The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 16:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably doesn't qualify for fair use as this product is still being sold. [1] Ixfd64 (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia must protect the rights of Beyerdynamic who own the image. Beyerdynamic should not lose business or market value because of the image being used here. Will Beyerdynamic be harmed by this image appearing in Wikipedia?

The most important point here is that the artwork is not the product. The image here is not the final product. Rather, the image represents an actual microphone which is not downloadable from the internet. A consumer must purchase the actual microphone even if they have access to the image. The microphone retains its value despite freely available images of it.

The manufacturer's product page is essentially a press kit for the microphone, offering several images for perusal, and technical downloads. Among the various links promoting the microphone is a spec sheet which also includes an image of the microphone. The manufacturer is giving this information freely so that the consumer can familiarize themselves with the product. It's for promotion of the product, just like thousands of other companies and products seen online.

Beyerdynamic will not be harmed by this image appearing on Wikipedia; in fact the company may benefit by having more people know what the microphone looks like. Binksternet (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFCC#1 since a free image could be created by photographing the microphone. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, but since the use seems to be in the company's best interest, I will contact them to request free licensing. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 12:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No permission was gained from the photographer, and it's possible to take a free equivalent of such an image. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Procedural close as not actionable. The copyright status of the Commons file is under discussion in this DR. We can revisit this when the DR is resolved -Fastily 08:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has a file commons:File:Leonid Toptunov.jpg, sourced to this website that credits it to the owners of the Chernobyl NPP and licences it as CC-BY 4.0. Presuming that the copyrights were passed along the property rights, the local file could be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: the commons file was deleted today by Yann as a copyright violation. Cremastra (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as non-free: There's no clear non-free content criterion that this file fails. It has a valid rationale. If it is indeed under copyright, there is no free image that it could be replaced with (NFCC 1.) Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 12:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the source page does indicate a CC BY 4.0 license. I will request undeletion of the Commons file. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2023-12#File:Leonid Toptunov.jpg. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth -Fastily 08:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This on-free video game screenshot is being used with the stated purpose of illustrating the game's art style which is inspired by riso printing. This image fails WP:NFCC#3a as the cover art in the infobox already provides an illustration of this style. As well, there is no significant sourced critical commentary about the art style in the article. The only text about the art style int he article is a single sentence, and that sentence is sourced to an article which just reprints the game's Steam page. As such it also fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a different rationale I don't see how it can't just be tweaked to illustrate the gameplay instead. Looking at Google I am pretty sure that's how the game looks in action. Gameplay screenshots are standard in game articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no automatic allowance for gameplay screenshots. They still require a valid rationale to meet WP:NFCC#8 and you haven't provided any. And just to be clear I don't consider something generic like "To illustrate the gameplay" to be valid. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The image serves no useful purpose, since the infobox image is similar. There's also no clear reason why it is needed in order to comment on gameplay (and the image isn't used for that.) Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 09:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed former logo, which sounds like it wasn't even used. Even if it was used, the logo doesn't significantly enhance the article, so fails WP:NFCC#8, and also fails WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free images in an article, as File:Quebec Nordiques Logo.svg suffices Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. The other file in the section, File:Nordiques_proposed_-_accurate_colours.jpg, can be kept since there is sourced commentary in the section, and the logo is hard to visualize without the assistance of an image. One file is all we need, otherwise there's a clear violation of NFCC 3. The other file is more useful because it provides the reader a more complete representation of the section's subject (plus the logo is much smaller). Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 21:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse comment by Thriftycat. Agree with all points raised.Flibirigit (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status, and as discussed below, probably replaceable with a freely licensed version -Fastily 08:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These error messages are likely too simple to be copyrighted. Otherwise, I don't think we need three screenshots of 404 errors to illustrate the DDoS attacks. If those images are truly essential to the article, then someone could visit a non-responsive website on an open-source browser and then use "inspect element" to recreate these images. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These are likely very similar or identical to the messages shown by Chromium, which is freely licensed. Not sure if that means the images themselves are free, though. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 05:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1 Elli (talk | contribs) 02:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph from a yearbook published in 1924, public domain in the US since 2020. Please restore versions and move to Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need to go to FFD for something like this. You can change the licensing to PD and provide the the standard information, or in this specific image's case, just remove the NFURs as the information template is already present. After that is done, you can just ask for the previous revisions to be restored at WP:RFU. Note I've done that for this image. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind for future cases like this, thanks. Abzeronow (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting speedy close so I can transfer the image (with its history) to Commons using FileImporter. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 23:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 11

File:Beyerdynamic M 160.jpg

File:Leonid Toptunov.jpg

File:Saltsea Chronicles screenshot.jpg

File:Nordiques proposed logo - correct colours.jpg

File:CFR Călători DDOS1 2022.png

File:Robbierobinson.jpg