Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 17

< March 16	March 18 >

March 17[edit]

File:RanfurlyShield.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 17:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This violates WP:NFCC#8 in the article 2012 ITM Cup and WP:NFCC#10c in all other articles in which it is used. Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:NFCCP#8 in all articles where it is currently being used. Clearly not necessary for a readers understanding of those articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Specifying which games are being played for the Ranfurly shield is important as it is a big deal in New Zealand rugby; been around for over a hundred years now and to some people is more important than actually wining the comp. Saying that this can be indicated with an asterix or other symbol as well as or even better (since to the non-rugby person the shield probably doesn't mean anything) than the current situation. AIRcorn (talk) 21:11, 26 March 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:Pitbull - Feel This Moment.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly random photo. I'm not sure what a photo of a tiny man next to a giant woman is supposed to help understanding. Could just as easily be described in text instead. Violation of WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 17 March 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:"Tucson, Arizona, excepting an award, Dawkins.jpeg".jpeg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unused, personal file. Russavia (talk) 00:50, 17 March 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:AbhishekIndwar.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Russavia (talk) 00:54, 17 March 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:Abhi Teja.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Russavia (talk) 00:54, 17 March 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:Abolfazl.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Russavia (talk) 00:54, 17 March 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:Ackdar Userpage Image Sept 2009.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Russavia (talk) 00:57, 17 March 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:Aeza Khan convocation Day.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Own image is doubtful; low resolution, no EXIF, etc Russavia (talk) 01:07, 17 March 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:Ahmed M. Abdel Azeem, mycologist.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a scan of a photo from a book. Russavia (talk) 01:09, 17 March 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:Alan Mason and Maggie English.JPG[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Russavia (talk) 01:18, 17 March 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:Alejandro Isoba.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Russavia (talk) 01:23, 17 March 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:Alejandro Ramirez.JPG[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Russavia (talk) 01:23, 17 March 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:Alienwareversion3green.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Russavia (talk) 01:26, 17 March 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:All you need is luv1.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a promotional photo, for which permission would likely be required. Russavia (talk) 01:28, 17 March 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:Aloepeciaat2.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Russavia (talk) 01:35, 17 March 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:AlohaAlex.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Russavia (talk) 01:35, 17 March 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:Southern cross book 1928.jpg[edit]

