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 ⚡ 01:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio. This photo can be found elsewhere on the internet prior to having been uploaded here, credited to Alex Oshmyansky [1] or MCCPDC [2], and in equal (high) resolution at [3]. Permission is needed from the photographer/copyright holder, via a link to their own webpage displaying a free license, or through WP:VRT. -M.nelson (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rational. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:16, 3 August 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt these are actually own work. Seems to be taken for the purpose of advertising (see uploader's talk page). Can be replaced with files at c:Category:Stirrups. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KeepYes, it very much seems to be someone who is trying to promote a product. However, DESPITE THIS PERSON'S ATTEMPT TO PUT SO MUCH IN ALL CAPS, it appears very much that he DOES own these images. As such, it appears he's released them under a compatible license. They are high quality images and I think the encyclopedia would be better off with them than without. Let's not conflate promotion of a product (a behavior of a contributor that is prohibited) with whether these images are appropriate for an encyclopedia; a typical content vs contributor argument...let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Buffs (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: I notice you seem to have resubmitted only ones where I disagreed...seems odd. Could you please explain? Buffs (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assessment unless someone brings evidence to the contrary. Buffs (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't think of a reason to doubt that it isn't simply the uploader's photographs of the products he manufactures. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:11, 8 August 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt these are actually own work. Seems to be taken for the purpose of advertising (see uploader's talk page). Can be replaced with files at c:Category:Stirrups. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KeepYes, it very much seems to be someone who is trying to promote a product. However, DESPITE THIS PERSON'S ATTEMPT TO PUT SO MUCH IN ALL CAPS, it appears very much that he DOES own these images. As such, it appears he's released them under a compatible license. They are high quality images and I think the encyclopedia would be better off with them than without. Let's not conflate promotion of a product (a behavior of a contributor that is prohibited) with whether these images are appropriate for an encyclopedia; a typical content vs contributor argument...let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assessment unless someone brings evidence to the contrary. Buffs (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't think of a reason to doubt that it isn't simply the uploader's photographs of the products he manufactures. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:11, 8 August 2022 (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: De minims likely applies, however we will need the uploader to indicate which free license they would like to publish the image under. Not acceptable to keep this as fair use. No prejudice to restoration if the uploader indicates a free license to release the image under. -FASTILY 08:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an own photograph by the uploader themselves. I think just the controller and pocket watch would be sufficient, as the box art is not needed as being redundant to one already on the article. Maybe someone can contact the uploader to release the image under free licence, but check if ((Photo of art)) or de minimis applies. Stylez995 (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep everything here is largely utilitarian, IMHO, not artistic. For ANY artistic points, de minimis clearly/completely applies Buffs (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assessment unless someone brings evidence to the contrary. Buffs (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree this is de minimis, but if it's kept, non-free licenses should be removed and replaced with ((no license)) and ((de minimis)), and email the uploader to add a free licence before it gets deleted. Note that the uploader's last edit was 18 September 2020. --Stylez995 (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2022 (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 ⚡ 01:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to verify the license because the source page is now private. However, there is no reason to believe this specific image was freely licensed because all of the Flickr's other images indicate "All rights reserved." Ixfd64 (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyvio. tineye.com shows many (copyrighted) sites that predate the upload of this image. Absent any indication he is the copyright holder, it needs to go. Buffs (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, clearly not correct license for wikipedia. Can't be viewed unless you're the owner of the uploading Flicker account. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:16, 3 August 2022 (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: relisted on 2022 August 10. ✗plicit 23:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brandy feat. Chris Brown - Put It Down.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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 ⚡ 01:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like second covers to be kept, WP:NFCC states that one cover suffices for the purpose of primary identification. A second cover should only exist if it provides sufficient additional context. I don't think this condition is met. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one or the other one. NFCC is clear. Buffs (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2022 (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 ⚡ 01:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like multiple covers, WP:NFCC does not allow it where there is insufficient context. The rational for this image says The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art but this is not the case, this cover is the secondary cover for the re-release and is not subject to any commentary or coverage. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NFCC is clear. Buffs (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2022 (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 ⚡ 01:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wallpaper contains copyrighted character and may not be de minimis. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic, unused. I'd be hard pressed to say that's a copyrighted character or that de minimis didn't apply. The character in question (I assume you mean the one who looks vaguely like Link) takes up less than a 6th of the phone and a significantly smaller portion of the photo...maybe 3%. So even assuming it's a copyrighted character, de minimis would apply. I've seen so many sketches of similar characters from similar mythical stories that I'd be hard pressed to say it's a derivation. Buffs (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2022 (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.

August 3

File:Alex Picture 2 copy 2.jpg

File:MDCUltimate Trio Silver.jpg

File:MDC Comfort Trio.JPG

File:Densha de Go 64, Controller by Taito for N64.JPG

File:NewHolland Telehandler LM5000.jpg

File:Brandy feat. Chris Brown - Put It Down.ogg

File:Little Mix - Glory Days, The Platinum Edition.png

File:Disco Guest List Edition Cover.png

File:Nokia 5200 Black.JPG