< October 14	October 16 >

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free logo claimed to be used as the primary means of identification but it's use in the article is decorative as a former logo with no sourced commentary. Whpq (talk) 04:56, 15 October 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 the list article Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in List of LGBT characters in video games due to being a list entry and should be removed (from that article only.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there isn't enough textual reason to require the illustration, but have you tried just removing the image boldly? czar 05:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't 100% sure if WP:NFCC#8 applied, which is why I started this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove from the indicated article per nom. Probably WP:BB would be good. Stifle (talk) 07:30, 21 October 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover/promotional flyer, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 07:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should of been uploaded with "non-free album cover" licensing and image is now orphaned. Salavat (talk) 02:44, 16 October 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused chart, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 07:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Salavat (talk) 02:45, 16 October 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused org logo, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 07:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Salavat (talk) 02:45, 16 October 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused diagram, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 07:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Salavat (talk) 02:45, 16 October 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused diagram, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 07:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Salavat (talk) 02:45, 16 October 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused diagram, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 07:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Salavat (talk) 02:46, 16 October 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional image, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 07:45, 15 October 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional image, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 07:45, 15 October 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, possibly missing evidence of permission FASTILY 07:46, 15 October 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 G5 by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image was uploaded with no source or licence: when this was flagged, User:IndianPageantlCommunity added templates to say that it was their "own work" and CC-licenced, but an earlier version of the photo is very plainly watermarked "Shubhi Sharma Photography". McGeddon (talk) 08:11, 15 October 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 Majora (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft allows us to use screenshots only if the product is commercially released. Technical Preview 5 wasn't commercially released. It was only meant for preview, and should not be uploaded here. Please refrain from using "TP", as Microsoft mandates that we must use FULL product names at all times.

