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: Transfer to Commons. Now at File:'Crist', by Cynewulf, translated into Quenya, written in Tengwar.png. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Crist", by Cynewulf, translated into Quenya, written in Tengwar.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HunterX (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic :Jay8g^{Inspect-Berate-Know} _{WASH-BRIDGE-WPWA-MFIC} 02:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to commons this is a font sample, using a public domain poem. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:14, 6 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 Month Implied volatility AAPL AVSPY SPY.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jaina3 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan, can't see use :Jay8g^{Inspect-Berate-Know} _{WASH-BRIDGE-WPWA-MFIC} 02:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• need expert advice This was uploaded for Alpha Indexes, which was written by the uploader. It was included in the article for a time, but was removed in favor of a different graph showing different data. We would need someone with expertise to evaluate the utility of this image. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The image is unreferenced. Where do the numbers come from? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's true of all the graphs in the article. Shall we delete them too? Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. Ideally, there should be a reference for graphs with information which typically would need a citation, because the article otherwise is full of ^{[citation needed]}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put in a request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Investment for expert input. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is not used, does not seem to be useful, and there does not appear to be any successful attempt (after 2 months) to find a valid use for it. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:17, 15 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: Transfer to Commons. De728631 (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:1号館IMGP4953.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tokyo Watcher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, subject not indicated so can't see use :Jay8g^{Inspect-Berate-Know} _{WASH-BRIDGE-WPWA-MFIC} 03:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to commons the subject is burned into the photo. Looking at it, you'd see it. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to commons - I've cropped it to remove the border, and removed the watermark  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The file was moved from File:1号館IMGP4953.jpg to File:The First Bldg and the Pond at The Institute of Medical Science.jpg by Ronhjones (talk · contribs) at 21:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC). AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 27 May 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. These images were apparently taken in Venice, Italy, where there's no freedom of panorama for copyrighted architectural works and other artwork. Currently there's no suitable article at the English Wikipedia for this image or the other one to be used under a fair use claim (60 Minute Man (architecture) is a redirect), so File:2000 60 minute man.jpg had to be deleted anyway. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2000 60 minute man.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OscarHansen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan, low quality, can't see use :Jay8g^{Inspect-Berate-Know} _{WASH-BRIDGE-WPWA-MFIC} 03:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also redundant to higher quality File:Sixty Minute Man.jpg:Jay8g^{Inspect-Berate-Know} _{WASH-BRIDGE-WPWA-MFIC} 03:22, 6 May 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: Transferred to Commons. Now at File:Autumn trees Belmont Plateau Philadelphia.jpg. De728631 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2004 10 31 123 31 OPL.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by David L Ellis (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan, unencyclopedic, no description so can't see use :Jay8g^{Inspect-Berate-Know} _{WASH-BRIDGE-WPWA-MFIC} 03:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there's a source link, if you had clicked on it, you'd find a description. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to commons perfectly reasonable picture of fall tree colors. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to commons - a usable image of tree leaf colors in the fall. Also, a description is in place at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:24, 7 May 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: Transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2004 Chevrolet Monte Carlo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tommyjr (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, low quality and better images exist :Jay8g^{Inspect-Berate-Know} _{WASH-BRIDGE-WPWA-MFIC} 03:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to commons quality is usable in galleries and thumbnails, therefore of usable quality. What better images exist of 2004 Chevy Monte Carlo coupes? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to commons - a useful image, whereas deletion of it doesn't help Wikimedia in this case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:26, 7 May 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. This violates our non-free content criteria. De728631 (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cervinara-Stemma.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Attilios (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Why exactly do we need a non-free image for this? The blazon of a coat of arms is typically in the public domain (see Commons:Commons:COA and Commons:Template:Coat of arms), so anyone can create a freely licensed replacement of this image. The use of a non-free representation of the coat of arms harms the chances of ever getting a freely drawn replacement image. See for example Commons:Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Sweden for a successful example of people making freely licensed replacement drawings of coats of arms. Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think so... we should wait ages before somebody doing THIS coat of arms. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is a coat of arms any different to a photo of a living person? We have no problems waiting for ages until someone finds a camera and takes a photo of a living person, so why would we have problems waiting for ages until someone finds a paper and a pen and makes a drawing of a coat of arms? All you need to replace a non-free image of a coat of arms is a paper, pens in various colours and a scanner.