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: not deleted as it was determined that the book is public domain --B (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is fair use, it fails WP:NFCC. However, it is likely PD in Australia and may be PD in the US too owing to its age. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Google doesn't have the whole book which usually means they think it is copyrighted (or at least that they haven't evaluated it). (The reverse isn't true - sometimes they have permission from the copyright holder to include the entire text - but if they don't have the whole thing, it's usually copyrighted). --B (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your area. I'm in Indonesia, and I don't have full access to numerous books which should be free elsewhere. (Pre-1923 publications, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I wasn't aware that they did that, though it makes sense. I'm in the US (where Wikimedia's servers are). Obviously, not seeing the whole text doesn't definitively prove it's copyrighted - it may just mean they haven't reviewed it. --B (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Off topic: I've only got snippet view for this, this, and this, for example. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It beggars belief that a 1928 cover of a book has any issue of copyright - the PD Australia template found on commons makes it clearly PD, google or anything to do with it is a complete red herring on a book like this... there is no extant copyright holder to the book... Surely this is a frivolous nomination, unless someone can come up with why a book with no living custodians of copyright to the book or its parts has some form of copyright somewhere? sats 07:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is it an Australian printing? Then it's likely PD. If it's American, it my be copyrighted. If you have a copy you can check, you can make sure. Under the precautionary principle, this is far from a frivolous nomination (note how it's currently fair use, which would render its use in the article a violation of NFCC #8 and would mean it has to be deleted; if it actually is free, then we don't have to delete it and can use it how we want) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/32686393?q=story+of+the+southern+cross&c=book&versionId=39855242 it is published in Sydney Australia in 1928 - surely under international copyright principles an Australian publication is not affected by US copyright requirements, if it hasnt been published there...sats 07:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would be, owing to international copyright agreements. Hence why the URAA is such a pain; the US doesn't recognise rule of the shorter term. Okay, this looks reasonably certain to be PD in both the US and Australia. Want to do the honours to upload it to Commons? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kingsford Smith died in 1935, Ulm, CTP (Charles Thomas Phillippe) died in 1934, so copyright expired in Australia in 1/1/1986, pre URAA, so public domain in Australia and USA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that sats 07:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed the tag to PD-Australia and added the above explanation. --B (talk) 15:49, 20 March 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:Dylan face to face with Avery YR.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 03:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this meets WP:NFCC#8. There are already pictures of both of the characters in their own articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is a notable event that has occurred. It increases viewer's understanding of the topic. Ar re 04:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the event is notable or not. There is zero discussion about the image and it is purely used for decorative purposes to show what the characters look like. A freely licensed photo of the actor and actress would achieve more or less the same result. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The character included in the photo was a major part of the subject character's development and introduction, as cited in the article; a photo is relevant and helpful for the reader. Freely licensed photos would portray the actors themselves rather than the characters; no free version of a character photo exists. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about this photo could not be accomplished in text? "Dylan met face to face with Avery." What about that cannot be understood with out a photo? Fair use is for things like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Kent State shootings where a study of these two events is incomplete without including their photos. Is the reader's understanding impaired by not seeing this screenshot? --B (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is also for illustrations that are contextually significant to the article where they are placed; the inclusion criteria is not "worldwide famous photo", and there's a reason for it. For film and television, screenshots show the program's production values, characterization and body acting; none of which can be properly conveyed by text, or by a photo of the actors outside the setting. There's a whole section about Dylan's characterization and portrayal; the image complements it by providing visuals for it at one moment that is central to the character. Diego (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the image highlights an important moment in development of the character that is the article's subject. Removing the image would impede readers to assess how this scene was portrayed by the actors and imagined by the artistic team, so it satisfies WP:NFCC#8. Diego (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you could say that about any scene from any show, which clearly is not the intent of the policy. --B (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, only for scenes that are major highlights of their characters in articles where characterization has a whole section. Given that character's portrayal is covered in-depth from multiple reliable sources, the image is contextually significant and improves understanding of that portrayal. Diego (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's also why infobox images typically are deleted if added to the infobox for TV series episodes. The reason is summarised in the documentation for the "Image" parameter of {{Infobox television episode}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per above 'Keep' comments, this image does satisfy WP:NFCC. This scene is not only a pivotal moment for both characters, it is an extremely important moment for this high-profiled character and this long-term storyline. Not to disrespect anyone but I don't see why this is being dragged on. If the image was of the character drinking coffee yea, it would be useless. But this was a 'climax'-type event in the show. Ar re 05:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For someone like me who has never seen the show and does not know that this is a pivotal moment, how does the inclusion of this image significantly increase my understanding of the importance of this scene? How would the removal of this image be detrimental to my understanding that this scene is important? What deep understanding is this image supposed to convey to me that is not already conveyed by the text? —Bkell (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be about you? For someone who has seen some chapters but not this one, or someone who saw the whole series and wants to remember that pivotal scene, or someone who wants to study the depiction and evolution of characters in mainstream media storytelling, it will improve its understanding. There's a pretty clear agreement that the scene was a major event for the character's story line. Why do you keep introducing that are not part of the image policy as reasons to remove it? Let's go delete images that are not contextually relevant and pertinent to the article's text, not those which are relevant without being redundant. That is the intent of the NFCC policy. Diego (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I said is quoted directly from the image policy, specifically Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 (and also paraphrased from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1). —Bkell (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. —Bkell (talk) 19:52, 20 March 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:Whitechapel-TheSomaticDefilementreissue.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 03:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal usage? It is the alternate art for an album. Almost every album article has this. The Flood (Of Mice & Men album) and Numbers (Woe, Is Me album) being two prime examples. And those have never got this warning. The art shows the different cover for the upcoming re-release of the album and does not reflect upon previous versions and therefore, does not fall under WP:NFCC#3a. XyphynX9 (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." Taken straight from the enforcement section below. XyphynX9 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the other two articles you mentioned, see WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a definitive rule that someone can point to that specifies the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of showing alternate/original/whatever covers? As was pointed out above, there are a whole heckuva lot of articles that have them. --B (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent talk about the similar subject of including the soundtrack cover in movie articles; though I don't remember the exact policy page where it happened. There was a partial, emerging consensus (but no firm rule) that alternate covers where inappropriate when they were a derivative rehash of the original, but they could stay when they show different enough artwork and/or promotional and marketing values. Diego (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack discussion you mentioned is probably this one: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#RFC: Soundtrack covers in articles about other media (films, video games, etc.). Everyone seems to agree that soundtrack covers should be included in film articles if there is critical commentary about the cover illustration. Apart from that, there seems to be an emerging consensus that cover images only may be used if the cover image is significantly different to the film poster, and only if the soundtrack itself is notable. If you apply the same arguments to music albums, then it would seem that reissue cover images only can be included if the reissue cover image is significantly different to the original cover, and only if the reissue itself is notable, unless there is critical discussion about the cover image. The images look very similar to me: some kind of threads going through a hole on both of them. Also, there is no evidence that the reissue is a notable stand-alone product.

