< July 27	July 29 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Available on the Commons as File:Isaac-ziegler-house-tn1.jpg. Doesn't qualify for speedy deletion because the border is cropped out on the Commons. This version is unused. ALH (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I see no good reason to keep this virtually-identical orphaned image. A pity we can't extend F8 to include this kind of thing, but different crops are occasionally useful, so permitting this image to be speedied would cause more problems than it would solve. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ⚡ 23:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 - not needed to understand article. Beerest355 Talk 02:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:NFCC#8 --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 04:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I thought that since all the Futurama episode images stay up, this one could too if I gave the same reasoning... Wimpyguy (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the content of the screenshot were the subject of sourced commentary, I would vote to keep. But it's really not mentioned beyond the statement that Lisa holds a class. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image file which duplicates File:Erb-socha2.jpg but with awkward rotation. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:DEL-REASON#12 --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 04:36, 28 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in that the use of this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of Facebook and its omission would in no way be detrimental to anyone's understanding of Facebook. LGA _talk^edits 03:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tag on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Facebook_Login_Page.jpg should be removed as no specific reason for creating that tag is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umais Bin Sajjad (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:NFCC#8 --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 04:36, 28 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded as Non-Free, however taken from the FBI website; as a US marine there will be a free image in existence (the one taken for his ID card), as for this one there is no indication that this image is one taken by a US government employee as part of their duties, given the image background looks like a domestic setting and thus a private picture. As it is it's use fails WP:NFCC#1. LGA _talk^edits 09:11, 28 July 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.

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 - as a fugitive, and possibly dead, the subject is the exception to the rule that we generally observe wherein photographs of living persons must be free. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likely replaceable, not dead and if in prison a free one can still be obtained. LGA _talk^edits 09:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a pending discussion about a past deletion for this image. The comments were left unaddressed and are (I think) ignored in this deletion. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't believe a free replacement can be created. According to many sources, he is dead. If alive, he is in hiding as one of Mexico's 37 most wanted drug lords. There is a multi-million dollar reward on his head. In my opinion, this passes NFCC#1. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR: this image is not very helpful for understanding that O'Brien was on The Simpsons. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8 use of this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of O'Brien part in The Simpsons and its omission would in no way be detrimental to that understanding. LGA _talk^edits 10:27, 28 July 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.

