Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 28

< April 27	April 29 >

April 28

File:Hopper Rider.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. It's a narrow call, and I don't often go against Peripitus' good judgment, but there is a case to be made that the article's discussion of his characteristic role profile during that part of his career justifies an image like this (although it would be preferable to have more explicit commentary on it). I don't see the NFCC#8 issue as pressing enough that I'd feel comfortable overriding a clear numeric majority in this case, and since nobody else has been closing it for days I'll put it out of its misery. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally listed here, after closing Damiens.rf noted that the issue of NFCC#8 had not been addressed, as there is no discussion of the image in the article. Therefore I'm relisting here for further consideration. Skier Dude (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I'd think that the stated reason "Provide photo during peak career period" could be considered valid, certainly the other images of this guy are of him much older. I would say "add a line or two more of support text" but otherwise I'd err on keep this. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The tagger had a full week to respond to "keep" opinions explaining why this was not a "decorative" image. WP:NFCC#8 essentially requires "Contextual significance," which the image has in commentary throughout the bio. An entire paragraph of the lead discusses his role in that film. I also would like to know where a "discussion of the image" itself is required. This is a film screen shot portrait, and the image description is evident on its face. It is not necessary to include sourced commentary explaining why he wore a brown shirt and a mustache, I hope. In any case, it's always valuable to have an image of an actor during their main career years; this article had none.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk)
Delete - Wikiwatcher, I think you are odds with the consensus on images. All non-free images are required to significantly add to reader's understanding, above that which could be provided by free content (eg: the article's text or existing free images in the article). Article makes no mention of his appearance and after reading it I cannot see what significant understanding I am supposed to have gained from seeing the image. Sure he looks different to the lead image, as actors tend to look different in different roles and at different times in their lives, but if reliable sources don't care enough to discuss his shirt or moustache how is reader's understanding significantly damaged by not seeing this image. As it stands it fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. The image is, for the purposes of displaying the actor, replaceable by the free image in the lead, or the 1990 image with Jack Nicholson, and, for the purposes of significant reader understanding of the topic, unnecessary - Peripitus (Talk) 03:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Photo is how many of the 60's generation will always regard Dennis Hopper, as the iconic figure he was in Easy Rider. I am unconvinced by the argument to delete, as the photo clearly does add to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article, per Wikiwatcher. It is my view that this is a 'no-brainer'. Jus da fax 06:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the three keep opinions. I've read the article, and in the past watched a few of his movies including Easy Rider, and am lost. What significant additional understanding was I supposed to gain from seeing the picture in its place in the article ? Can someone explain what significant additional understanding of the topic a reader is supposed to gain by seeing the article with this image specifically ? All I can see is three opinions stating that the image is significant.....without taking the time to say how - Peripitus (Talk) 09:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't believe your question can be answered. That's because, IMO, NFCC#8 has a built in flaw: namely in the the word "readers'." The word, and the rest of the definition, is an "objective" description; but in essence a reader is singular, and a "reader's" impression is subjective. That can be said of any photo, and probably also of most paintings or any other art. So it all gets down to where we put the apostrophe. A "general POV" for the significance of an image is an oxymoron. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Context is everything for a SINGLE photo of Dennis Hopper in his youth (which can't be replaced by images of him today). — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you mean by "Context is everything for a SINGLE photo...". No, seriously, I want to understand what that means. --Damiens.rf 03:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  This actor is known for his appearance in this photo. An image of him 40 years after the fact doesn't give ANY context. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  This actor is known for his career as an actor, and not for his appearance in any particular photo. --Damiens.rf 14:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  He is also famous for his appearance AS an actor in those films. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's worth pointing out something else that's obvious: this was an iconic American movie. It broke new ground by exploring the 60s atmosphere in the U.S. - hippies, Harleys, pot, etc. For a film like this one, what a person looked like in the film is significant to American movie-goers at the time. To be honest, there are many British, Italian, French and Russian award-winning and maybe iconic films and actors that I've never heard of. To rent those you had to find a video shop with a decent "foreign film" section, and there were few of those. That's just the way it is. There is an automatic bias implied by some of the above questions if the writer is not overly knowledgeable about American films, IMO. Hope that opinion doesn't come as a shock to anyone.