Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 23

< January 22	January 24 >

January 23

File:1987 American Stores Company Logo.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1987_American_Stores_Company_Logo.svg User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:12, 23 January 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:Fongchan Suksaneh.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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this picture of an identifiable person is free to use; otherwise, we could use any driver-license picture Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't a drivers license photograph, rather it is a photograph of someone about to be photographed for an ID card. See [1] and [2] for examples of Thai ID cards, note that the photographs are head and shoulders only, taken straight on and that the subjects are not smiling. There is no evidence that the image is not the own work of the uploader as claimed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as orphaned and unlikely to be used. Personal photograph of a non-notable person; article has been merged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now used in the Thai nationality law article in the section where Suksaneh is considered notable enough to be mentioned by name. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 11 February 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:KKC Cd 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 ⚡ 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 23 January 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:Ongole Githa 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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 23 January 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:Amma Nanna O Tamila Ammayi ACD.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 ⚡ 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 23 January 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:AOD 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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 23 January 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:Indra 2002.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 ⚡ 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 23 January 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:Naayak 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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This album cover passes recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#RFC: Soundtrack covers in articles about other media (films, video games, etc.) in that the soundtrack is notable and the cover art is significantly different from the film poster and can be can be included, since WP:NFCI#1 and WP:NFCC#3a are both satisfied. The image passes MOS:FILM#Soundtrack because it states "If an album is notable enough for a stand-alone article (see WP:NALBUMS), one should be created, and an album infobox with a cover image can exist in the new article." and passes WP:NFCC#8 in that it adds significantly to the reading of the article and its omission would be detrimental to the reading

Delete. There is no discussion (or even mention) of the cover in the article, indeed there is no information in the article that suggests the soundtrack album would be notable enough for a stand-alone article. There is therefore nothing to support the assertion that the cover of the soundtrack album enhances readers understanding of either the film or the soundtrack album. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 29 January 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:Krishnam Vande Jagadgurum ACD.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 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:Bodyguard Telugu 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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 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:Damarukam ACD.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 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:Yemaindi Ee Vela 2010 ACD.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 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:Mirchi Cd 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 ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 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:Mirapakay ACD.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 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:BBCS 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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 23 January 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:Gundello Godari ACD.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 23 January 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:Superpolicecover.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 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:YVM Album Cover.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 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:100%Love-Audio-art.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 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:Arya2 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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 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:Mythri 2012 ACD.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 23 January 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:Ashok 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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 23 January 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:Brothers2012.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a (the article already has a different poster for the same film) and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 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:Maatraan songs.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, it is just like any other audio CD. why nominate it for deletion now? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's just as any other film soundtrack, meaning that it is usually not permitted. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it just a artwork and it is allowed under Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free album cover Perumalism Chat 17:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of those templates doesn't automatically mean that an image is allowed. It must additionally meet the non-free content criteria, something this image doesn't do. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 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:Venky 2004 poster.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 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:Shubhapradam ACD.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 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:SoldierAlternative.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 since there already is a different cover (File:Destiny's child soldier.jpg) in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eduemoni ^↑talk↓
Delete. Even if it were added to the article I would recommend deletion as there is no discussion in the article about either cover let alone the significance of having two/the differences between them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 29 January 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:Kill Your Darlings 2013.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly random image which fails WP:NFCC#3b, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All issues addressed. Film Fan (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still a seemingly random image and it still violates WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tell that to the writers of the many articles written using this very publicity image. What seems random to you can seem significant to someone else. Film Fan (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It in fact is nothing more than a random image, for our purposes, as long as we have nothing specific and well sourced to say about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this image fail if this image passes? Film Fan (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not looking at the other case and don't know if it's acceptable or not. Instances of bad non-free image use are unfortunately still very frequent, so much so that "other stuff exists" arguments work even less here than elsewhere. Just because there are many questionable cases elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't fix this one, now we're at it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 23 January 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:Koset.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan koset (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's on Commons and it's not orphaned. It is used at wikt:id:koset and Commons:User:Koset. It looks strange to see this as both a user photo and as an illustration on a normal page on Wiktionary, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 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:Don Jons Addiction teaser poster.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly random screenshot which fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not random when it's the main publicity image in circulation, containing the leading members of the cast. Film Fan (talk) 20:13, 23 January 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:Certs breathmint 2005 package.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 ⚡ 17:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_December_27#File:Certs_breathmint_2005_package.jpg was recently closed as No consensus. I believe further discussion is necessary regarding this file.

