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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JAYMEN1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Beatlezz (notify | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic hoax image. The image is actually a spin-off of this picture of the EDSA Revolution of 2001. A billboard was replaced with the name "Cueshe", and when used in the Cueshe article, the uploader claims that it was the image of a band member "levitating". Simply comparing it to the said image of the 2001 EDSA Revolution will confirm this is not so. Tito Pao (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the edits of the uploader and tone of the page it is used on suggest that the nominator is correct; I will look into the notability of the band now. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cueshé as a band is certainly notable, but this image blatantly falls on the unencyclopedic. This image is certainly better off on the band's article on Uncyclopedia. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I really don't think the author created this image, especially after the nominator's thoughtful research. Cheers, I'^mperator 21:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Actually, any Filipino who were tuned in to their television screens in January 2001 will instantly recognize the image; it's as ubiquitous as, say, the images of a president's oath-taking to Americans. And I don't even think Cueshe was already famous during the time the original picture was taken (they scored their first hit in 2005) :P Cheers, --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2009 (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.

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 - Not only do the ayes have it but the policy discussion on raster vs vector logos belongs elsewhere and the image is (due to the current state of the edit argument) orphaned - Peripitus (Talk) 05:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NewBungieLogo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TKD (notify | contribs).

• There is already a vector version so we can't have the PNG sticking around. ZooFari 04:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about "coincidental" nominations... anyhow, let's take a trip through memory lane, shall we, and state some proofs:

1) WP:NFCC is policy as opposed to WP:NFC and WP:LOGOS, and has been for years. It is deliberately stricter than the US concept of fair use.

2) Scalable Vector Graphics has been in existence since 1999, years before Wikipedia, and the v1.1 spec has been a recommendation since before the adoption of NFCC; SVGs were in use since before the nonfree content policy was crafted.

3) NFCC criterion 3 reads as follows: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." This intent has been expressed in roughly identical wording for years, i.e.[1]

4) Thus it is fair to say that criterion 3 (now 3b) has never been heavily disputed (borne out in recent talk page archive searches).

5) SVG is not akin to JPEG or PNG in that it is a compression format, however all of the aforementioned schema are methods of displaying images. Therefor it falls under NFCC, as does every other non-free format used on this wiki (audio/visual clips, et al.)

6) SVGs, by their nature, can be made to display at any resolution desired. This means that in any case, SVGs are better for possible copyright infringement than a raster image. Note also that NFCC applies to the File: namespace copy, and not simply the displayed image thumbnails or Articlespace rasters. I posit that:
a) This violates the directive to use low fidelity/resolution for obvious reasons; while not technically an image, NFCC still applies to SVGS; and
b) That irregardless, a PNG raster is definitively lower quality while serving the exact same purpose, and should be used instead; thus, this image should be kept. So if it wasn't clear, strong keep. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community has rejected your interpretation of policy, as you are well aware. The issue certainly can be revisited, but this is not the forum in which to do so. Unless you can cite something that sets this particular image apart from others, there is no valid reason not to apply the community's current standards (your personal disagreement notwithstanding). —David Levy 05:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The community has determined that SVGs are preferable for this purpose. An SVG version now exists, so the PNG no longer is needed. —David Levy 05:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, prove that "the community" has rejected my view (actually, prove that the community has even had a substantial discussion about nonfree SVGs), and secondly actually argue a point, otherwise your vote is worthless. We don't do precedent. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vote does count. Please don't overrule. As I said before, there is no guideline telling us that SVG logos can't be used. Thus if the community wants the SVG, you respect that. ZooFari 14:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes not based in guideline or policy should be discounted by a closing admin, as David Levy should be aware. I have put forth my justification based on NFCC; he needs to put up some actual evidence if he wants his vote to have weight. Consensus is not determined by counting heads. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct that consensus is not determined by counting heads. However, I am arguing a point; my point is that your interpretation of WP:NFCC is not backed by consensus. (If it were, non-free SVGs would not be used throughout Wikipedia.) You obviously are aware that this discussion occurred, given your participation.

You've indicated a belief that further discussion is warranted (as in this instance, when you acknowledged that "there hasn't been clear consensus about nonfree SVGs"). As I noted above, that would be entirely reasonable. But so far, the community has rejected your view that non-free SVGs violate WP:NFCC. So while your rationale is based on your sincere belief that the use of non-free vector graphics should be prohibited, there is absolutely no consensus for such a restriction.

