make it a right royal pain for the editors who had to fix the problems. NFCC:3a says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and since we're only using one item here to identify the song title, it doesn't apply. "Why should an image prevent warring if protection isn't enough?" I'd say it's probably because it's a clear visual indication that "History of Everything" is not the title. Really George, I don't think we're getting anywhere here. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:12, 4 October 2013 (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:Big Bird - Library of Congress, Living Legends, Award & Honors, 2000.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 – Quadell ^(talk) 17:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence, that LoC is the author, as claimed. LoC actually notes under "Legal", that most content in their archives is still in the original authors' copyright. GermanJoe (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a non-free fair-use file for articles it is being used in. Also put fair-use rationales for articles that use the picture. 和DITOREtails 20:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, another image File:Michelle_Obama_with_Big_Bird.jpg (White House PR photo) is available as free alternative (NFCC #1). GermanJoe (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The file is properly attributed to the Library of Congress, as the link to the LoC webpage indicates. Where there is a potential copyright issue, the Library of Congress includes that info and attributes the copyright source. In the absence of source attribution, LoC material, as a federal agency, is deemed safe for fair use. X4n6 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - here is the actual statement of the LoC: [[3]]. They do not claim to own copyright to all their collections, nor do they claim to even know the copyrights of all their content. "As a publicly supported institution, the Library generally does not own rights in its collections." and "It is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections.". The default for all media is "copyrighted", unless specifically noted (or an obvious government work or old work). GermanJoe (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2013 (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:Internet Explorer 3.0 banner.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: Deleted the gif; please use the far superior png. They are both PD-text / PD shape. Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A free alternative available at File:Internet Explorer 3 logo and wordmark.png. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wouldn't this be also free, if the PNG is free? The PNG has a PD-ineligible claim, which would make this visually the same except scaled smaller image also PD-ineligible. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the PNG file is mislabeled. It contains more then simple text or simple geo shapes, it contains a copyrighted logo, which is far from a simple geometric shape. I think both should be deleted for copyright. Caffeyw (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the PNG is mislabelled, then there is no free alternative. If the PNG is not mislabelled, then this GIF is also free... -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "free" replacement commons:File:Internet Explorer 3 logo and wordmark.png has been deleted as a copyright violation -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep. Fair historic use in Internet Explorer; the FUR appears to now be sound since the Commons version was deleted. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete. Commons image restored firmly in place. Thank you Codename Lisa and Redrose64 for your responses below. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi. User:INeverCry kindly undeleted the file on Commons. Thanks, INeverCry. So, back to the nomination... Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a conversation somewhere that explains this unusual turn of events? The Commons .png is still much more than geo shapes, it is a presumably copyrighted image with words and the IE logo, and it contains the trademark, Microsoft^®, so it is even more than just a trademark, isn't it? A pointer to a discussion that sheds light on all this would be of great help. What I really want to know is how we can be sure that the Commons .png won't again be deleted down the road as a copyvio? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi. Yes, there is: Commons:Threshold of originality and Commons:Trademarks. I can give you the bullet points: Calligraphy and simple shapes, or a simple combination of the two that lacks authorship, is not eligible for copyright protection. Trademark laws are separate from copyright laws; therefore, the image is copyright-wise free. With {{PD-Textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} present on image, it fits the bill for getting kept both on English Wikipedia and on Commons. Commons already hold thousands of such images.

The situation is so crystal-clear that I was surprised it was deleted in this first place. That said, I have saved a local copy of the file for the rainy days. If worse came to worst, Wikipedia even accepts non-free images. I'll just upload it under a FUR. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the history and here's the log. Notice the partial summary "temp restore for transfer". I suggest you ask INeverCry (talk · contribs), possibly at commons:User talk:INeverCry. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have asked. See :Commons:User talk:INeverCry § File:Internet Explorer 3 logo and wordmark.png. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2013 (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:Mouna Raagam Audio CD.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 as G3 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

appears like a fake image Kailash29792 (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2013 (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:Sw-horz-w3c.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; the copyright holder has licensed their svg files for non-commercial use only, so the image should not be on the Commons. Diannaa (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File now available on Commons at File:W3C Semantic Web Logo.svg. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a discussion at WT:FFD about rasters being replaced by vectors and deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2013 (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:Frederik van Zyl Slabbert00.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; Beeld is a daily newspaper, not a press agency. Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced to Beeld implying WP:NFC#UUI §7 violation. Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that use of the image by the newspaper "Die Beeld" implies that its source is 'a press or photo agency'. Paul venter (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2013 (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.

Catwoman

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: Section moved to a different venue. I assume that it is non-controversial to close the section here. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has 12 images. The only free one is File:Julie Newmar Catwoman Batman 1966.JPG. I don't know if we should list them all in this section or just the questionable ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that many or all of the images should be deleted? Could you specify what this nomination is about? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bother to read through all the text. It just seems like far to many non-free images for one article. There is one showing the costume and the same costume is also shown in the movie poster. There is a 'first appearance' comic page that could either be cropped to one frame or removed. Some images show the various actresses but not all of them. I think File:Eartha Kitt Catwoman Batman 1967.JPG was the main actress in many episodes and her free image isn't even included.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you need to be more specific about the problems. What you write seems to indicate problems with WP:NFCC compliance in the article, but the article is WP:TOOLONG, so I haven't read it. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close this is an issue for WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done here. Moved to there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2013 (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:Truro College Rugby team at Sanix 2010.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 as F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2013 (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.