< January 10	January 12 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to ((PD-India)), the copyright term to a 'work of cinema' is 60 years from publication (or 50 years from publication if published before 1941). Those films which were in the public domain in India as of 1996 would typically be in the public domain in the United States too (as ((PD-1996))). According to Noor Jehan#Filmography, this person has appeared in films since 1936, so this image seems to violate WP:NFCC#1 as it could be replaced by an image from a pre-1941 film. This picture appears to be from a film from 1946, which is thus in the public domain in India but not in the United States. Additionally, the file appears to violate WP:NFCC#9 on the page User:SheriffIsInTown. Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Mark Spitznagel and WP:NFCC#9 in User:Oceanflynn/Zero Sum Game (Finance). Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from "Mark Spitznagel" per Stefan2. The way the cover art is being used the "Roundabout investing" section is purely decorative since book cover itself is not the subject of the sourced commentary typically required for such usage according to WP:NFC#cite note-2. Finally, I have removed the image from User:Oceanflynn/Zero Sum Game (Finance) per NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free images and left a note on their user talk explaining why, so there are no more outstanding NFCC#9 issues to resolve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to fail WP:NFCC#8 in Rita Pam Tarachi and WP:NFCC#9 in User:Adrian 8076/Fragments of her identity. Stefan2 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this listed here? It passed all the necessary requirements so why is it here? Adrian 8076 (talk)

Hi Adrian 8076. I removed the file from your user subpage per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free images and left a more detailed post at User talk:Adrian 8076#Non-free images explaining why. The other problem with image's usage has to do with WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. Generally, a non-free book cover or album cover is only considered appropriate when used in stand-alone articles about the book or album itself and not appropriate in article about the book's author or the album's singer/band (see WP:NFC#cite note-2 for more details). In this particular case, I agree with Stefan2 that the use of the non-free book cover in "Rita Pam Tarachi" is mainly decorative and thus it should be removed. I'm not sure what you mean by "It passed all the necessary requirements". but simply adding a non-free use rationale to a file does not automatically mean it's usage complies with WP:NFCC. Simply wanting to show the book cover is not enough; the cover art itself should be the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article. In other words, reliable sources should have talked about the cover itself (e.e., its design, significance, etc.) and the content in the article should reflect that discussion. There's nothing like that currently in the article at all so omitting the book cover would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding at all in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this listed here? It passed all the necessary requirements so why is it here? Adrian 8076 (talk)

Remove per NFCC#8 and for the same reasons I gave above in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 11#File:Fragments of her identity book.jpeg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2016 (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: remove from exploitation film. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Exploitation film and WP:NFCC#9 in User:Khalid Nezami/sandbox. Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed file from the user sandbox per NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free images and left note on user's talk page explaining why. Agree that the usage in "Exploitation films" is mainly decorative so it also fails WP:NFCC#8 (as well as possibly WP:NFLISTS). I think the usage of the other non-free movie poster in "Exploitation" should also be evaluated for the same reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2016 (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: remove from exploitation film. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Exploitation film. Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nominator and also think it violates WP:NFLISTS (and thus WP:NFCC#8) and should only be used in the stand-alone article about the movie -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2016 (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 in Cannibal Holocaust, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §6 on multiple pages and WP:NFCC#10c on one. It should only be used in Cannibal Holocaust. Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from Cannibal boom per WP:NFCCE. Agree with nominator and think it violates WP:NFCC#8 in "Canibal film" and "Exploitation film" and should be removed from them as well. Should only be used in stand-alone article about the movie. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to violate:

