< January 6	January 8 >

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 ⚡ 05:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art for Rick Astley version of the song Ain't Too Proud To Beg. There is no sourced commentary about this cover art all and the only mention of Astley himself is in an infobox just tacked on near the end of the article. Should be removed per WP:NFCC#8 since usage is clearly just decorative. Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 7 January 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: remove from Becky (television personality). — ξ ^xplicit 03:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art being used in Becky (television personality) and Kokoro Komete. File has a non-free use rationale for each, but the usage in the singer's BLP fails WP:NFCC#8 (see WP:NFC#cite note-2) and should be removed. Usage in the stand-alone article about the song itself seems OK so I think it can be left as is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Unable to notify uploader because their user talk page has been protected and can only be edited by administrators -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing it from the "personality" page. The uploader is ArbCom banned so they won't be allowed to respond, anyway.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 8 January 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 ⚡ 05:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art for a photo book being used in stand-alone article about the song Way to Heaven. Purely decorative usage which fails WP:NFCC#8 and possibly WP:NFCC#3a (the image is essentially the same as the single cover art shown in the infobox). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 7 January 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 ⚡ 05:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These files are orphans and of very low quality and, even though they are free, I find it highly unlikely that they will ever be useful. The Traditionalist (talk) 04:27, 7 January 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 G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these files is an alternative version of the cover art being used in the infobox of Splash! (song). None of these alternative versions themselves are the subject of any sourced commentary within the article (despite the claim in the non-free use rationale for each file that "the image is itself a subject of discussion in the article"), and using them as extra album covers seem unnecessary because the only real differences between them and File:B'z S3.jpg (the one used in the infobox) seem to be the background coloring and the coloring used for the band's name. I don't think these alternative cover files really satisfy WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 and should, therefore, be removed from the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the files uploader, I support their deletion. These were uploaded a long time ago, when I was still just partially familiarized with our fair-use policies. I should have simply CSDed them with G7, but the idea just never occurred to me - I actually forgot I had uploaded that many covers for that single. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:56, 7 January 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 ⚡ 05:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various non-free screenshots/screen captures of news opens, etc. taken from YouTube and other site which are being used in articles about TV stations. Purely decorative usage since none of these images are really the subject of any sourced commentary at all within their respective articles and also are not needed for the reader to understand that these stations offer news programming at certain times of the day or used a certain logo at one point in time. All of these should be removed per WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 7 January 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 ⚡ 05:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned free image. Multiple images replaced this file in all articles. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 07:34, 7 January 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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 03:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#10a: the source link is dead. Also missing evidence that this isn't a newspaper photograph, as required per WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in NFCC 10a that requires a link to a source; it only requires that the source be identified, and the Chronicle is. However, Stefan2 does have a point about UUI 7: the image is used to identify the subject, and there is no discussion about the image. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFCC#10a requires a source so that compliance with criteria such as WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#4 can be verified. If a picture comes from the Internet, a working URL is needed in order to verify the information. If a picture comes from a printed source, information corresponding to ((cite book)) or ((cite news)) is needed in order to verify the information. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that it's a hard technical sell to make the case for a missing link justifying deletion. If that were the only issue, I'd !vote to keep the image. However, UUI 7 has me thinking the image may fail NFCC, though I'm still considering. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically NFCC#10a does not require a working link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFCC#10a requires a source, i.e. information on where to locate a copy of the image. There is currently no such information as the URL in the FUR's source field doesn't point to a copy of the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote the actual guide that you are using as the basis of your deletion nomination. You keep saying that we need a working url, but I cannot find that !wikilaw anywhere. Where are you getting this rule from? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BURO: we require uploaders to provide sources so that the sources can be used for something, not because the uploader simply should specify a parameter in a template which may then turn out to be useless. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are now pointing me to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and saying "we require uploaders to provide sources". Your game is silly and wasting everyone's time. A chatbot can be programmed to give better information. And please stop saying "we", it is just you. Maybe you are not qualified for reviewing images, you don't seem to know the rules. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? WP:NFCC#10a does indeed require uploaders to provide a source. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Fails WP:NFCC#10a: the source link is dead" which is an imaginary rule. When I asked you to quote the exact rule, you three times blustered more nonsense, and are still doing it. That is why I question your utility in being involved in these cases, it seems you aren't grasping the concepts, they are eluding you. Or, you are pretending to not understand, just to entertain yourself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UUI#7 reads: "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." This is not an agency photo, it was published by The Chronicle and credited to The Chronicle, not a news agency. So User:Stefan2 is twice wrong on this issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFCCE requires the uploader to prove that the image is not a press photo. Proving this is not currently possible, given the information provided on the file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you are three times wrong, are you going for a fourth? Even the dead link showed the credit line for the image, even though the image was no longer visible: "Photo: Chronicle Photo / Chronicle Photo". Also please quote the exact rule you are using, just waiving you hand toward WP:NFCCE is not sufficient. Anyone can say that the answer is in the Bible, but you have to quote the chapter and verse. The word "prove" does not appear anywhere on that page, just as your rule on a active URL does not appear anywhere. Please stop using WP:NFCCE as a magic bag of tricks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the picture has been published with the tagline "Photo: Chronicle Photo / Chronicle Photo", then this suggests that this is a press photograph. This means that we still do not have any evidence that this isn't a press photo, as required per WP:NFCC#2. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#2 does not require that we entirely avoid using press photos; respect for commercial opportunities requires that we not use a non-free photo if doing so would be likely to replace the original market role of the copyrighted photograph. Where, as here, the subject is now deceased and there is no evidence of a market in photographs of him, our limited use is not "likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material" for the Chronicle. In the case of press agency photographs, it can be argued that licensing photographs is more central to their business model, which provides a basis for WP:NFC#UUI §7's bright line rule against non-free use of agency photographs. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just notifying that I was able to update the source dead link. [1]. No comment on the other issues raised at this time. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great find! It looks like they switched to an album format with arrows for multiple images. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having now looked further at the Chronicle source, I see that it identifies the photo as A "Chronicle Photo", ruling out the possibility that this photo is from a press agency such as AP or a photo agency such as Corbis, making WP:NFC#UUI §7 inapplicable. We often allow limited use of non-free photos to illustrate articles of deceased individuals where no non-free photo is available or can be created. Now that the source is more specifically identified and given that the subject is deceased I see no reason to disallow use of this image in the subject's biographical article. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source link issue has been resolved, and image is not from a press agency. I no longer see any conflict with NFCC. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep image deleted from commons; if the NFCC requires a cite book as interpreted, then revise the policy, and provide all the references for the existing material. until then stop raising the bar without consensus. Duckduckstop (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this particular image is not significant enough to justify fair use as the main image illustrating the article. Free images can be obtained by requesting them from people who took photos of him while he was alive. Anon 23:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments made by others. I have nothing to add to the reasons already given. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:19, 14 January 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 ⚡ 05:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo. Replaced by File:Livingchannelnz.png. Cloudbound (talk) 18:46, 7 January 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 ⚡ 05:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: Ameri100 was deleted per WP:G11. Stefan2 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 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 ⚡ 05:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1; the underlying music is in the public domain, and there is no reason why a free recording can't be made, or why this particular nonfree recording is necessary. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:54, 7 January 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.

January 7

File:Rick-Astley-Aint-Too-Proud-To-232592.jpg

File:Becky - Kokoro Komete.jpg

File:Uetoayasartworks.jpg

File:Rwemyss.jpg

File:B'z S4.jpg

File:Wzmy weather.JPG

File:Northern illinois.gif

File:Owsley Stanley (1967).jpg

File:Living Channel logo.png

File:Ameri100 Logo.jpg

File:Tallis - Why Fum'th In Fight.ogg