At present, we have PNG and SVG versions of this logo. As you're aware, these files are non-free (and should not be retained at Wikipedia unless appropriately used in an article). So obviously, one must be deleted. Ordinarily, there would have been no need for this FfD debate; the PNG would have been speedily deleted a short time after its replacement with the SVG. But in this instance, you've reverted said replacement eight times (unilaterally overruling three different editors and repeatedly belittling one and demanding that he "go away") because you feel entitled to "maintain certain standards on articles that [you are] heavily involved in" (a quotation from the same diff cited earlier).*

So now we're left with the decision of which version of the logo to retain (and which to delete). Shall we base this on the community's current practices, or shall we defer to your assertion that said practices merely reflect the fact that "a bunch of people" (i.e. those that disagree with you) "don't understand" policy? Shall we treat the Bungie article like we do any other, or shall we honor your desire to "maintain certain standards on articles that [you are] heavily involved in"?

*Without shifting the focus of this discussion, I'll link to this thread containing a more thorough account of David's actions regarding this matter.

—David Levy 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. When I first read this FFD I thought i would recommend deletion, however I find myself swayed by David Fuchs's arguments. On reading through the various discussions linked, I have to agree with his assessment that there hasn't been a good discussion about Unfree Scalable Vector Graphics. They have apparently involved the same number of people and short discussions that fizzled out. While I am pretty new to Wikipedia, in all the deletion discussions I have participated in I have never seen one where a past deletion page was successfully used as justification for keeping or deleting another article/file. To me, it seems the "low resolution" clause is pretty clear; since the scalable vectors can be made to whatever resolution, this violates not only the wording buyt also the rationale behind the criteria. Either way what does the SVG do that the PNG cannot? However I do think that David Fuchs needs to be nicer I think that administrators shouldn't get so angry. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please keep in mind that in accordance with policy, we must delete either the SVG or the PNG. The argument that non-free SVGs should be prohibited is reasonable, but that isn't how things currently work (and even David has acknowledged that no such consensus has been established). Until a new rule is agreed upon, there is no justification to remove/delete this particular non-free SVG; there is nothing special or unusual that sets it apart. The only relevant difference between the Bungie article and countless others is that the former happens to be guarded by an editor who believes that he possesses the authority to control its content.

If the community decides to disallow non-free SVGs, that's when they should be replaced en masse with PNGs. (For the record, I believe that there are valid rationales for and against this.) But as we all seem to agree, that would require further policy discussion (and this obviously isn't the appropriate venue). In the meantime, there simply is no reason to debate each case individually or permit editors to enforce their own arbitrary standards at articles that they edit.

2. The key advantage to using an SVG for this purpose is that it can be rendered in the article without rescaling. So whether it's displayed at 80px, 100px or 120px (which always is subject to change), there never will be any quality degradation. This is to the benefit (not the detriment) of the images' owners, who don't want their logos to be displayed in degraded form. —David Levy 01:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the loss of quality concern, but that's something that's an issue with all nonfree content. The best possible resolution for a screenshot would be full size of course, but due to NFCC that's not allowed, so we crop or we downscale. Scalable vector graphics shouldn't be exempt from that concern. Furthermore it's not hard to upload another image, especially if it's from the same source. As it is I don't think that the 220px szie is going to change much. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I was merely answering your "what does the SVG do that the PNG cannot?" question. Please understand that I'm not arguing in favor of using non-free SVGs. As I said, I believe that there are compelling rationales on both sides, but this isn't the correct forum in which to carry out such a discussion.

So again, rather than debating the broad topic of whether to use non-free SVGs in general, can someone cite any material difference between this particular logo and the countless others used throughout Wikipedia? If not, there is no justification for applying a different standard (and the SVG should be used until the community decides to stop using non-free SVGs).