I suspect this image may infringe on copyrights (I presume it imitates the Certs packaging and I believe it does so to a degree that would cause copyright issues - this is of course only if the packaging is copyrightable - compare with licensing on photo File:M&Ms-Wrapper-Small.jpg)

I believe the image is unusable to illustrate the page Certs regardless of its copyright status. The juxtaposition of what is apparently Betelgeuse is distracting and bizarre. In a nutshell, the image is low quality. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't vote since I'm the artist, but most everything I had to say is at the earlier discussion. To recap:
- It's a reasonably good reproduction of the entity. Naturally being the artist I'd say that if; if others think it's not, that's fine. But it's better than nothing at any rate I'd say. It's good enough to give the general idea of what the package looks like, more or less, which is sufficient for a high-level overview such as an encyclopedia article.
- I think (without being sure) that it might be slightly more free, in more jurisdictions, than a photograph -- than a simple unartistic snapshot, anyway -- becaust it's possibly, arguable, a "transformative" work of art. I'm not expert on this though. But if I'm right, freer images are preferred to fair-use images I think.
- If it does infringe on copyright, OK, but in that case the solution is to change the license from "own work CC licensed" to "property of Certs, fair use" rather than outright delete it.
- Betelgeuse. There is no rule against Betelgeuse. "Bizarre" is in the eye of the beholder, but if it is bizarre, that only shows that it is a "transformative work of art" (maybe) and so more free. So lighten up. Herostratus (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I understand it it cannot be used under fair use because it is in fact not the property of Certs, it's your property. (?)
  - If it's a transformative work it can't be used to illustrate Certs because then it's not a transformative work. Either the work is transformative and something distinct enough from Cert's works that it doesn't infringe or it's derivative and can be used to replace Cert's work. If the work illustrates Cert's work then it's derivative and must be fair-used but AFAIK we can't fair use it. Disclaimer: IANAL and this off the top of my head.
  - Clearly we need WP:NOBETELGEUSE :P OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmmm. Well let's think this over.
      - There is no "can't be used to illustrate". We can do what we want provided it's legal and encyclopedic. Consider the famous Andy Warhol painting Campbell's Soup Cans. I think this clearly a transformative work, so the copyright resides with Warhol's estate and not the Campbell Soup Company. Yet, supposing it were somehow in the public domain, and supposing no other appropriate image was available, we could use the painting to illustrate the article Campbell's Tomato Soup if we wanted to. Doing so would certainly not cause the work to no longer be able to be considered as a transformative work of art, such that the Campbell's Soup Company could then claim copyright rights over it. Right? Now granted my drawing is not famous as Warhol's is. But so? The principle is the same I think.
      - The copyright has to devolve to either me or the Certs company, doesn't it? It can't devolve to nowhere, and who else would it devolve to?
      - It seems to me that it can't be the case that 1) it's not CC since it belongs to the Certs company, but 2) we can't then use it under fair use. This all seems to fall down a logical rabbit hole and seems wrong. Herostratus (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It's copyright to you but you don't have the right to distribute it because it infringes on another copyright. It is a legal rabbit hole because you're trying to argue your work is both the same as, but transformative of, another work. It can't be the same and transformative. In order to be transformative it has to be different from the original, but if it's different then why are we using it to illustrate the original? The facts clearly show it is the same as the original and therefore not transformative.
        
        I don't believe your example about Warhol is correct. I do not believe the copyright owner could release it into the public domain as you suggest, because then it would infringe on another's copyright (assuming the Warhol is PD'd but Campbell retains their copyright) because, as you suggest, the Warhol could be used to replace Campbell's work. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It could be transformative because it is (arguably) saying something more than "this is what a Certs package looks like". You'd need an art critic to get a definitive answer, but (IMO) it could be saying something like "behold how vast is the scale of the universe" or "see how absurd the things that we humans make are" or even "look how our corrupt and meaningless our material culture is beside the works of God" or something. If so, doesn't that make it transformative, maybe? Yet at the same time part of it happens to contain an image of a Certs package of sufficient verisimilitude and resolution that it can serve our purpose of saying "this is what a Certs package looks like (more or less)". Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think your art argument would hold up in a court. Also, no to the same time idea, because then it is, by definition, not transformed. It's only a transformative work if it transforms the original work. ("The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original.") But if you argue your work can be used to replace Certs, then clearly you are not creating a whole new work, but in fact have only created a derivative. Copyright exists to stop pretty much this. You can't appropriate their ideas and work, call it your own, and use it to essentially "compete" with Certs. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:07, 29 January 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.