Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 17

< February 16	February 18 >

February 17

File:Great Wolf Lodge Anaheim-Garden Grove, CA.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for graphic rendering, building is to be completed soon and therefore free image can be taken. MB298 (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the nominator's concerns, the article is about the theme park chain as a whole; there is no need for a copyrighted rendering when free images of other, substantially visually similar locations are available. As well, the "other information" section of the file's description betrays promotional, booster-ish intent. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 18:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I originally deleted the image from the article, because another editor had moved the Garden Grove location from the "under construction" category to the main list. So I had assumed it had already opened. Upon closer inspection, it appears that it hasn't yet, otherwise it would be listed under Locations on the company website. Regardless, the reasons stated above give an even greater cause behind the need to remove this image. There is no reason to depict a copyrighted image when free images exist of other properties. This article is about the brand and company, not any particular location. Also, there is no particular reason the Garden Grove location needs to be depicted when we already have images in the article of the Mason, OH and Grand Mound, WA locations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 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.

File:Heriberto Hernandez standing next to the 13 foot whaler he was manning when he was mortally wounded in 1968.jpg

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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a non-free image used to identify the subject of the article it is placed, shouldn't the image be cropped so that the subject of the article is the main focus of the image? Otherwise, the image seems to distract from its purpose (which is to identify the article's subject), which could potentially violate some sort of fair use rationale. Steel1943 (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but the boat should be included in part as well since it's part of the NFCR. Someone with better knowledge of how these folks operate should clarify whether that image is copyrighted or not, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to not have to crop for this. But the caption needs to be clear who it is in the photo (I assume he is front left). --MASEM (t) 22:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this image, and I am surprised that I wasn't given a heads-up that it was under discussion.
Note: The USCG listed this as a "courtesy photo" in a surfeit of caution, or inappropriate courtesy. As I noted in the description: "...although the Coast Guard lists this as a courtesy photo, it was taken by one of his shipmates, on his ship, and even if the bosun told the seamen to 'take five', I personally think a strong argument can be made that they were all 'on duty' -- making this a public domain image." Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think a note saying "courtesy of xxx" is a statement of copyright, and more accurately described as naming who took the photo. This image is almost certainly public domain. I did send an email to the Coast Guard blog a couple days ago asking about this, but have yet to receive a response. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan:I don't understand how "courtesy photo" translates to "not public domain like every other gov't work". I seriously don't get it. The only way I see the courtesy photo is when the Coast Guard names the photographer, which seems to me to be giving proper credit, not claiming a copyright. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Websites maintained by employees of the US government, where most images were taken by themselves, or other employees of the US government, do, occasionally use photos taken by individuals who weren't employees of the US government. When the webmaster is clueful enough to realize that that image is not public domain, and/or that the photographer deserves to be credited, they explicitly say "courtesy Joe Blow", in the caption.
  However, there is a less common usage of crediting a photo as a "courtesy photo". When a long retired sailor or GI has kept a long-treasured photo, in their personal collection, and the webmaster doesn't know how to find, or can't be bothered to look, for a copy of that PD photo in an official DoD archive, they will explicitly say "courtesy Joe Blow". Long retired Joe Blow may very well believe they own the IP rights to the image. Raising the issue of who actually owns the IP rights to the image, with Joe Blow, certainly doesn't encourage other old heroes making the photos they treasured available for republishing.
  I believe this photo is an instance of the second usage of "courtesy of". Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 25 February 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.

