< September 2	September 4 >

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Fails WP:NFCC#3a: there is already a picture of the front cover. Stefan2 (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The back cover is in this case an important and most direct source for the track listing and the involvement of the featured orchestra and choir. Furthermore, the file is quite small, so it meets the criteria for minimal use.Wtfitsadinosaur (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails the NFCC. Any major music website that lists the tracks would be an equally reliable source. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since Dynasty is a promotional album, it's really difficult to find a reliable source - so neither Two Steps From Hell provides official track listings for their non-public albums, nor other major music website.Wtfitsadinosaur (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no evidence it was released under a free license. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep7ven Mike5000 Huh? Wha? Who's on First?5 September 2012 (UTC)

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no evidence it was released under a free license. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep: 7ven Mike5000 Huh? Wha? Who's on First?5 September 2012 (UTC)

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Used in Windows Live Groups as a former logo but not referred to within the text, therefore it is used in a purely decorative role. Cloudbound (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2012 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive: no need for three images. Stefan2 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I do not think this file should be deleted because it will show the front,back and the side of this famous dress that was designed by designer Arefeh Mansouri. This picture shows her avant-garde and contemporary style and would complement this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashionnews2012 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: to justify use of this non-free image would require critical commentary about the dress for the use of one image but the use of there would require sufficient critical commentary about each of the aspects in order to justify the use of this image. Currently the dress is not even mentioned in the article at all, much less there being any critical commentary about it. ww2censor (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2012 (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 all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All use of these files fails WP:NFG and sometimes also WP:NFCC#9 and/or WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all the images from tables. While I am glad to see someone enthusiastic about Wikipedia I do think you are being too unflexible with the guidelines. I always thought the purpose of wikipedia was to work together.

From WP:NFG - The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

IMHO there is enough justification here for an exception. Rather than being ruthless in your application of the rules why can't you find some lee-way and treat this as a "case by case" basis Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As official rank insignia, they are not replaceable, surely? As such, wouldn't it be valid to use "fair use" images to illustrate the ranks themselves so long as the images aren't used gratuitiously (e.g. it would be valid on the article about South African rank insignia, but not on a bibiography of someone holding that rank). AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First: I see that some files are listed multiple times in the list above. I only meant to list each file once, but I assume that I made some copy & paste error. I'm sorry about this.

Secondly: This has nothing to do with whether something is replaceable or not. The problem is that Wikipedia policy says that you are supposed to use as few non-free images as possible, and if you put lots of images in a gallery, you are not really using a small number of images. See for example WP:NFC#UUI §2: you can't include images of disc covers in a discography. A discography is a list of music discs, and this is basically the same situation: a list of military ranks. Thus, WP:NFC#UUI §2 renders this use of the images invalid. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Whether something is replaceable or not is at the very heart of fair use. If it can be replaced with something, then sure get rid of it. But if not, then its necessity should be considered. Additionally, one doesn't need an image to understand a discography; however, one might need an image to understand the difference in insignia. Essentially they are being used to illustrate commentary of the images themselves. If such articles only used words to describe the insignia, the majority of readers would have a hard time understanding what was being talked about. Thus a claim of fair use seems reasonable in an article that focuses specifically on describing exactly what the rank insignia consist of/look like. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. See WP:NFCC. There are 10 criteria that an image has to fulfil and only WP:NFCC#1 has anything to do with whether there are free alternatives or not. Compare with Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#Proposed modification to WP:NFC about currency images which is a very similar situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are 10 criteria on Wiki, but the whole point of fair use in general terms dervies from replaceability. That is the point I was trying to make. Regardless, if these images were used sparingly and in only appropriate articles where they were necessary to clarify the commentary, I'm not seeing how they would breach any of those 10 criteria, all of which are subjective and open to interpretation. NFCC is not a black and white policy. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: obviously some people enjoy being disruptive and getting a rise out of irritating others. The insignias listed meet the criteria for the Fair Use Doctrine. The insignia are in The Military Badges and Insignia of Southern Africa some are in South African Special Forces, Volume 1

By Robert Pitta. Both are commercial works obviously. Doubtful they needed to ask and receive permission to use them. You don't have to go around the Mulberry bush begging this guy not to delete the images. He and others like him like to think that there in some upper hierarchy and they have more clout. There is WP:Consensus, he does not have it. for deletion. So let him talk to himself.7mike5000 (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all these images have valid fair use rationales; you can't have articles on rank insignia without a picture of the insignia, and the images are appropriately small in size and are tagged correctly. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NFLISTS: "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." Compare with an article such as List of Ice Age characters where you can't have a picture of all of the characters because of WP:NFG and WP:NFLISTS. What is the difference between a list of film characters and a list of military insignia? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - all the images have fair use rationales which seem appropriate to me and they are necessary to illustrate the topics covered. Just because they were presented previously in a table doesn't mean they should automatically be deleted under WP:NFG. Rather than constituting a "gallery" of random photos of the same topic, each illustrates a discreet or separate topic (i.e. the individual rank). I fail to see how deleting perfectly good images in any way adds to the encyclopaedia. Indeed the end result of the ongoing campaign against such images is an increasing number of bare articles that look nothing short of amateurish. By all means if that is what the community wants pls proceed, but I doubt it is. Anotherclown (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - fair use criteria is met in this instance and the esoteric nature of the subject makes visual representation highly desirable.Buistr (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then can you explain how you think that the fair use rationales successfully pass WP:NFCC#8, basically meaning that each rank depicted is discussed critically in the article as opposed to just being listed or mentioned briefly? The article is about rank insignia in general and not about some specific insignia and if you just want to know what a rank insignia looks like in general, you would only need one or two examples. Besides, the images are heavily repetitive: it would be enough to display images of the most complex ones, and describe the differences using text (e.g. by writing that File:SA Army Lieutenant General rank.jpg basically is File:SA Army General rank.jpg with a missing star). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2012 (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.

September 3

File:TSFH-Dynasty-Back-Steven-R-Gilmore.jpg

File:Seven Miniatures For Piano; Nocturne.ogg

File:Seven Miniatures For Piano; Rondino.ogg

File:Windows Live Groups logo.png

File:Arefeh Mansouri's wedding dress that she designed herself.jpg

File:SA Army General rank.jpg