That is not to say that non-free SVGs should or shouldn't be used. There simply isn't any valid reason to single out the Bungie logo or any other arbitrary examples. —David Levy 20:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This file is used in an article, properly tagged with a license and a rationale. The svg version is orphaned and as such, should be deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG version is currently orphaned because a single editor has reverted every attempt (by three different users) to replace the PNG. In total, he has removed the SVG from the article eight times, including once during the FfD discussion, which was initiated because of this very issue. (Ordinarily, the PNG would have been speedily deleted shortly after it was orphaned.) —David Levy 05:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe WP:DR would be a good process to read regarding the reverts. Right now, the SVG version does not follow policy and should be deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what if that changes in a minute? Such back-and-forth editing is what necessitated this FfD listing in the first place, and it ceased specifically because a single editor demanded that the PNG remain in place during the deletion nomination (when reverting to it for the eighth time). The other users have refrained from reverting back to the SVG (in the interest of avoiding an edit war), and you're holding this against us. —David Levy 06:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the SVG was used in the Bungie article and not the PNG, then I would strike my "keep" suggestion and change it to delete. I would do this, because at that point, the PNG version would not being following policy. I don't think I'm holding anything against anyone. If a non-free image is orphaned, it should be deleted. I think that once this discussion closes would be the right time to delete whichever file is orphaned at that time.--Rockfang (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the SVG was used in the Bungie article and not the PNG, then I would strike my "keep" suggestion and change it to delete. I would do this, because at that point, the PNG version would not being following policy.

And you'll keep doing this over and over (as editors revert back and forth in an attempt to gain the upper hand)?

I don't think I'm holding anything against anyone.

You aren't intentionally, but you're effectively penalizing the editors who stepped back to avoid further conflict.

What if said conflict instead led to the article's protection in the current version for the remainder of the listing? That would mean that the SVG automatically should be deleted (because the PNG happened to be in use when the button was pressed), with no consideration of which editor(s) made the better case?

If a non-free image is orphaned, it should be deleted.

And according to policy, that occurs after seven days. But neither file remains orphaned for seven days (because we keep switching back and forth), so we're unable to rely on that process (which is why this FfD discussion was initiated).

I think that once this discussion closes would be the right time to delete whichever file is orphaned at that time.

So...whichever file happens to be used in the article at that precise moment should be kept?

You understand that if the PNG were deleted, the SVG would immediately replace it (in compliance with policy), right? The idea behind this nomination is to decide which image to orphan and delete (based on an assessment of which better reflects policy when used in the article). I don't understand why you instead seek to rely on a technicality in a manner inconsistent with policy (referring back to the "seven days" criterion, which exists precisely to prevent an image from being deleted because it happens to be orphaned at a given moment). —David Levy 07:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply point by point matching the items you quoted me as saying above:

1. No. I was planning on waiting a few days, then checking back in here to see what (if any) new points were brought up. I'm not going to keep striking my suggestion back and forth.

2. I'm obviously not an admin, but I would hope that a file in the situation you described would not be deleted while the discussion here was ongoing.

3. I understand that. But I think that a file being orphaned is a valid reason for a deletion suggestion in an FfD. Especially when there is a non-orphaned version that serves the same purpose.

4. No. Which file should be kept should be indicated by whomever closes this FfD if they decide to indicate one.

In retrospect, this FfD was a bad idea in my opinion. I think WP:DR would have been better first to establish a consensus on which was better for the article. Then, you tag the other one as being orphaned once everything ended up settling down. All that being said, is it cool if we agree to disagree? :) --Rockfang (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Okay, I'm glad to hear that.

2. My point is that which file happens to be in use at the moment is entirely arbitrary. In no way does it reflect anything other than the most recent editor to revert (and others' willingness to allow that action to stand for the sake of minimizing disruption during the course of this discussion).

3. The belief that an image should be orphaned or has been orphaned via consensus is a valid reason for a deletion suggestion in an FfD. The mere fact that an image has been orphaned (with no consideration of the circumstances under which this occurred) is not, particularly when this is the subject of an ongoing dispute.

4. If I'm not mistaken, you're saying that one of the two files should be orphaned to reflect this discussion's outcome, and said outcome should be based on which file is orphaned (a circular proposition). Perhaps I've misunderstood.

5. I don't know whether this FfD listing was a good or bad idea, but I'm quite certain that debating each article's non-free logo format individually is an illogical, time-wasting endeavor. Further discussion is warranted, but it should cover all non-free logos (with a decision to either allow or disallow the SVG format across the board).