File:Sirius.svg

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: Alow use on Sirius Satellite Radio and Sirius Canada Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is used as primary means of identification in Sirius Satellite Radio and Sirius Canada. Usage in SSR seems fine, but I don't think usage in the SC article is allowed per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If the company is a subsidiary or "child entity" of SSM, then using the logo is not something typically allowed. I removed the logo, but it was re-added with this edit by Bearcat. The fact that "Sirius Canada never had a separate logo; it just used the same one, and no 'specific to Canada' alternate version ever existed." seems to be convered by No. 17 and still usage is not allowed. Anyway, just interested in other opens here. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius Canada must be allowed to contain a logo — it is absolutely, uncondtionally unacceptable for there to ever be any rule which has the effect of permanently prohibiting it from ever containing any logo at all. If you can figure out some alternative solution which enables the article to contain the logo it used, then by all means go right ahead with it — but it cannot and will not be left permanently unable to ever have any logo in its infobox at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it "must" contain a logo. WP:NFCCP says that "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." Why is Sirius Canada an exception to the requirements of WP:NFC? Moreover, per WP:NFCCE, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." If the image should not be being used per No. 17 of the UUI, then a valid non-free use rationale cannot really be written. Just for reference, I looked www.siriuscanada.ca to see if an alternative existed. The logo being discussed here does not even seem to be the one being used any more so using it as the primary means of identification no longer seems warranted. The logo used on the company's official Facebook page, [ or this one might be too simple to be covered by copyright. If they are, then I believe they could be used instead of the non-free logo. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#17 is not a feature of any external copyright law that inherently binds Wikipedia content, but is a rule Wikipedia made up for itself that's considerably stricter than any actual law actually governing what is or isn't actually fair use. Sirius Canada was not a subsidiary of the US company, but was a completely separate, independently incorporated company in its own right — but any rule which makes it impossible for an independent company to ever have any logo in its infobox at all just because it happened to share a logo with another company by fully legal agreement between those two companies, and thus prevents the former company's article from ever being able to include exactly the same "visual identification of the company's branding" that would apply to any other company on earth, is quite simply a patently unreasonable rule that deserves nothing but unyielding pushback.

There's something extremely wrong with any rule which sets up two different classes of content rights, whereby some companies are eligible to have their logos in their infoboxes while others aren't, for reasons which have nothing to do with any clause in any actual copyright law but are purely crap we invented all on our own.

As for the matter of the "current" logo, what you're missing is that Sirius Canada and SiriusXM Canada aren't the same thing. In exactly the same way as the US versions of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio were formerly two separate companies that merged to create the contemporary SiriusXM as a third new thing, there used to be separate Sirius Canada and XM Canada companies in Canada as well — which merged into a new Sirius XM Canada, almost three years after the US companies did. So the "current" logo would be incorrect in the Sirius Canada article, because it was never used by any entity that was incorporated as Sirius Canada — it's the logo of a separate successor company, which was formed by a merger with another company, and not the logo of the defunct company that was the subject of the article under discussion here. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The url I provided above was listed in the infobox of Sirius Canada as the company's official website. If it is for a different company, then it probably should be removed. Did Sirius Canada have its own official website which may be used to verify the logo was used?

Regarding the "strictness" of WP:NFC, it clearly says that they were purposely designed to be more strict than US copyright law with respect to the usage of non-free content on Wikipedia. Any discussion about whether the NFC is too strict or unreasonable should probably take place at that talk page since it involves issues that go beyond the use of this one particular in the article.

Regarding this particular image, it doesn't seem to be the one even being used by Sirius Satellite Radio anymore. Maybe the current logo SSR is using could be used in that article and this older one could be used in the Sirius Canada article. I say "could" because once again usage of non-free content is not guaranteed and it must be supported by a valid non-free use rationale.

Finally, pretty much all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have been created with Wikipedia specifically in mind and not to necessarily reflect the common practice of the outside world, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius Satellite Radio isn't "using" a different logo than this either; it's also a defunct company, and the "current" logo is the logo of a successor company that was formed after it merged with a competitor to form a new third company with a different logo than either of the predecessor companies ever used when they were separate companies. The old Sirius logo is the only correct one on Sirius Satellite Radio and Sirius Canada, and the old XM logo is the only correct one on XM Satellite Radio and XM Canada — the new one belongs on Sirius XM Holdings and Sirius XM Canada, but not on any of the four predecessor companies.