Consider uploading the current version of Windows Server 2016, which has been commercially released, which Microsoft allows. CoolCanuck ^eh? 21:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed through normal editing. Please Speedy close. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this is fixed. The file now has an improper license (missing Microsoft Screenshot tag) and the screenshot is still of non-commercially released (Preview) software which Microsoft clearly prohibits. We're not supposed to be hosting this file. Fair use doesn't apply in this case because the Screenshot is of preview Microsoft software. If the screenshot was of the actual release, Microsoft's terms allows us to use it for our purposes. --CoolCanuck ^eh? 20:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am afraid I find your statements fatally flawed and self-contradictory. Who says any screenshot of Microsoft product must be uploaded with only and only with Microsoft's permission? Fair use is a valid avenue exactly because we are operating outside Microsoft's grant. We must still fulfill the Wikipedia's stringent WP:NFCC policy which permits preview software screenshots if and only if they satisfy its article number 4, previous publication. But this clause is already satisfied.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does this file meet Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#4?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yes. It does meet NFCC#4 requirements because the preview was public. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Codename Lisa. Cut-and-dry case where fair use is applicable, and definitely necessary. -FASTILY 20:19, 15 October 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet stated purpose that "image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing The Jeremy Lin Foundation". It is not in an infobox at the top of the page. Moreover, there is no article on the foundation, just a mention in Jeremy Lin —Bagumba (talk) 11:02, 15 October 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, file is PD. -FASTILY 08:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File lacking a source. Kelly ^hi! 07:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing it on http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-john-c-heenan-the-champion-of-america-the-benicia-boy-circa-1860-65864588.html and elsewhere on the web. Images with similar style are here: http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/john-c-heenan.html. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 11:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - public domain due to age. Here it is marked 1860. http://www.karabadan.com/Images/postcards/O9BC.jpg --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 27 October 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 ⚡ 02:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File lacking a source/author. Kelly ^hi! 07:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason to doubt Old print circa 1848? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Without knowing anything about its provenance? How is the year known but no other information?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 11:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a verifiable source can be determined. Otherwise, there's nothing stopping any vandal from uploading any obscure black & white print and claiming PD because it was 'circa' in 1704. -FASTILY 20:23, 15 October 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: no consensus. The discussion is split in the interpretation of WP:NFCC#8, which happens to be the most contentious bullet of the policy. Both sides made valid points to back up their arguments, and I am ultimately unable to see a consensus for one way or the other. — ξ ^xplicit 00:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails contextual significance standards (WP:NFCCP #8). If the article was specifically on that work it would be different. But having it on the general article about the artist is not usually acceptable. Self-portraits would be. But not this. Majora (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - the article's topic is the artist himself, and the work gives an insight into the artist's technique and subject matter he favoured. Paul venter (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image has now been listed 3 times without generating any discussion. When will it become clear that it is of no great concern to almost all WP editors?...Paul venter (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 11:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm only seeing minimal contextual significance for this image in John Strickland Goodall; fails WP:NFCC#8 IMO -FASTILY 20:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see very little in the way of discussion on the artist's technique and subject matter that would justify the inclusion of this image. --Whpq (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BUT with minor additions to article The article primarily concerns John Strickland Goodall as an artist. To be informative, the reader needs to understand why Goodall's is considered to be notable as an artist. Unless the artists technique is irrelevant to his notability a reader cannot understand the point of the article without an example that demonstrates an instance of the artists work that conveys technique, subject matter or approach in general. I agree that there is too little information regarding Goodall for the image to be informative. This information could be added pretty quickly. From the source of the image - "Through his children's books, and his Victorian and Edwardian albums, John Strickland Goodall became one of England's best-loved artists." Here we have a sentence stating that to a large extent he is famous partly because of the subject matter of his pieces. The name of the painting is "Victorians abroad". Also he was a watercolor artist and the painting is in watercolor. I just added that info. Do we agree that this is sufficient? Rybkovich (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Your addition is not significant sourced commentary about the work. Firstly, it is not significant. It is a single sentence. Secondly, the sentence isn't even about the painting really;it's generally about the subject matter the arstist chose. Thirdly, the source provided doesn't support the assertions made in the sentence. I don't see WP:NFCC#8 being met with this change. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, the significance does not depend on number of sentences. As per above I think one sentence does it in this case and describe why that is. Second, the fact that the article is not about the painting should not be the main factor in the evaluation. Per WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic." Yes the topic is not the painting, but as per quote that in itself is not an issue. We allow head shots on articles about known people, the articles are not about the headshots. The provided information increases the readers understanding of the topic of the article - John Goodall. See my initial comment. Regarding the third point, I quote the source and state how it is supporting (the quote is from the biography section). If one disagrees, one should support their counterpoint. Rybkovich (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that one cannot simplisticly measure significance with a sentence count, however, I disagree that the one sentence added is sufficient to meet the criterion as outlined. Simply stating the type of subject matter does not require a non-free image to illustrate it. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agree to disagree. In the end, how are these issues usually resolved? Rybkovich (talk) 17:25, 24 October 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 as non-free Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree file tagged with PD-Logo. The seal contains an outline map and some branches, which probably meets the threshold of originality. Change license and add a rationale if it is not PD-Logo. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is just a bunch of "national symbols" stuck together. The map outline is common in their iconography, you can see another appearance on the military flag. The sun is also found on this flag since it is the Kurdish ethnic symbol and the "branches" is taken from the Rojava Coat of Arms. Dlpkbr (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 11:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously non-free, and I've just tagged it as such. -FASTILY 20:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Fastily's change of the licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:41, 16 October 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 G5 by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional/Press photo, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 19:57, 15 October 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned photograph that was apparently accidentally uploaded sideways. A corrected version of the image is here on Commons. Libertybison (talk) 20:16, 15 October 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.

October 15

File:This is an older logo owned by Športno Nogometni Klub Radgona.png

File:Super Mario Bros 2 - Birdo--article image.jpg

File:Mercury Maybe Thom Donovan.jpg

File:Access to Medicine Index Methodology Framework.png

File:ACLGranthamLogo.png

File:The AIT Academic Programs.jpg

File:The AIT Faculty and Staff.jpg

File:The AIT-Lemass.jpg

File:ACT 2 CAM Film Camp.jpg

File:ACT 2 CAM young people screen acting .tiff

File:Admiralty Constabulary Cap Blue Ring QC.jpg

File:Parul Sharma (model).jpeg

File:Screenshot of Windows Server 2016 Datacenter Technical Preview 5 Desktop.png

File:Linsanity.svg

File:John Heenan BenicaBoy .jpg

File:Aylesbury WH.gif

File:John Strickland Goodall00.jpg

File:Syrian National Democratic Alliance(logo).jpg

File:Parul Sharma Indian Model.jpeg

File:Ogarita Wilkes in Mary Queen of Scots.JPG