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the image provides context for the text, the text describes the context of the image. Easily fulfills fair-use requirements, IHMO. Yworo (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not. That headshot provides no context to the text and that text does not need imagery to have a context set. Your whole argument is circular at best. --Damiens.rf 03:44, 3 May 2011 (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:CF-104 on visit to RAF.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure, I deleted the {{PD-BritishGov}} tag myself, as it was inaccurate, so now it has no license, and I don't really see there being any free use license that applies. With all of the other images of this plane, I doubt fair use qualifies. Therefore this has to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I did not compute the time difference properly; it becomes public domain in 2017. Bzuk (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough, it happens to all of us. Keep up the good work. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:13, 28 April 2011 (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:Carol vitale.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#2. It's not fair use if we take a picture Playboy uses on its website for a model's bio and use it on our own website for the same models bio. Damiens.rf 01:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she's been dead three years, so no new photos will become available. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) First of all, the person is deceased. With all due respect, this severely limits the potential future revenue generated by this person. Second, I fail to see how a clothed shoulders and up portrait is going to infringe in any way on Playboy's core business, which involves mainly parts of the body below the shoulders... and the articles. I really don't see this as being close to what NFC2 is trying to do. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Playboy is not only about selling pictures of naked girls. It has grown an empire around (and to support) that. Having a website is part of their business and having playmate profiles is part of the value of that website. When Wikipedia writes playmate profiles and hosts it on the web, it is competing for the same user base (or user-attention). That's fine, they don't have a government granted monopoly on playmate profiles. But when we just use their copyright work to do that, we're simple just not being fair. We are replacing the original market value of the work we're using (the market value of a playboy owned image is not just its masturbation potential. Such clothed shoulders images are useful for them just as well). --Damiens.rf 12:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that's a particularly strong argument. Since I dispute the assertion that this fails the NFCC, I'd also add that doing the best possible job trumps fairness when all other things are equal. I suppose that this won't be resolved by further back and forth though, we'll see what everyone else thinks. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It's a low-res image of a deceased person. It can't be re-created. If a free image pops up, then we just delete this one and replace it...until then, it's a keeper. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that it's coveninent for us to use this image. Please add some nasty comments that are at least barely related to the concerns I've raised on the nomination. --Damiens.rf 02:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damiens, please revise your comment to be civil. BQZip, your argument addresses NFCC#1, but the nomination is based on NFCC#2. —teb728 t c 09:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both good points and, you're right, I didn't address #2 (Damiens, knock it off and participate in civil discussion that doesn't involve insulting other users). And, after re-reading, I think you guys are right (loathed as I may be to admit it). We shouldn't use a copyrighted image from an online bio to fulfill this role. There are a mere tens of thousands of other images available to fulfill this role. Delete — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I hate to support the Damiens on this file, I must vote Delete: As others have pointed out, Ms Vitale is deceased, but this fact means only that use plausibly passes NFCC#1. But the use puts the article in direct competition with this Playmate Directory page. The whole purpose of that page is to sell memberships in the Playboy Cyber Club. Our article does not sell such memberships, and so the use "replaces the original market role of the original copyrighted media" in violation of WP:NFCC#2. —teb728 t c 11:43, 7 May 2011 (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:Crazinesssinhastings.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, UE, subjects not identified Skier Dude (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not Flickr. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:21, 28 April 2011 (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:PBB Protein MRPL11 image.