And frankly, I care not a whit about how much "stricter than US copyright law" the NFC rules were designed to be; if they create a patently unfair situation where the Canadian companies are permanently unable to ever have any logo in their infobox at all while the American ones are allowed to have them, then they're unreasonable rules which deserve to be opposed and exploded. If there's a conflict between "NFC policy as currently written" and the principle that companies should be able to have their logo in their infobox, then the latter principle is the one that matters more. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "latter principle" you are referring to above WP:LOGO? If it is, then WP:LOGO#Uploading non-free logos says "Company logos may appear in articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." There is also a hatnote for the same section which clearly says "This section offers advice on applying the non-free content criteria to logos. It does not replace the policy, which is fully applicable to logos." Wikipedia's image use policy (WP:IUP#Fair use images) says bascially the same thing. The application of the NFC in this case has nothing to do with the "nationality" of Sirius Canada, so I'm not sure how this is being biased against Canadian companies. The NFC would apply and has been applied to companies/organizations whose parent and child entities are located within the same country, even those located solely within the United States. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're not preventing logos of Canadian companies from being used, only when the Canadian company is a child company of a US company, which does appear to be the case for Sirius Canada. If there was a case of a US company being a child of a Canadian one, and both used the same logo and both were separately notable, then we'd not use the logo on the US page for the same reasons here. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 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.

File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran.png

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: only to be used in Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17. It also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on both counts. In addition, it only has nfurs for three articles, but it is being used in nine so it also has problems with WP:NFCC#10c. These kind of No. 17 violations are fairly common since it seems as if almost every editor who edits sports article like this feels there is nothing wrong with using the same non-free sports logo in multiple child article of the same parent. FWIW, It should definitely be removed from the userpage asap. It should also be removed from the child articles, but expect it to be re-added fairly quickly so it might be a good idea to link this discussion in the edit sum and possibly post on the article's talk page explaining why the image should not be used. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented out the image from the sandbox it was being used in per WP:NFCC#9 and from the articles it was lacking nfurs per WP:NFCCE. Image is still being used in the two team articles for which it has nfurs. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been demonstrated that this usage is considered to be an exception to No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The consensus regarding UUI#17 has been consistent in that using such logos in articles about child entities is generally not allowed. The image is currently being used in two individual team articles (Iran national football team and Iran women's national football team) in addition to Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran. Even though each usage has a non-free use rationale (nfur), a nfur only prevents the image from being deleted per WP:F6. WP:NFCCE requires that those wishing to use or retain a non-free image provide a valid separate and specific nfur for each usage, something which has not been done in my opinion. Moreover, WP:NFCC#3 requires that the usage of non-free content be minimal, and I don't see how allowing the additional usages in the team articles meets that requirement. Therefore, usage should be allowed in "Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran", but removed from all the individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 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.

File:Tiobe index.png

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1. This is a graph, so a free equivalent could be created. Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure. In this case, not only the graph, but the data that goes into it, is probably copyrighted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I have no time to contribute producing our own custom drawn version of this chart. If we just delete, then there is no any. Audriusa (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oiyarbepsy: "...the data that goes into it, is probably copyrighted." Yeah, and so are most of the references used in articles for text that is included in them. As far as I know, such a claim doesn't prevent a graph from being made and uploaded on Wikipedia, as a file or set up as wikitext. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 18 February 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.

File:Beige Arrogant Worms.jpg

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: The image that was at this title has been deleted and there is now a Commons image showing through. Closing discussion. --B (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this copyrightable? I'm not sure about the background... Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just simply geometric and gradients. Should be okay. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've requested that it be renamed to File:Beige Arrogant Worms.jpg to avoid a conflict with the file on Wikimedia Commons. Please refer to this new name after the renaming. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- are names this short not blacklisted? If not, then they should be.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 59#File:Beige.jpg. This was closed with the comment The image that was at this title has been deleted and there is now a Commons image showing through. but this wasn't the case: the file was renamed, not deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefan2 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 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.