I base my "delete" recommendation on the fact that the community has deemed the SVG format superior/preferred and thus far has rejected all proposals to prohibit its use for non-free images. I pass no judgement on whether non-free SVGs should be permitted; I simply note that they currently are permitted (and nothing sets this one apart from any other).

6. It always is okay for reasonable people to disagree with each other. I just want to make sure that both of us fully understand what we're disagreeing with.  :) —David Levy 10:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion on whether to forbid SVG logos ended in the negative. Therefore, with the utmost respect, I must disagree with Mr. Fuchs and say delete this inferior image. Anyone edit-warring to control a preferred version of an article should be sanctioned, although I expressly state that this is not to imply any person has been edit-warring. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that a discussion that only about 10 people participated in counts as consensus over a global project scale? I hardly think that's a fair reading. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of everything else, yes it does. This user essay comes to mind. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on those who seek to prohibit non-free SVGs to demonstrate consensus for that. You've acknowledged that "there hasn't been clear consensus about nonfree SVGs." Therefore, we default to the status quo. —David Levy 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the status quo be to let article writers decide what images they use? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. —David Levy 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - And delete the SVG version for failing wp:nfcc. Garion96 (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this particular SVG fails WP:NFCC. —David Levy 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keep in mind that there are numerous non-free SVGs on Wikipedia, and if they were subject to failing WP:NFCC, they would probably be deleted. Connormah (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#3b. To Connormah, that's a good idea. Garion96 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You advocate an interpretation of policy that has failed to achieve consensus, not an application of policy as currently accepted by the community (or anything specifically related to this particular image). —David Levy 23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - No consensus has been made on non-free SVGs, though we have decided that they're preferable for this type of use. Connormah (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this PNG, and keep the SVG version instead. There has never been a consensus against using SVG for logos (I've been involved in several such discussions in the past), and SVG simply makes more sense for designs made up of simple lines and curves. With logos, the biggest issue is trademark, not copyright, and that isn't affected by resolution. Quite frankly I think a good case could be made that this particular logo fails the threshold of originality and can't be copyrighted at all (though it would still be subject to trademark law). *** Crotalus *** 13:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The status quo is to use SVGs. If consensus were to change (and if it does it will take far, far longer than the span of an FFD), it is much easier to convert an SVG to PNG than vice versa (at least in my experience). --Sable232 (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, even bots can do it. ZooFari 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the PNG. The arguments in favor of keeping it have no basis in Wikipedia's current practices; they're based on what a vocal minority wants said practices to be. Until policy is changed, SVGs are the preferred format for this purpose. -CapitalQ (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So can you describe how policy states SVGs are preferred, and how they are exempt for NFCC? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Image use policy, we should use the "SVG format for icons, logos, drawings, maps, flags, and such" (emphasis mine). But I prefer to cite the simple fact that SVGs are widely used for this purpose than to point to a policy page.
There is no consensus that section 3b of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria applies to SVGs. I see substantial material difference between Wikipedia hosting high-resolution non-free images (which Wikipedia has no valid use for and must rescale anyway) and hosting vector graphics (which Wikipedia has a valid use for and require no rescaling).
The idea behind the criteria is that Wikipedia should not host non-free content in a manner serving only to exceed its use in articles. (A high-resolution non-free image cannot appear in an article, so there is no legitimate reason to store it that way). But a vector graphic inherently lacks resolution. It can be converted to a high-resolution image, but this is not its only use. It also possesses qualities that result in better performance in articles at the prescribed dimensions. Wikipedia has no legal, moral or ethical obligation to abandon these benefits simply because someone else might take the file and use it inappropriately (just as they could any of the content stored at Wikipedia). I noticed that you belittled a fellow editor for tracing images, and I'll point out that someone outside Wikipedia could take the PNG and easily do the very same thing to create a vector version exactly like the one whose use you oppose. That isn't Wikipedia's fault either. -CapitalQ (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Image_use_policy covers all images. Yes, it's best to upload SVGs where possible, but it doesn't discuss formats as it applies to NFCC. Secondly, Wikipedia does have an obligation. The entire point of NFCC is that Wikipedia deliberately sets stringent requirements on itself. There is a legitimate reason we don't host large files; part of good non-free rationales is that we specify that they are of poorer quality and unsuitable for pirate/illicit uses, e.g.[2][3] Frankly sir, you're dead wrong. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A big part of the problem, David, is your insistence that everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of WP:NFCC is "dead wrong." (This also is your explanation for why non-free SVGs are used throughout the site.)