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. While this is probably PD-ineligible as per Nyttend as LGA points out there is no indication that the photographer has given their consent for the use of this image. Keeping Nyttend's cropped version doesn't get past this point. NtheP (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No license for photo (per Commons Deletion disscussion) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The entire conversation at the commons deletion was "But what is the license for the photograph?", and it was deleted with no other comment. However, it is tagged as ((PD-RU-exempt)) here. It doesn't matter if it wasn't licensed correctly at commons, only whether it is here. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what element in the photograph the current template (((PD-RU-exempt))) is applying to, the envelope would appear to contain nothing that is copyrightable. The only element that would appear to be copyrightable (and I don't necessary agree with that) is the work that went into the composition of the photo? What is clear is that at the moment there is no details on the author and the licence the photo is released under so for that reason and that reason alone it must be Deleted. No bar to re-uploading if the correct information is supplied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LGA (talk • contribs) 07:27, 29 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not used in article mainspace, just on two talk page posts discussing it deletion on the commons and its source which the uploader does not remember. There is no licence for the photo itself. ((PD-RU-exempt)) does not apply because there are no Russian elements in the image. The postal label is French (it might be copyright to La Poste) and there is a copyright notice in the bottom left corner of the image. ww2censor (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The French label has a design that is certainly under copyright. (A pity because the story told in the description is quite interesting). Philafrenzy (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The French label is de minimis within the image, which itself is clearly from a scanner, so the work of composing the image is also trivial at best. The image was mistakenly changed from PD-ineligible to PD-RU-exempt in 2006; it should have been changed to an appropriate fair use tag relating to the appearance of the French label in an otherwise ineligible image. The copyright notice appearing on the image is meaningless and should be removed. — Scott • talk 09:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without a source or correct licence the file should be deleted CSD F4. I do however agree that the envelope depicted in the photo is not of copyright, however depending on where the image was taken and by whom, the photo its self can be, and as such it needs to be correctly licensed and that included a valid source so that licence can be verified. LGA _talk^edits 11:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commons discussion isn't relevant, as VanIsaac notes. Envelope is completely utilitarian; the only thing "original" about the envelope itself is the mojibake, and as the creation of a computer, it's not copyrightable. Don't see the postage label as significant; it's plain with text overprinted and with a few random pieces of paper stuck to it, but even if it's copyrightable, we could always edit it out without harming the rest of the image. Finally, it should be considered a PD-scan image per Scott, and the significant part of the image is an unoriginal photo of a 2D object, the front of the envelope, so even if we don't call the whole thing PD-scan, we could crop it to just the addressing portion, since there's nothing copyrightable there. Question for everyone else I've uploaded a crop here. Do you have any objections to this version? None of your objections sound applicable to the crop, so if they still are, please clarify what you've said. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I am still of the view that at present the image should be removed for lacking a full source and verifiable licence from the person who created the image, I have never had an issue with the copyright status of any component depicted in the image. LGA _talk^edits 03:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template ((PD-RU-exempt)) is incorrect as this wasn't created by the Russian government. Sure, a postal clerk transcribed the address, but this task isn't copyrightable in most countries anyway. The photo of the 3D envelope can't be kept without permission from the photographer (cf. Commons:Template:Non-free frame revdel), and the photographer is unknown. The crop uploaded by User:Nyttend doesn't contain any copyrightable photography and the handwriting doesn't look copyrightable either, so there are no copyright reasons to delete that file. The envelope contains the name and address of a woman called ó×ÅÔÌÁÎÅ. No idea whether WP:OUTING would be relevant here. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This raises an interesting question that has had me thinking on and off all day; I am trying to work out why the crop uploaded by User:Nyttend would (or should) be free to use (I think it would be too as Stefan2 points out there is nothing copyrightable in the actual image). My thinking went first along the line of he has taken a crop of a copyrighted image and used a proportion, this is fair use .... but en.wp has a fair use policy so how does that sit with that, could be replaced by a completely free image ? well yes Nyttend could take a blank sheet of paper and copy out the text and then scan and upload that - so fair use is not an option. Then I tried to work out how you can take a copyright image, crop it and come up with an image that is free to use on en.wp and have so far drawn a blank. LGA _talk^edits 07:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this seemingly is an unoriginal scan, which really isn't copyrightable. Even aside from that, my crop took a portion of the image that I assumed all would agree to be unoriginal — when a copyrighted work contains something that's not copyrightable, taking out the PD item doesn't mean that we've created a copyrightable derivative work. Imagine that you see a photograph of a street scene that includes a logo that clearly qualifies under ((PD-shape)). Cropping the image so that it shows just the PD-shape thing isn't a copyvio, because your new image is just a few unoriginal shapes. In the same way, imagine that you find a twenty-page document from the PD-shape company and you extract their logo from one page, or so you copy a couple of words to illustrate the funny typeface that they're using. Again, this is acceptable because all you've done is copy an unoriginal portion of the image, since nobody can copyright a couple of shapes or a group of two words. When part of a copyrighted work is in the public domain, we can use the PD component by itself, because it's in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends who's copyright law you apply for example Australian copyright much like other English Law versions has a much stricter Threshold of Originality than say the US (more of an issue at Commons than here) and the photo would almost certainly be copyrightable, where I am having a conceptual problem is at what point does taking a crop of an photo remove the photographers copyright as a derivative work. It does not bother me if we keep Nyttend's version as it does not have anything that is copyrightable under US law, and it should be tagged ((PD-ineligible-USonly)). LGA _talk^edits 12:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the original image with arguably-copyrightable 3D content, but Keep Nyttend's crop as being PD-ineligible. It's an elegant solution, and Nyttend should be commended. (As an aside, the image should be better described in the article.) – Quadell ^(talk) 15:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image is low quality and not used. It is made obsolete by higher quality images. I am the uploader and requesting the deletion. Nv8200p talk 11:46, 28 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, non-useful map. I created this map in 2004 from the Census map interface through USGS GNIS. Wenatchee Mountains article does not use it any more. Low-res and not terribly informative. —hike395 (talk) 16:12, 28 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low-quality —hike395 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. The only sufficient purpose the image has is to illustrate the big-money lightning round. But the clock and the three passwords could be displayed in a free mock-up we could create. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:06, 28 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8; the game play is already sufficiently described in text. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:07, 28 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. The only sufficient purpose for this screenshot under #8 is to illustrate the columns of varying heights. But we could make a free mock-up of the eight scrambled columns ourselves to illustrate this. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:08, 28 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NFCC#3a minimal use of non-free images. The main actress already has a non-free image identifying the character and the justification for this image is Primary means of identifying a particular representation of a fictional character in the article about that character. It is not the primary identification image. There is also no need for this image to show that Martha Madison portrayed Elizabeth Webber as a temporary fill in actress when that is already conveyed by prose, so also fails WP:NFCC#8 without some critical commentary about the image itself. ww2censor (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the comments above. Also, this actress is irrelevant in the role IMO. Ar re 05:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Withdrawn - Non-admin closure

Low quality, not used in articles. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is being used as an icon, so the LQ/LowRes issue is not an issue. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the IP; the whole point of this image is use in a userbox. Why would you try to delete an uncontroversial userbox image on non-copyright grounds? Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn- In use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif, image fails NFCC 3b. Cloudbound (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous discussion at NFCR. I should also add that this image fails WP:NFCC#1, as a free image could be used to illustrate gameplay (as in Portal (series)#Gameplay). RJaguar3 | u | t 19:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion, fron RJaguar3. One frame is reasonable to show what the game's UI is like and a freely made animated version can be used to describe the mechanics. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why are we treating this (at NFCR and here) as an "image", it's a silent video. (the same as film stock based films work) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's non-free media. Whether an image or video, the media is subject to the same rules of NFCC. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The interpretation used at NFCR treats this as an image, not as a video. That makes a distinct difference as to whether to treat this as a short film, or as a very large number of images. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basically a silent stop-motion gameplay video, which is way over NFCC#3b for the gameplay description. I read the NFCR discussion and I agree with nom(s). One fair use image is sufficient to show art style and playing field. Any additional gameplay explanations should be user made if really needed (and I don't really see how this cannot be explained in prose, all other complex games cope fine, and this one goes into excessive detail in the article already). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NFG this collection of non-logos is not appropriate. LGA _talk^edits 23:59, 28 July 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.

July 28

File:Isaac ziegler house.jpg

File:Simpsons Ep 377.jpg

File:Erb-socha4.jpg

File:Facebook Login Page.jpg

File:Armando-Torres-III.png

File:Eduardo-Almanza-Morales.jpg

File:Simpsonconan.jpg

File:Letter to Russia with krokozyabry.jpg

File:Ski jacket 1990s.jpg

File:Wenatchee Mountains.png

File:Mount Lyell Painting.jpg

File:Password (TV series) lightning round 1975.jpg

File:Scorepassword.jpg

File:Hitmanbonusround.jpg

File:Martha Madison as Elizabeth.jpg

File:Puu oo resize.png

File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif

File:PTV Family.jpg