File:SAU Athletics logo.png

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: removed from subsidiary articles czar 16:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 as it is used in subentities to Southern Arkansas Muleriders. Also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, should be only used in the Muleriders main article. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 59#File:SAU Athletics logo.png. Apparently archived but never closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefan2 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 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.

File:Nevermind the Buzzcocks.svg

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: free in the US, removed FUR czar 17:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is non-free because of gloss, especially in the UK. I wonder if this gloss-less version is free in the UK. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the awkward placement of that might be considered an artistic point, and as such, might be UK non-free. This should be tagged PD-text US only. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image from the link that I gave you freer than the current image? --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (I rescind the struck question. As I realize, I paid attention to the pink "BUZZCOCKS" banner and not to "NEVER MIND". --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

~~To which "awkward placement" do you refer? The text "NEVER MIND"? --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I almost did not notice the "THE" at top of the "Z". Probably that's the "awkward placement" to which you refer. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the displacement of the Z by "THE". US would definitely be fine, but could likely fail in the UK. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 59#File:Nevermind the Buzzcocks.svg. This somehow ended up in the archive without being closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefan2 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the file (NOT the copyright holder of the image), and I have to say that I'm not sure what there is to discuss. This is a non-free file. The file was created in accordance with WP:FUR in order to serve as a primary means of visual identification of the subject of the only article it is used in. It was created as a vector in order to provide a clean, uncompressed image, from my recollection. I understand that two different domains of copyright law are applicable, but looking at the current state of the image page, both seem to be addressed. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was disputed whether the file was free or unfree. The matter seems to be unsettled: the file is currently both tagged as free and as unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the wiki servers are in the US, so from a purely legal standing, the image should be tagged only as PD. But if WP policy (which I'm, sadly, not familiar with enough to know where to reference it) says that we require license tags for every domain of law it falls under, then we need both. So the issue is one of what WP policy has to say about works that fall in different categories in different domains. That should only require some research by someone more familiar than I with WP's interactions with copyright law. If there is no policy addressing this situation, then I say we remove the PD tag. When it doubt, play it safe. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem, once this is tagged as PD-text US-only, would we still need the FUR? czar 16:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: PD-USonly means it's a free image, so no it would not need a FUR.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, I wasn't sure whether we needed to mind non-U.S. jurisdictions. I'm removing the FUR now. czar 17:14, 6 March 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.

File:Criss Angel Believe show.jpg

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: current uses are acceptable Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The poster being used has a few issues. First, it has been clearly resized larger than the original which I believe violates minimum use. Also, the rationale is invalid. This was carelessly added to the article under fair use. I suggest it be deleted as I am removing it from the article to add a fair use rationale for the current poster correctly, following our non free content policy. --c (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree - though to cause minimal disruption, the new version of the poster can be uploaded over this one and the rationale changed; as this is a notable show, that single poster is appropriate for an identifying image. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{done}}--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same with File:CrissAngelBeLIEveTVcard.jpg. OK, if I can override the file I will do so, but think we only need one poster so the other should be deleted. It is the same poster just doesn't say Spike TV.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced File:CrissAngelBeLIEveTVcard.jpg with the other poster with the valid rational and the proper attribution to the copyright holder. If I can locate the photographer I will add that as well. The "TV card is now orphaned as well as invalid.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:CrissAngelBeLIEveTVcard.jpg had a truly invalid rationale and the wrong license. I have removed all the incorrect information and the image is no longer being used.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 57#File:Criss Angel Believe show.jpg. Archived without being closed due to incorrect archving settings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller and Masem, it's been a while but both of these images are in use as of now. Thoughts? czar 16:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be fine and acceptable for now. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 6 March 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.

File:File-Juvenalius' Official Signature.gif

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 ⚡ 04:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No foreseeable encyclopedic use. Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 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.

File:Dude with green beer and green antlers.jpg

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 ⚡ 04:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low quality. Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 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.