WP:NFCC#8 in Cheddar cheese,
WP:NFLISTS in Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union and
WP:NFCC#9 in Talk:Obama logo. Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hid image being used in talk page discussion per NFCC#9. Agree that usage in "Cheeder cheese" is inappropriate per NFCC#8, but not completely sure about the usage in the "Geographical indications" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a dicey case. Given the topic of these two sections, one could make a claim that they serve identificatory purposes and thus satisfy WP:NFCC#8 there. I do think though that such identificatory scope is usually given on per article not per section basis in practice.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 13 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to violate WP:NFCC#10c in Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany and Walther Funk, WP:NFCC#9 in User:A.S. Brown/Herschel Grynszpan and User talk:AmritasyaPutra and WP:NFCC#8 in Herschel Grynszpan. Stefan2 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#9 issues taken care of and notes left on each user's talk page explaining why the non-free images cannot be used in such a way. Removed images from "Walther Funk" and "Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany" per WP:NFCCE since there was no separate, specific non-free use rationale provided per WP:NFCC#10c and replaced with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-083-42, Magdeburg, zerstörtes jüdisches Geschäft.jpg per WP:NFCC#1 since it serves the same encyclopedic purpose. Also, I do not feel non-free usage is justified per NFCC#8 and NFCC#1 in either "Herschel Grynszpan" or "Kristallnacht" as well because the Commons image exists. The Commons image is already being used in "Kristallnacht", so a non-free image showing another broken storefront window is not needed, and it can be added to the "Grynszpan" article if desired. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-083-42, Magdeburg, zerstörtes jüdisches Geschäft.jpg. It seems that the picture violates WP:NFCC#1 everywhere, then. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As indicated, a fully suitable free replacement exists.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:25, 13 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association: former logo. Fails WP:NFCC#9 in User:Msjraz64/sandbox3. Stefan2 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed image from user sandbox per WP:NFCC#9 and left note on their talk page explaining why. As for the image's use in the association's article, I agree that the usage is primarily decorative and not allowed per NFCC#8. Is it possible, however, that this qualifies as ((PD-logo))? Would the outlines of the State of Missouri and State of Kansas be considered to be copyrightable? Aren't they essentially the same as what is shown in File:Missouri in United States.svg, File:Kansas in United States.svg or in File:MIAAstates.png? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maps are typically copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A. Most people who either participated or watched games in the MIAA from 1990 to 2008 would recognize the conference by this logo. Some people who may have stopped keeping up-to-date with the conference for whatever reason and haven't kept up with them for a long time may not recognize it with the new logo. B. How is this any different than this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this? C. How can maps be copyrighted when there are a shit ton of them on Commons? That is just a portion (mainly for sports), but there are plenty of more maps on there. Do you wanna go through and file all of those for deletion, too, since they are "copyrighted"? I've never understood this stupid-ass rule and I think it ruins Wikipedia and its readers. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A By default, we only permit one logo in the article unless there is sourced critical discussion about the logo. We can't include lots of galleries of logos as WP:NFCC#3b would disallow this.
- B Many of those seem to be ((PD-textlogo)). Some might be ((PD-US-no notice)) or something else. Some might be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
- C I checked some of the maps in that category, and those were listed as licensed by the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
so are you nominating the others I mentioned for deletion too? If not, then this file should stay. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 23:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of those seem to be PD-textlogo or in the public domain for other reasons, so they would need a careful review before any of them are nominated for deletion. For example, you may have noticed that I didn't tag File:MIAA (1912-1990) logo.png (from the same article) for deletion because it is stated that this logo was first used in 1912. If that claim is correct, then that file is ((PD-1923)). --Stefan2 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: extra logo. Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about these files? These are also non-free images and fails WP:NFCC#8. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 13:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Former logos are typically not permitted unless there is sourced critical discussion about the logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: Kindly fix the errors from the file. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 07:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per Stefan2. Decorative usage in galleries is not allowed per WP:NFG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Please help me in this regard. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 09:35, 13 January 2016 (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 F6 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: extra logo. Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about these files? These are also non-free images and fails WP:NFCC#8. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 13:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Former logos are typically not permitted unless there is sourced critical discussion about the logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: Kindly fix the errors from the file. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 07:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per Stefan2. Logo is also being used in a gallery which is almost always indicative of decorative use and also not something that is generally allowed per WP:NFG. As for fixing the files, please note that WP:NFCCE states "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." So, if you ("you" meaning Swastik Chakraborty) wish to retain the file, then you should be the one to try and fix it. What you need to do is somehow incorporate the logo into the article text and provide reliable sources which discuss the logo so that its "contextual significance" to the reader's understanding is more apparent. Right now, the logo (and the other ones being used in the same gallery) does not really need to be seen for the reader to understand any of what is written in the article. On the other hand, if you can find reliable sources which discuss on the changes made to the logo over the years and what the imagery of the logo means, then you might be able to satisfy NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Please help me in this regard. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 08:14, 13 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, no contextual significance except just a screenshot showing all four band members of The Corrs. Removal is not detrimental to article. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:28, 11 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former logo. Appears to fail WP:NFCC#8 in Spokane Shock and WP:NFC#UUI §14 in all other articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2016 (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. Appears to be official poster of the event. — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the fair use rationale, This is a poster for 2016 Dakar route, but it seems that it is just a map, and the image seems to be in violation of WP:NFC#UUI §4 and WP:NFCC#1 in 2016 Dakar Rally. It also seems to be in violation of WP:NFCC#9 in Template:Infobox rally raid and Template:Infobox rally raid/doc. Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file was replaced by the integral picture (and not a part as first version). Now its the full poster, not just "the map part" and looks not simple. Replaced image used on template documentation (Template:Infobox rally raid/doc) (its was lapse by copy-pasting). The image was never used in Template:Infobox rally raid.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant extra image. Per WP:NFCC#3a, it should be enough to have one image (File:ESET NOD32 Antivus.png). Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This violates WP:NFC#UUI §14 in all of the year articles. It also violates WP:NFCC#10c in Orange Bowl and some of the year articles. Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is being used under fair use with a claim that it is being used at the top of the article. It is not at the top of the article and is also redundant to another fair use image at the top of the article, File:1200 S Indiana, Vinoly's South Loop Tower in Chicago, Illinois.jpg. This exceeds a minimal use of non-free material within the article. Whpq (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has a fair use rationale for Cooperative gameplay, but I can't see why someone couldn't create a free replacement. For example, someone created File:Korenanteeroge.png to illustrate articles about pornographic games (for example, zh:日本成人遊戲), and I don't see why someone wouldn't be able to create a similar replacement for this game type. Additionally, the file violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#10c in Boss (video gaming), where we already have two freely licensed images. Additionally, the file violates WP:NFCC#9 on Portal:Video games/Picture and Portal:Video games/Picture/94. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems are solved. --Pangkakit (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the WP:NFCC#10c issue now being resolved in Cooperative gameplay, I would argue that the file also fails WP:NFCC#8 in that article since the commentary is not specifically about the video game in the file. Also, I could also argue that the image fails WP:NFCC#1 for the reason is seems to be claimed to meet WP:NFCC#8 since a picture of people playing video games could illustrate the same purpose of this file, which could be created with a free license. In fact, I would even go to the extent to say that the only article where this image may meet all of WP:NFCC with its inclusion is Monster Strike, but even that is questionable since Monster Strike currently already has a gameplay image included in its context (File:MonSt Gameplay.jpg), so adding the nominated file may be overkill, failing WP:NFCC#3. Steel1943 (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pangkakit has been using Wikipedia just to show off his Monster Strike team because he has three copies of a super rare monster. He has used this on File:Monster_Strike.png and File:MonSt.png, as you have found out here, but he also uploaded File:Lucifer.png which he posted to Japanese popular culture and has repeatedly changed the picture File:MonSt_Gameplay.jpg to be identical to his Monster_Strike.png image. You can see that Monster_Strike.png was deleted multiple times but he keeps re-uploading it just to have his three Lucifer team hosted on Wikipedia to show off and have his picture as the main Monster Strike picture however he can.