Also note that the RFC is preceeded by a section specifically about alternative cover images, finding such images inappropriate in most cases. I believe that there are also dozens of other discussions about alternative cover images all over the place. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's the discussion I was referring to. The previous RFC had no consensus, but it pointed to a previous one reaching consensus that covers in infoboxes don't need to have their artwork discussed, but the article must discuss the work in a significant way. It's not clear that "such images inappropriate in most cases"; having the covert art discussed is a clear keep, and having a similar image with no commentary of the work is a clear delete, but everything in between is a grey area. Critical commentary of the work (not the cover art) is a plus in order to keep the image, and the work being notable is not a requisite.

In this case the reissue is discussed, but minimally, and the image is quite similar to the previous one. So either direct coverage of the artwork or a more detailed description of the reissue, pointing out the differences in marketing and branding, should be required to keep the alternate cover. Diego (talk) 12:35, 25 March 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:JhigliPoint.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 17:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a village in Bangladesh being used under a claim of fair use. It's obviously replaceable. B (talk) 14:15, 17 March 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:Jhigli.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 17:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely low quality map of a village in Bangladesh called Jhigli being used under a claim of fair use. I'm confused by it - I guess blue isn't water or else there's an airport in the sea. In any event, this map is only being used to show the location of Jhigli within Bangladesh and that could easily be done with a clearly free map. B (talk) 14:28, 17 March 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:Churchill Financial Group logo.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 17:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and only in a section which looks like an advertisement. Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not sure what "looks like an advertisement" means. The objecting editor would be better served to take this discussion to the Carlyle talk page. The image is used for identification of Churchill Financial a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group in a section specifically designed to describe a group of businesses operated independently but not necessitating their own articles. This logo is presented alongside other subsidiaries with relevant information / referencing. Including the Logos for Carlyle's key subsidiaries does not constitute advertisement of either that specific business or carlyle as a whole. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The image violates WP:NFCC#8 in the article Carlyle Group because there is no critical discussion about the logo there. Logos are usually only permitted in the article about the company, not in articles about a different company. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:58, 26 March 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:Cogentrix Energy logo logo.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 17:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and only in a section which looks like an advertisement. Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not sure what "looks like an advertisement" means. The objecting editor would be better served to take this discussion to the Carlyle talk page. The image is used for identification of Cogentrix Energy a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group in a section specifically designed to describe a group of businesses operated independently but not necessitating their own articles. This logo is presented alongside other subsidiaries with relevant information / referencing. Including the Logos for Carlyle's key subsidiaries does not constitute advertisement of either that specific business or carlyle as a whole. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The image violates WP:NFCC#8 in the article Carlyle Group because there is no critical discussion about the logo there. Logos are usually only permitted in the article about the company, not in articles about a different company. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 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:Emerging Sovereign Group (ESG) logo.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 17:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and only in a section which looks like an advertisement. Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not sure what "looks like an advertisement" means. The objecting editor would be better served to take this discussion to the Carlyle talk page. The image is used for identification of Emerging Sovereign Group (ESG) a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group in a section specifically designed to describe a group of businesses operated independently but not necessitating their own articles. This logo is presented alongside other subsidiaries with relevant information / referencing. Including the Logos for Carlyle's key subsidiaries does not constitute advertisement of either that specific business or carlyle as a whole. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The image violates WP:NFCC#8 in the article Carlyle Group because there is no critical discussion about the logo there. Logos are usually only permitted in the article about the company, not in articles about a different company. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 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:Studio-5-1.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused images that were formerly used in the article Linda Biggs, which was deleted for lack of notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Biggs (2nd nomination). No further encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 21:03, 17 March 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:TheUltimateLeadGenerationPlan.jpg[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused book cover; apparently the book was written by the uploader. Possibly promotional. No encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 21:07, 17 March 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:Asymmetry2.JPG[edit]

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image. Low-quality JPEG, with high levels of compression artifacts. Seems to have been replaced by File:Asymmetry3.JPG. —Bkell (talk) 21:34, 17 March 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:Madison Eagles prior to wrestling Manami Toyota at CHIKARA King of Trios Night 3 on 4-17-11.jpg[edit]

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: not deleted as the image has now been used in an AFC submission - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madison Eagles. --B (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, poor quality image. WWGB (talk) 23:55, 17 March 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.