You correctly note that WP:IUP covers all images, but you must concede that most of the logos featured at Wikipedia are non-free. And yet, "logos" are explicitly mentioned (without qualification) as a type of image for which the SVG format should be used. It could just as easily say "free logos," but it doesn't.

I'm inclined to agree that the intent of WP:NFCC section 3b is to prohibit non-free images with characteristics that specifically exceed Wikipedia's legitimate use. As CapitalQ noted, storing a non-free image in a high resolution serves only to make it available for purposes outside the scope of fair use. Such images serve no valid purpose here, so we prohibit them. Non-free SVGs, conversely, do have legitimate advantages when transcluded in articles in a manner consistent with the basic tenets of fair use and the stricter requirements that we apply; nothing about them is gratuitous.

Also, Crotalus horridus' point about trademark vs. copyright (as the issue pertains to logos) is a good one, as is CapitalQ's point about simple line art being easy to vectorize (something untrue of the non-free images that you cited as examples).

Does this mean that I'm arguing in favor of using non-free SVGs? No. As I've stated repeatedly, I see good arguments on both sides. (Perhaps we should sacrifice quality—beyond the display of low-resolution logos in articles—for the sake of making piracy more difficult.) But thus far, there is no consensus for that (and non-free SVGs remain in wide use).

But again, this is not the proper venue for such a debate. My offer to work with you in organizing a community discussion (and abide by whatever consensus is reached) stands. In the interim, your attempts to enforce a non-consensus interpretation of policy (on the basis that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong) is misguided. —David Levy 14:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. .svg-format can be used, in which case the .png must be sacrificed in the name of redunancy. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:17, 20 September 2009 (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.

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: - 1 Kept (Nick Drake.jpg), 2 deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 05:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nick Drake.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tetraminoe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log) a promotional photo

File:Nick drake way to blue.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log) album art

File:Nick Drake Pink Moon Insert.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log) album art

Nick Drake has 3 non-free photos of the subject. Apparently there is no free replacement photo of Drake, and since he is dead, no new replacement could be made. But since none of photos is accompanied by critical commentary on the photo, at least two of them fail WP:NFCC#3a. Probably the promotional photo should be kept and the two album art photos deleted. —teb728 t c 06:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete File:Nick drake way to blue.jpg and File:Nick Drake Pink Moon Insert.jpg, keep File:Nick Drake.jpg. There's only a need to illustrate the subject with one non-free file. The extras seem to be used for decoration with no critical commentary on them. — Σxplicit 03:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one, delete the other two. I don't mind which ones. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep File:Nick Drake.jpg and delete the other two, as that is the only one w/ (thoughtful) commentary. Cheers, I'^mperator 21:04, 14 September 2009 (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.

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⚡ 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DelMarCALM.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Short Verses (notify | contribs).

• JPG Locator map of Del Mar, California with an svg replacement (File:San Diego County California Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Del Mar Highlighted.svg). Added texture on this map makes it appear unlikely this would be used in the future. Optigan13 (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2009 (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.

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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tanuja in Baharen Phir Bhi Aayengi, 1966 film.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ekabhishek (notify | contribs).

• Photo of a living person who is has not retired as yet. Clearly possible to create a free alternative and this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 10:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The screenshot is of the movie, Baharen Phir Bhi Aayengi, 1966, which represents one of the important films of her career, where she play the lead heroine. Non free equivalents image could suggest that Tanuja, the actress in the lead role in above film; further now she only appears in character roles, that too rarely; see Filmography of Tanuja. --Ekabhishek^talk 05:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Replaceable non-free image of a living person, used only to identify that person. Textbook NFCC#1. Even if an argument that the image was from "a specific part of her career" or such other non-colourable nonsense was advanced, the fact that the image itself is not the subject of critical commentary in the article would be sufficient to support deletion. Rather than grabbing the first image we find, we have to make the effort to obtain a free image. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Critical commentary has been added to text as well, and the image is used to support the commentary about her role in the film. As per wiki rules, the image shifted out of the Infobox and placed besides the relevant portion of the commentary! Allegation that it is "..first image we find.." and word "grabbing" are in bad taste, not very humble and simply unnecessary! What happened to WP:Good faith?? Further, the image was chosen as it remains an important turning point of her career, and one in which she was appreciated and she moved to playing lead roles soon after. More so as as this was the last film from legendary Guru Dutt team. Please be restrained, with that I'd reaffirm, Keep support. Thank you. --Ekabhishek^talk 07:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have debolded the "keep" as users are customarily allowed only one bolded "keep"/"delete" per discussion. Unfortunately, good faith comes second to copyright law and policy. But aside from that, have you actually made an attempt to locate or take a freely-licensed image of Tanuja? Stifle (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2009 (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.