--OuendanL (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's use in the co-operative game play article does not meet the stated use in the fair-use rationale as the rationale claims it is being used for "Identification of game" and the target article is not actually a game but a type of game. Furthgermore, the rationale cannot be tweaked to use it as an illustration of co-operative gameplay in that there is already a freely licensed image in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to violate WP:NFCC#1 in Boss (video gaming) as the article already has two freely licensed images. Additionally, the file appears to violate WP:NFCC#10c in Phoenix (video game). Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2016 (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: convert to ((PD-ineligible-USonly)). — ξ ^xplicit 02:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would this image actually not be eligible for copyright in the United States due to lack of originality and consisting solely of characters that represent letters and words? Or, is that not the case with this? Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not copyrightable in the United States. The copyright status in China is unclear, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
commons:COM:TOO doesn't have much information about China, but apparently one character (not used in this logo) is copyrighted there. I presume here it would fall under PD-USOnly.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 13 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has a fair use rationale for Mobile game, where it appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. The image additionally appears to violate WP:NFCC#10c in Video gaming in Japan, and WP:NFCC#9 in Portal:Video games/Featured article and Portal:Video games/Featured article/128. Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems are solved. --Pangkakit (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the WP:NFCC#10c issue now being resolved in Video gaming in Japan, I would argue that the file also fails WP:NFCC#8 in that article since the commentary is not specifically about the video game in the file. Also, I could also argue that the image fails WP:NFCC#1 for the reason is seems to be claimed to meet WP:NFCC#8 since a picture of people in Japan playing video games could illustrate the same purpose of this file, which could be created with a free license. Steel1943 (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I would even go to the extent to say that the only article where this image may meet all of WP:NFCC with its inclusion is Monster Strike, but even that is questionable since Monster Strike currently already has a gameplay image included in its context (File:MonSt Gameplay.jpg), so adding the nominated file may be overkill, failing WP:NFCC#3. Steel1943 (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In #File:Monster Strike.png I explained what Pangkakit is doing with this and the other picture. --OuendanL (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fair use rationale claims the purpose of the image is "Identification of game", but the target article is not a game, nor is there any discussion of the depicted game in the target article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2016 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an entire poem, which seems to be a violation of WP:NFCC#3b. The file also violates WP:NFCC#9 on User talk:Martinevans123. Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On this file, there is something odd about the information in the fair-use template. It makes me wonder if there is a way to prove that this file has been released with a free license, but was not declared when the file was uploaded. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe related to c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den Shī shì shí shī shǐ .ogg? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same file. Originally a full article read in ch-wiki. So a shorten version, like first lines would be OK?RicHard-59 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an OGG file be useful in the first place? I don't see how a file where someone says "shi" several times with different tones would increase the understanding of the subject of the article. See WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2016 (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.

January 11

File:Noorjahan1.jpg

File:DaoofCapital.jpg

File:Fragments of her identity book.jpeg

File:Rita Pam's sixth book, Sunday.jpg

File:Good the bad and the ugly poster.jpg

File:Coffy.jpg

File:Cannibal Holocaust movie.jpg

File:PDO-Logo.svg

File:Kristallnacht example of physical damage.jpg

File:MIAA previous logo.png

File:Mohun Bagan first logo.jpg

File:Mohun Bagan other logo.png

File:The Corrs Only When I Sleep Music Video.jpg

File:SpokaneShock.PNG

File:2016 Dakar route.jpg

File:ESET NOD32 Antivirus.png

File:OrangeBowlLogo1951-1988.png

File:1200 S Indiana, Phase Two, Chicago, Illinois.jpg

File:Monster Strike.png

File:Phoenix Stage5.png

File:Chukong Technologies Logo.png

File:MonSt.png

File:Shī shì shí shī shǐ -施氏食狮史 poem.ogg