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: Kept the remaining copy which is in use - Peripitus (Talk) 00:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible incorrect image; bot uploaded 8 identical images with different names, unclear which one is the accurate image. The others have been deleted as duplicates (File:PBB Protein MRPL12 image.jpg * File:PBB Protein MRPL19 image.jpg * File:PBB Protein MRPL1 image.jpg * File:PBB Protein MRPL20 image.jpg * File:PBB Protein MRPL22 image.jpg * File:PBB Protein MRPL24 image.jpg * File:PBB Protein MRPL4 image.jpg) Skier Dude (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – these duplicate images are of a multi-protein complex and each of the protein components of the complex are encoded by a separate gene and hence the subject of a separate Gene Wiki article. While the images are redundant, all the images are accurate and appropriate to include in each of the articles. Obviously we do not need to retain all these copies of the same image, but at least one copy should be kept. Boghog (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, this is a free image being used in a ton of articles. As for the duplicates, are you sure that they are pixel for pixel identical? If not, deleting them and using one for every article is bad practice. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:30, 30 April 2011 (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:Tvd103elenadamon250x.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, for use in infobox. Apparently random scene, just showing two people standing in a nondescript situation; not embedded in analytical commentary, not even a caption saying what it is. Meaningless FUR. No apparent identificatory value for the episode, no crucial contribution to understanding the text, fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:59, 29 April 2011 (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:Stefandamonroof3x250.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot, for use in infobox. Apparently random scene, just showing two people standing in a nondescript situation; not embedded in analytical commentary, not even a caption saying what it is. Meaningless FUR. No apparent identificatory value for the episode, no crucial contribution to understanding the text, fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:59, 29 April 2011 (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:Dtlicleancover.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image that is very similar to the existing non-free cover image in the article. The small differences (colour) can easily be adequately described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding, and this image fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 11:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This does not fail #1, and the argument for #8 is weak, I think. #3a is perhaps the strongest of your three arguments, however I'm not willing to commit to that one. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not fail NFCC#1 ? remove the image and replace with the text "The Clean Studio Cover kept the central image only, with the face displayed in monochome green and the background changed to black; the text was relocated". How does replacing the image with this bit of free text significantly harm reader's understanding ? Peripitus (Talk) 22:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It generally takes only one cover image to identify the subject of an article. The use of the second cover does not significantly increase reader understanding (beyond that of the first) as required by WP:NFCC#8. The text on the two versions is perfectly understandable. There is no sourced commentary on the second cover, and if there were it could be expressed with free text without being illustrated by the second cover. Thus the use is purely decorative. —teb728 t c 03:46, 8 May 2011 (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:Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols US 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: Kept as {{PD-text}}...licence on this and the other image changed. Yes I know started this debate but. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image that is very similar to the existing non-free cover image in the article. The small differences (colour) can easily be adequately described with text alone, without significantly impairing reader's understanding, and this image fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 11:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This does not fail #1, and the argument for #8 is weak, I think. #3a is perhaps the strongest of your three arguments, however I'm not 100% ready to agree. In this case the cover barely clears {{PD-text}}, and when I say "barely" I mean "I think it is PD-text, but I'm not going to switch the templates unilaterally". Sven Manguard Wha? 04:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#1 again ? "For the US release the pink background was changed to green and the yellow to pink". With this small piece of freely licenced text reader's visualisation ability can close the trivial gap between the two images and voilà we have one less non-free image needed. How does it not fail NFCC#1 ? what significant impairment to reader's understanding is there by removing the image ? How is having two images that are identical except for the colour, when there is no mention of the colours in the article, required ? Peripitus (Talk) 22:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet all the criteria for {{PD-text}} — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:32, 30 April 2011 (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:Pettydambkst2.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image of an album that adds nothing to reader's understanding (and the rationale is the usual mass-produced version that does not really apply to this image. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 11:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFCC#8. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:12, 29 April 2011 (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:ACDC dualdisc back.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