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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Romy Schneider.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KF (notify | contribs).

• Image was used in infobox of Romy Schneider but is now replaced by a free content image. Therefore this image no longer passes wp:nfcc. Garion96 (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Image still used in article, in line with ((Non-free fair use in)) and ((Non-free reviewed)) (February 2008). Image illustrates subject at particular age and stage in her career, and is positioned accordingly in the article. As there is no free equivalent for that period, the image still complies with WP:FU and WP:NFCC. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image was ((Non-free reviewed)) when there was no free equivalent yet. Garion96 (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—That's what Schneider looked like towards the end of her Austrian career, before she became internationally known. If you didn't know her, you wouldn't recognize her in the free content image that has now been placed in the infobox. <KF> 15:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure that the passage of time is good enough reason to keep a nonfree image where there's a free one to use; {[WP:NFCC]] says that the nonfree may only be used when no free image is available and its precense can significantly increase understanding, and its lack hurts understanding. Given that theres a picture I don't think the articles lacks much. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Her hair is different in the free photo, but the face is very much the same. Even if there had been a significant difference in appearance, the younger photo would not be needed for reader understanding. —teb728 t c 05:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-free image used for decoration only; free image available. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Image is adequately replaced by the free image - Peripitus (Talk) 23:34, 18 September 2009 (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.

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucero Ward copy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ChuckD2 (notify | contribs).

• Utah State copyright notice only allows for personal use only. [4] Admrboltz (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2009 (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.

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⚡ 06:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metrozoo300.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ChubsterII (notify | contribs).

• Nothing like a valid fair use reason for this.... easily replaceable. DreamGuy (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (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.

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo hunting trail.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ChubsterII (notify | contribs).

• No valid fair use criteria -- easily replaceable image. DreamGuy (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2009 (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.

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vanster1985.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JimMatczak (notify | contribs).

• It is very clearly a copyrighted Ford promotional photograph of an Aerostar with the Ford emblem edited out. It is a hoax, being used by a couple vandals to claim there was some "Mercury Vanster" built in the '80s. Sable232 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2009 (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.

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⚡ 06:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zero cast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ominae (notify | contribs).

• At a resolution of 3,770×1,893 weighing at 3.71 megabytes, this non-free image hardly qualifies as being low resolution. Remy Suen (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I changed it. I'm just worried previously that a low resolution of the image may not show the reader the entire cast with a high resolution. Ominae (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment The resolution has been reduced.--Rockfang (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I've changed my suggestion for keeping to a comment. I should have done more investigating.--Rockfang (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete anyway. Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. The article is identified by the cover image. A second non-free image is not needed for reader understanding. —teb728 t c 09:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per teb728. File:Fatezero cover.jpg already exists, so it fails NFCC3 ( Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information), and it doesn't help the reader's comprehension (ie, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding") Cheers, I'^mperator 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - So there's no need for an image that can depict the entire Fate/zero cast at all? Thanks for any answers. Ominae (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2009 (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.

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 G7 by Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sokoban pc8801 level 1.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carloseow (notify | contribs).

• A dated PROD tag was placed on the page by User:Carloseow with the comment, "i want delete this page for duplicate files. [sic]" I will leave a message at the user's page describing that PROD is only for articles. Cnilep (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've tagged the file for speedy deletion as being orphaned.--Rockfang (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've tagged the file for speedy deletion, specifically WP:G7], per this. Cheers, I'^mperator 22:40, 17 September 2009 (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.

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wedding009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Glenlarson (notify | contribs).

• Lacking source info and explanation on why it should be PD for ages now rtc (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tagged for speedy deletion as no source.--Rockfang (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2009 (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.