Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 25

< November 24	November 26 >

November 25

File:Halo2downloader.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC #1 and #8; image is not necessary for understanding the concept of DLC and in any event could be replaced by a free mock-up. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:05, 25 November 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.

File:Christopher Robin Milne.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 ⚡ 02:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the EXIF, this image comes from Corbis. As such, the image fails WP:NFC#UUI §7: there is no critical discussion about the image itself. There is only critical discussion about the subjects of the image (the boy and the bear). Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 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.

File:1987-04-22Jeopardy!Podiums1.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 ⚡ 02:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image only used in Richard Cordray. Fails WP:NFCC #8, as text is quite sufficient to state that Cordray was on Jeopardy! RJaguar3 | u | t 17:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, does not fail #8, image significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic by showing visually that Cordray was a champion on Jeopardy!; omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Robert K S (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely decorative use. Deletion wouldn't affect the reader's understanding of the topic at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Wikipedia's non-free content policy almost never allows the use of non-free images, such as magazine or newspaper scans, film or television screen captures, non-PD publicity or promotional materials, and the like, to merely show what a living person looks like. In a larger sense, Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole, encourage photographers (professional or non) to submit their own photographs of living or recently-dead persons which they have made themselves. This image does not contribute to the general understanding of Cordray's identity or life story — in fact, a single fair-use image in the "set evolution" section of the article on Jeopardy! itself showing different sets used by the syndicated version over the years would be more compliant with NFCC #8 than an image depicting an individual contestant on a specific version of the set! - Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Sunday, November 25, 2012, 19:21 UTC.

Delete. The only article for which this ever had a halfway convincing rationale was the short-lived Jeopardy! set evolution. In that article it might have had a proper function, but the article was deleted back in 2008 for being WP:OR. When contents of that article were subsequently merged into the parent article Jeopardy!, this image was evidently deemed unnecessary (This is the section shortly after). The use at Richard Cordray is illicit and was never properly explained in the FUR either, except for the claim that it could be "used to show that the person Richard Cordray [...] appeared" on the show. As a rule, we don't use non-free images to "show that" a given fact is true; for that purpose, we use reliable (textual) sources. The fact as such is easily understood through text alone; nothing in the article hinges on whatever visual detail the image provides over and above the pure descriptive fact. (Disappointing, incidentally, that Richard Cordray is a featured article and already had the image at the time it was promoted; the FAC page shows no sign that image use was reviewed in any way at all at that time.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 29 November 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.

File:Bemis 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Superceded by File:Bemis logo.svg. Cloudbound (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superceded. Not needed. Apteva (talk) 20:16, 27 November 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.

File:Battletech cover stormsoffate.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 and use in List of BattleTech novels only. Its use in BattleTech is not justifiable, as the topic of that article is not about the novels; its omission there is not detrimental to the understanding of that article. — ξ ^xplicit 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of three non-free files used for eyecandy, no contextual significance (NFCC #8). If the intent is give an idea how a battlemech look, a better alternative would be to take a picture of a group of painted miniatures, per minimal use principle (NFCC #3a) Yoenit (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep one, as an illustration of the artist vision, and the fact that there are other media like the novels about this fictional universe. Let me know which is preferred, and I'll write up a FUR for it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one should be moved to List of BattleTech novels then (this is the most artistic of the three) -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be justified to keep it in both locations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:59, 26 November 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.

File:Battletech cover patriotsandtyrants.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 ⚡ 03:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of three non-free files used for eyecandy, no contextual significance (NFCC #8). If the intent is give an idea how a battlemech look, a better alternative would be to take a picture of a group of painted miniatures, per minimal use principle (NFCC #3a) Yoenit (talk) 23:49, 25 November 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.

File:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.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 ⚡ 03:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of three non-free files used for eyecandy, no contextual significance (NFCC #8). If the intent is give an idea how a battlemech look, a better alternative would be to take a picture of a group of painted miniatures, per minimal use principle (NFCC #3a) Yoenit (talk) 23:50, 25 November 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.