Also note that this isn't a drawing made by the municipality but by the www.araldicacivica.it website. The images at http://www.comune.cervinara.av.it/ look slightly differently as those are drawn by a different artist. If the www.araldicacivica.it website can make drawings of a coat of arms, then why wouldn't a Wikipedia user be able to do the same thing? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-free coats of arms should never be uploaded since they are always replaceable by images with a free license. And I've just created File:Cervinara-Stemma.svg. De728631 (talk) 17:18, 20 June 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Rain" by Madonna - UK single cover.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jwad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8, there's no commentary regarding the alternate cover art, except for the unsourced info, thus does not explain how it helps to increase reader's understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#3a, since the same image is the main cover art in the "I'll Remember" article and a similar image is being used and discussed in the music video section of this article, hence multiple usage of same image. Delete this. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Image is mentioned in the said article and there is also a reference to other single page for "I'll Remember" which uses the same image for the single release a year later. I changed the image on the latter's single page to the European version which is different, this was then reverted by the above user. The only criteria for use of an additional image is that is different from the original and it is used in the article. It meets both this criteria. There seems to be a monopoly on only American artwork on Madonna singles pages which is deeply unfair for international users. jwad.... ^{blah | blah | blah} 10:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any reasoning as to why a separate image is needed which is already existing in another article as non-free image. Your points violate the WP:NFCC#3a clause. And it is beyond obvious that for an American artist, her American cover arts will be the main infobox image, any other cover art used have to be justified through NFCC. "The only criteria for use of an additional image is that is different from the original and it is used in the article", I'm afraid to say you have a wrong understanding of NFCC, I would advise you to go through it. Also, there is no source indicating that the cover art was shot by the said people, or any significance in increasing reader's understanding of the article. It can be replaced by prose that "The image from the cover art of 'I'll Remember' was used as alternate artwork in 'Rain'." Hence fails WP:NFCC#8. There you go, can you counter-point these reasonnings? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another similar image is being used in the music video section where it is being discussed. Hence another instance why this fails WP:NFCC#3a. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do get what your saying and see some of your points, but is there not a policy that a second cover artwork can be used as long as it is mentioned in the article and it is significantly different? If so, this image meets this criteria. There is also additional info mentioned about the photographer and the fact the image was altered on "I'll Remember" with the microphone removed from the photo. Also the artwork involved a "sticker" which was on the actual cover and not on the case which details the information on including "Open Your Heart" from the Peugeot TV Ad which was the b-side from this release. This info is also mentioned in the article. jwad.... ^{blah | blah | blah} 16:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't pass NFCC, and a limited release in one location and its cover art is of no significance at all. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete MOS:FILM#Soundtrack tells that you can't include an image of the cover of the soundtrack of a film because the film poster already provides sufficient identification of the film. A film soundtrack is a secondary product to a film just as a different edition of a music product is secondary to any other edition of it, so using the same arguing, it means that a music article only can contain one cover image. See also MOS:NOVELS#Image which is clear about only using one cover image. The main differences between music and books is that book consumers almost always see the cover (as you almost always need to hold the book in your hands) whereas a music cover is seen by much fewer people as many music consumers access the music by listening to it on the radio or through an online streaming service which doesn't show the cover, meaning that music covers provide less understanding of the topic (WP:NFCC#8) than a book cover. Per WP:NFCC#3a, the number of non-free images should be limited to as few as possible. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 as stated on Template:Infobox album, "An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion.", which could be logically used for singles. It was distributed in the United Kigndom and it is the cover version that they would expect to see for identification purposes and does not need to be "subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary" since it is being used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art thereby passing WP:NFCC#3a. This also passes WP:NFCC#8, since it is being used for identification purposes, that English/British readers who would expect this cover version over the original version would impair their understanding of the article and would be detrimental to their understanding of the article. A similar image used on a different article is no reason to delete the image from this article and if anything having this image for identification purposes means that the video screenshot could be removed from this article. Aspects (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page Template:Infobox album is not a policy whereas WP:NFCC is, so whenever those conflict, the page WP:NFCC takes precedence. Also, note that the only difference between an album cover and a book cover is that the album cover provides less identification than the book cover, so the only difference is that an album cover has harder to meet WP:NFCC#8 than a book cover. Thus, it should always be possible the book cover criteria for an album cover: if an extra book cover wouldn't meet WP:NFCC#8, then an album cover wouldn't do that either. An extra book cover wouldn't meet WP:NFCC#8 in a book article, so the same is obviously true for an album cover too. Also, if the cover only was distributed in one geographical region, that obviously means that the cover provides less identification (and thus has a harder time to satisfy WP:NFCC#8) since only people from that geographical region would identify the product from that cover. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Honeymousers.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cholmes75 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 6 May 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:PYL Pilot Set.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JoBrLa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

LQ photo is cropped representation of three contestants in front of the game board. Article now includes File:Press Your Luck board.jpg, showing the entire board, and this file is OB/no longer needed. AldezD (talk) 18:02, 6 May 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) 13:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swedendippassport.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bonus bon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Substantially similar to File:SverigePassProvisoriskt.png. See WP:NFCC#3a. Ideally, both of the images should be replaced by an image of a standard passport, though. Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see how the two passports are substantially similar, since one is a temporary passport and the other a diplomatic one, and neither are a regular passport -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same image, only different colours and a few different letters. The differences can easily be replaced by text. Also, not the current design: since 2012, passports use a different cover image.[1] Old passports remain valid for 5 years since they were issued, so some people still have passports with that image. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 9 May 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. No movement on permission in two month. We would gladly use multiple photos of this artist if the copyright holder will release the images under a free license. As they are unfree, however, we must follow our NFCC. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Artist Sam Francis at work in his Arcueil, Paris studio, 1958.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mydogsarelazy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I don't think that we need two different unfree photos of him and File:Artist Sam Francis at his Santa Monica studio 1979.jpg looks a bit better, I'd say. Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2 I'm working for the Sam Francis Estate and they requested the 2nd photo. They own permissions to both photos... would you like verification of that?

173.58.63.249 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CONSENT for instructions on how to sort out the permission issue. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 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.