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⚡ 06:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zrinyi 1 background and 2 in foreground.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RAAR Razorback (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

On Commons, the user claimed this as own work: c:File:Zrinyi 1 and 2.jpg, but here attributes it to a (404) link. Also licensed non-commercial. Is there any way it might be salvaged? If not we should delete this as a precaution. BethNaught (talk) 08:22, 5 February 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⚡ 06:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adam lanza sandy hook shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Masem (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I appreciate Masem's good-faith addition of this photo in the "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article. Nevertheless, discussions about suspect profile photos, like Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, resulted in deletion. I don't see an exception to this photo, even when the section is very big enough to carry a photo without overlapping other sections and images. George Ho (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hopefully this deletion request is not designed to make the point that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We all know about the long running saga over the Chris Mercer image, but I can see no good reason to delete the image of Adam Lanza as it has a properly written fair use rationale.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no impact on the reader's understanding of the article to see the picture of the shooter in understanding the shooting incident. Fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 5 February 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 05:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dreamr Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Miles86 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This logo (text within a black sphere) does look like it'd fall under ((PD-textlogo)) (or PD-USOnly seeing as it comes from the UK, which has a lower threshold of originality than the United States. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 5 February 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)). — ξ^xplicit 05:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joell Ortiz Human.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Koala15 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This cover art is only white text on a black background. As such it doesn't meet the threshold of originality at least in the US and can't be copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: So fix it. Replace the non-free media tag with a ((PD-logo)) tag. No need for a disucssion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: I very much prefer to run this through FFD for now, seeing as I am not a copyright lawyer and we are talking about sensitive legal stuff here. I am open to the idea of retagging obvious cases, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have any evidence that this cover art actually was used for the product indicated? The user who wrote the FUR didn't provide any source (and a Google reverse lookup gives no hits). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stefan2: Googling for the album name shows plenty of websites which use the cover displayed here for this album, for example on iTunes.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. This doesn't find anything at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 8 February 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-logo)). — ξ^xplicit 05:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reform logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by A.szczep (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Pretty obviously a PD-textlogo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 5 February 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 F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacksonville Magazine logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cuchullain (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Pretty sure such a text-only logo qualifies as ((PD-textlogo)). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:24, 5 February 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-logo)). — ξ^xplicit 05:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Labour Leave.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zumoarirodoka (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

More along the line of "PD-textlogo, no way this could be copyrightable in the US" as it's only text with some colour. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, seems reasonable. Would this file also qualify for PD-textlogo? – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 19:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am fairly sure it would.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up I've changed the licensing on both files now. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 13:54, 6 February 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⚡ 06:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sally192999.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zosimus Comes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The poster is used in the plot section of Sally (1929 film) against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. There is already a public domain film poster used in the infobox, so this poster fails WP:NFCC#3a. The fair use rationale for the image claims, "The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.", but neither of these are true. I could not find any information about this poster being in the public domain, but if the information is found and the use templates changed, then this discussion can be closed as moot. Aspects (talk) 23:43, 5 February 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⚡ 06:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sally1929HH.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zosimus Comes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The poster is used in the cast section of Sally (1929 film), where there is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. There is already a public domain film poster used in the infobox, so this poster fails WP:NFCC#3a. The fair use rationale for the image claims, "The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.", but neither of these are true. I could not find any information about this poster being in the public domain, but if the information is found and the use templates changed, then this discussion can be closed as moot. Aspects (talk) 23:45, 5 February 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.