back of a dualdisc cover that shows that the dualdisc's cover had a back. The rationale for one article (Dualdisc) is rubbish as it applies to a different use in a different place and the other one, a mass-produced and inapplicable rationale, (Back in Black) does not address why readers need to see the rear of the cover. Image adds little or nothing to reader's understanding in both places and fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The back? You mean the track list (which is usually in the article) and the producer information (which is usually in the infobox)? Fails NFCC#8 and NFCC#1. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:14, 29 April 2011 (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:ACDC nontestmarktback.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

back of a dualdisc cover that shows that the dualdisc's cover had a back. The rationale for one article (Dualdisc) is rubbish as it applies to a different use in a different place and the other one, a mass-produced and inapplicable rationale, (Back in Black) does not address why readers need to see the rear of the cover. Image adds little or nothing to reader's understanding in both places and fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The back? You mean the track list (which is usually in the article) and the producer information (which is usually in the infobox)? Fails NFCC#8 and NFCC#1. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:14, 29 April 2011 (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:Pearl Jam - Ten (Reissue) 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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that is basically just a differently coloured version of File:PearlJam-Ten2.jpg which is an existing non-free image in the article. The small differences (colour) can easily be described with text alone and this image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a text describing the differences) WP:NFCC#3a (excessive use) and WP:NFCC#8 (fails to add significantly to reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not need three covers for identification. If the article needs to describe this alternate cover, it can be done with free text. —teb728 t c 09:59, 10 May 2011 (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:PearlJam-Ten.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that is basically just a cropped version of File:PearlJam-Ten2.jpg which is an existing non-free image in the article. The small differences (only part of image shown) can easily be described with text alone and this image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a text describing the differences) WP:NFCC#3a (excessive use) and WP:NFCC#8 (fails to add significantly to reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not need three covers for identification. If the article needs to describe this alternate cover, it can be done with free text. —teb728 t c 09:59, 10 May 2011 (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:PJ-Ten2.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that is basically just the same as File:PearlJam-Ten2.jpg which is an existing non-free image in the article, with the addition of 4 fold lines. The small differences (fold lines) can easily be described with text alone and this image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a text describing the differences) WP:NFCC#3a (excessive use) and WP:NFCC#8 (fails to add significantly to reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 11:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFCC#8 Sven Manguard Wha? 04:38, 29 April 2011 (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:OriginalBornToRun.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that is basically just the same as the lead non-free image in the article. The small differences (largely the font used) can easily be described with text alone and this image fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable with a text describing the differences) WP:NFCC#3a (excessive use) and WP:NFCC#8 (fails to add significantly to reader's understanding. Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to err on the side of keeping alternate album covers, however this version dosen't even appear to have been used. The one at the top of the infobox is the one described in the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:42, 29 April 2011 (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:Pocket Full of Kryptonite back cover.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image of a back cover that adds little or nothing to reader's understanding. Image fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure there are cases where the back cover would have something so interesting as to warrant inclusion. This, however, is not that back cover. Fails NFCC#8. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:44, 29 April 2011 (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:Beck sea change alt cover 2 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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that is just a modified version of the other ones in the article. The small changes (colour and line overlay) can be described with text alone without significantly impairing reader's understanding of the article. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free (text) alternative, and WP:NFCC#3a (excessive use as the single image accompanied with text would suffice) Peripitus (Talk) 11:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree with the nominator's statement entirely. Mentioned in Sea Change (album)#Artwork, significant stylistic differences between the four versions, I believe all four warrant inclusion. If we decide against keeping, I would suggest creating a mash up of all four versions in one image for use in the top infobox. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The covers are so similar that one is sufficient to identify the subject of an article. There is text that mentions there are alternate covers, but the alternates do not even appear near that text. And there is no sourced commentary on the alternates that requires showing them for reader understand—any more than the mention of different hidden messages requires audio clips. —teb728 t c 05:35, 8 May 2011 (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:Beck sea change alt cover 3.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that is just a modified version of the other ones in the article. The small changes (colour and line overlay) can be described with text alone without significantly impairing reader's understanding of the article. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free (text) alternative, and WP:NFCC#3a (excessive use as the single image accompanied with text would suffice) Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree with the nominator's statement entirely. Mentioned in Sea Change (album)#Artwork, significant stylistic differences between the four versions, I believe all four warrant inclusion. If we decide against keeping, I would suggest creating a mash up of all four versions in one image for use in the top infobox. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The covers are so similar that one is sufficient to identify the subject of an article. There is text that mentions there are alternate covers, but the alternates do not even appear near that text. And there is no sourced commentary on the alternates that requires showing them for reader understand—any more than the mention of different hidden messages requires audio clips. —teb728 t c 05:36, 8 May 2011 (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:Beck sea change alt cover 4.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that is just a modified version of the other ones in the article. The small changes (colour and line overlay) can be described with text alone without significantly impairing reader's understanding of the article. Image fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free (text) alternative, and WP:NFCC#3a (excessive use as the single image accompanied with text would suffice) Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree with the nominator's statement entirely. Mentioned in Sea Change (album)#Artwork, significant stylistic differences between the four versions, I believe all four warrant inclusion. If we decide against keeping, I would suggest creating a mash up of all four versions in one image for use in the top infobox. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The covers are so similar that one is sufficient to identify the subject of an article. There is text that mentions there are alternate covers, but the alternates do not even appear near that text. And there is no sourced commentary on the alternates that requires showing them for reader understand—any more than the mention of different hidden messages requires audio clips. —teb728 t c 05:36, 8 May 2011 (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:WiiMCscreen.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Damiens.rf 13:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Limited possible use, not entirely convinced that this is in fact free at all, could be, but I don't know. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:50, 29 April 2011 (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:Windows2000startup.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 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is in violation Wikipedia:Non-free content criterion 8: Contextual significance in Windows 2000 article and in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criterion 1:No free alternative in Bootsplash article. In Windows 2000 article, boot screen is not discussed in a manner that needs this screenshot. In Bootsplash, the screenshot of a free operating systems like CentOS, Ubuntu (operating system) or any other free operating system would do. Fleet Command (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:51, 29 April 2011 (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:3,3’,5,5’-Tetramethylbenzidine Line-Structure.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality, orphaned (replaced by File:3,3’,5,5’-Tetramethylbenzidine.png. Leyo 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, line for line identical diagrams. I'd scrap them both in favor of an SVG, but that's not a skill I possess. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:55, 29 April 2011 (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:4-(p-Bromophenyl)-4-(dimethylamino)-1-phenethylcyclohexanol.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SVG bug, orphaned. Leyo 16:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you say it's a bug, I guess it is. In the mean time, there's File:Bromadol.png, which is identical. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:59, 29 April 2011 (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:Abacavirnyyyyyt.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BadJPG, orphaned (replaced in Discovery and development of nucleoside and nucleotide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors). Leyo 16:47, 28 April 2011 (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:WFN 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. JacobWatters (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, I guess... something weird happened here. One of the deletion discussions was on the file's page itself (Part II) and the other was a deletion rationle (Part I). I'm really not sure. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part I

