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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheWho-ThenAndNow19642007.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hg3300 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Virtually identical to standard cover. If you delete, please remove infobox as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I see that as a valid reason to delete it. It is a different cover with a different title and different songs, and that's not something I see often with rereleases. Hg3300 (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#3 like Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

or, we could just stop being so damned pedantic. This cover has been up for years and all of a sudden it needs to be deleted? What kind of dumb sorcery is this? Hg3300 (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This cover has been up for approximately 7 years with no issues, it seems entirely trivial that we would all of a sudden want to remove it. Leave it alone, who is it harming? As far as removing the infobox, I will say you're being ridiculous. Relevant data should be kept, not removed. Hg3300 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hg3300: I work with WP:NFC a lot, and have done it for years. It is not at all unusual for uses of very old files to be questioned. There could be many reasons for it, but I think it's mainly a combination of the sheer number of non-free files (most of which are very standard and unproblematic use), lack of systematic screening, and the occasional uploader's unfamiliarity with the technical and purposely strict policies.

One thing is for certain, though. It is your responsibility to establish why this use would meet the non-free content criteria. "Leave it alone, who is it harming?" simply does not address the question: why does the reader need to see two visually almost identical covers in order to identify the topic?

Let's clear one thing up. I don't want the second infobox to be removed (like Koavf does). I only want the image to be removed from it. I invoked the template doc because it explains how and why two almost visually identical covers violate WP:NFCC#3. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that it denotes a different release of the album, with a different track list. I do not know how often cover changes happen (even just minor ones) and it seems relevant enough to include. Hg3300 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hg3300: What is the purpose of non-free media? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand that term. If it's not free, who is paying for it? Why is this such a major issue that we have to argue over whether or not a simple album cover image gets removed? Does this not qualify as fair use? I'm using the image to identify a specific album and differentiate between releases. Hg3300 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2019 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silvercitycasino.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joshualeverburg1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a non-free image of he Silver City Casino being used in the Luke Brugnara article and the Silver City Casino article. For Brugnara article, the claimed purpose of illustrating "Silver city cassino is central to Luke Brugnara's Las Vegas career." simply fails WP:NFCC#1 as the text information in the article fulfills that purpose. The image is being used decoratively and as such, also fails WP:NFCC#8. The usage in the Silver City Casino article is in contravention of WP:NFCC#10c as there is not non-free usage rationale supplied for use in that article. The Silver City Casino has been demolished, so its usage for visual identification in the infobox would be acceptable. Recommend the image be removed from the Luke Brugnara article, and kept for the Silver City Casino article with an NFUR added. Whpq (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Whpq, the use in Luke Brugnara is decorative and not informative. http://www.vegasinpictures.com/terms.html contains a vague statement alluding to the existence of a Creative Commons license, but is not specific enough to be able to say that the image is free (no specific license type, version, or link). If someone felt like reaching out to the website owner or the copyright holder to clarify the license, the image could probably be kept in both articles. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in Silver City Casino. I think it meets WP:NFCC#1. If there is no published source that explicitly confirms a free license, then no free published alternative exists. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I was able to get the website to specify a license, CC BY-SA 4.0, so I've uploaded the image to Commons as c:File:Silver City Casino 1999.jpg. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:27, 25 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyrighted game Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:08, 15 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unknown person.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MneEdit (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned File, Unencyclopaedic, no use to keep Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Orphaned and doesn't seem to have value for use on Wikipedia. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Menlopark Technologies Logo.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ab07ar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not "Own work" Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Also very poor quality. Salavat (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2019 (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 G6 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bacon Hair Films logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Baconhairfan3905 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unneeded file for the website. Unencyclopedic, whats the use for this image? TheWinRatHere! 19:58, 15 March 2019 (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.