The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The pinball machine artwork here appears to be more than de minimis since it is the focal point of the photo. I suggest converting to fair use, if appropriate, for the main article, and removing all other usage. A silhouette could be used for the purposes of an illustration in the pinball stub. czar 00:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Photo of the uploader, doesn't specify whether the copyright was transferred or who took the photo czar 00:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Derivative of image deleted as fair use czar 00:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Copyright needs clarification. Is this a screenshot of Rogue or not? And why would it not be released under the same license as Rogue? If it is a manual recreation in the style of Rogue, we need more information on what has been changed and why it still has the fidelity to illustrate Rogue or just roguelike gameplay. czar 00:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; "direct manipulation" indicates it is a derivative work, and thus covered by Blizzard's copyrights Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This looks derivative of copyrighted artwork (by Blizzard). If it isn't, we need clarification from the author that it was just done in their style but isn't a derivative artwork. czar 00:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Missing permission of artwork's creator. Current permission appears to only address the photograph. czar 00:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-Albania-exempt Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
2 licenses, which is correct? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Dragon artwork is copyrighted, needs free use release from the author or a fair use rationale to keep the image in the article. (Or delete.) czar 05:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted artwork on dance pad, even if the uploader is the image's copyright holder, we don't have the permission for the artwork displayed. (Note that we already have many other examples of dance pads.) czar 05:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted software. SourceForge has it under a zlib license but I can't confirm on the project's website czar 05:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2017 February 21. czar 16:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This text is more artistic than a standard typeface... I would say that it's above the threshold of originality and thus needs to be marked as non-free with a fair use rationale. If it isn't, it's not in use, so it should be deleted. czar 06:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2017 May 28. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Per their descriptions, derivative of non-free, Super Mario series pixel art czar 06:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete czar 01:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete, under the assumption that it reasonably could be an official logo Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
possible derivative of non-free content (logo) FASTILY 06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete czar 01:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
strange photoshopping (subject's face appears to have been pasted in...). Dubious encyclopedic quality FASTILY 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Screenshot says the game is copyright of "Fortyeight Network". We would need confirmation of permission to relicense from a representative for copyright holder, not necessarily just the co-developer. czar 06:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete czar 01:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
derivative of non-free content (label) FASTILY 06:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused, niche icon, no expected future educational use czar 06:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
A set of minor logos from within the Pokémon series—one or two are definitely PD-simple and the rest are borderline, but my question is whether they have any potential educational use in the first place. I don't think they do. czar 06:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: in OTRS processing, file tagged as ticket:2017012510011069 czar 01:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Permission to use this file needs to be sent to OTRS by the copyright owner, which may or may not be the Nodai Genome Research Center, Tokyo University of Agriculture; until that permission has been received and logged, the image can't be hosted here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't realise that - the system isn't the clearest in the world. Loweredtone (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: stadium photo now on Commons & remove poster czar 18:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Non-free images being used in Hollywood Sportatorium in a manner which does not comply WP:NFCC. Neither image is the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking.
The poster art is also not needed per No. 6 of WP:NFC#UUI because it is being used in the main infobox of Led Zeppelin North American Tour 1971 where it can be seen and a non-free image is certainly not needed for the reader to understand "Less than a month later, on September 1, 1971, Led Zeppelin stopped at the Sportatorium on its North American tour." which is the only sentence mentioning Led Zeppelin in the entire article. So, I suggest remove from "Hollywood Sportatorium" for this file.
The photo of the interior is captioned as "The interior of the Sportatorium prior to a 1982 Van Halen concert", but again there are only trivial mentions of Van Halen throughout the article and nothing which requires the reader to see a non-free image to be understood. There is also no specific sourced discussion related to the interior of the arena which requires that this image be seen to be understood, and unless it's non-free use can be better justified I can see of no reason to use the file. So, I suggest delete for this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2017 May 28. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Almost certainly has US copyright restored by the URAA (if it was out of copyright at that time). ~ Rob13Talk 18:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Deleted both as failing NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a. If someone wants the suited image in the infobox they can be swapped - I leave this as an editorial decision - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
These two images fail Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 (no contextual significance). The article Kazuma Kiryu already has a single fair use (infobox) image to identify the subject. The other fair use images need textual justification—such that their removal would be a detriment to the reader's understanding of the topic. We don't need additional visualizations of the character apropos of nothing. If the full-body shot is important for identifying the subject, use it in the infobox instead of the other image. czar 19:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest using ga Cloud Strife and FA Lightning Final Fantasy as examples. Both use their first appearence as well as full shots as examples. Other nonfree images used in the article come with good reasons. Therefore, I suggest using the first image of Kiryu in the infobox.Tintor2 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 (contextual significance): This image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". The nature of the character's shirt color and type of tuck is perfectly understandable from the prose alone, and if an illustration of the tuck was necessary (though it is not), a free use alternative could easily be made. This image might fit better in the infobox than its current fair use image. czar 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: image in use czar 01:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
unused non-free logo The Banner talk 20:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Appeared to be uploaded to ask one personal question in 2012. Not needed further on enwiki, not in-scope on Commons. ~ Rob13Talk 22:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep czar 01:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Uploader depicted in photograph. Dubious own work claim. ~ Rob13Talk 22:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)