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

JacobWatters (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version.

Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright.

Trademark violation - The file might be used in violation of trademark.

"Logos uploaded to Wikipedia must be low resolution and no larger than necessary." - this logo is too large.

"...if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." - condition has not been met.

"Note that it is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using its logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with Wikipedia or endorses either Wikipedia or the article in which the logo appears, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner." - Grounds for complaint has not been met.

WFN is trying to get rid of old versions of the logo. Especially this one because it is the first one that shows up in a Google search. As a result, this out of date logo keeps popping up on sites, promos and in the media all over. Please help by removing this logo. If it is still online in a week then I'll have WFN's lawyer send an official request for the company directly to Wikipedia.

Part II

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. JacobWatters (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Old logos are permissible on Wikipedia. єmarsee • Speak up! 17:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WFN is trying to get rid of old versions of the logo. Especially this one because it is the first one that shows up in a Google search. As a result, this out of date logo keeps popping up on sites, promos and in the media all over. Please help by removing this logo. If it is still online in a week then I'll have WFN's lawyer send an official request for the company directly to Wikipedia.
Keep: previous logos are an aspect of an organization's history which is permissible on Wikipedia, so it should stay.musimax. (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not about history - it's about not having the old logo show up on fan sites because it shows up in a Google image search. If you want to keep it for history (I don't know why anyone would be interested in the history of a fishing channel's logo) then replace it with a version that has the words "OLD LOGO" watermarked on it.
Delete - "Logos uploaded to Wikipedia must be low resolution and no larger than necessary." - this logo is too large.
Delete - "...if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." - condition has not been met.
Delete - "Note that it is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using its logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with Wikipedia or endorses either Wikipedia or the article in which the logo appears, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner." - Grounds for complaint has not been met.

Delete Orphaned fair use. Very, very similar to current logo, to the point where the sentence "The logo used from 2005 to 2008 is identical to the current one, except that it had a thick black border around the lettering" would suffice. Fails NFCC#1 and NFCC#7. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that in Part II, only the 2 comments with signatures are legitimate. The rest are made by the nominator. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (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:Nrc-bri-bioprocess-lr.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 F3 by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright tags says for non-commercial use only. Z gin der 2011-04-28T20:36Z (UTC)

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.