Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 13

< April 12	April 14 >

April 13

File:Internet Championship belt.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; not only is the licensing unclear but there's no explanation of why a nonfree image is needed to illustrate the article on this person. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things like this need two licences: a free licence from the photographer and a non-free licence for the belt. The image only has the latter. Stefan2 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the belt design and the owner of the photograph are the same. He has granted permission to use both here. It's a bit confusing to me. Which licence tag would be appropriate for the image? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no OTRS ticket and the e-mail quoted on that page doesn't mention any appropriate licence anyway. Without an OTRS ticket mentioning an appropriate licence, the image can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be the appropriate licence? I don't know the formalities. If someone says we can use their work, it seems appropriate to me to use their work. I have no intention of sharing this on Commons, so not sure what a Commons "ticket" has to do with anything. I'll gladly follow rules, but I'd like to understand them. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand a bit more now. Correct me if I'm wrong: There is no way to upload, solely to en.wikipedia, an image which isn't completely free to the known universe, without filling out Fair Use rationale, the way we would for an image we don't have permission to use. Even though the owner says we can use the image and belt design, we must still explain how we could justify using it if he theoretically didn't give clear permission, or revoked it. My next step should be allowing deletion and reuploading as fair use. Yes? No? And what exactly is a "higher resolution than necessary"? If I upload these under fair use, can someone claim they're too detailed and remove them or replace them with a fuzzier free use image, even though the owner is cool with detail? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image needs to be filled in with {{Photo of art|some free licence provided by the photographer||{{Non-free 3D art}}}}. As no free licence has been provided by the photographer, the image can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it would still be fine reuploaded as a fair use pic? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would still have to obtain a proper licence statement from the photographer and have that licence sent to OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I'm having a problem. What, exactly, does he further need to do to properly licence the photos? Is there a form he needs to fill out, or certain words he needs to use? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer should follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. As the photographer isn't the copyright holder of the underlying belt, this additionally needs a fair use rationale for that part. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Lazarchik guy holds the copyrights to the belt and image. Seems that way, anyway. Anything you see suggesting otherwise? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the belt was made by the World Wrestling Entertainment so the copyright holder to the belt would be the World Wrestling Entertainment. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This company makes belts for wrestling companies. The overlay in the corner says who "hand crafted" it. In this case, it seems Ryder personally ordered the belt. It's not an official title, and has had very little recognition (possibly none) on WWE TV. In any case, the company publicly sells many of the exact same belts the promotions use, so it seems they generally have that right. There might be an issue with selling this particular belt, given the Internet logos. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this clears anything up, but look at the sixth picture down. Even the official United States title belt has a mark saying who the creator is. It says the owner of that particular belt is WWE, but that doesn't mean WWE owns the design, does it? If I buy a Mickey Mouse lamp, that's my lamp, but I don't own rights on the design. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't accept donated "fair use" images and we don't accept images with unencyclopedic owner's marks. If he is the copyright owner of both the belt and the photo, then he can take a clean photo (with no trash on it) and donate that photo under an acceptable free content license in accordance with WP:CONSENT. Otherwise we're not interested and a fair use image doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8 anyway. --B (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing a free licence with him. ~~He may have already sent consent to OTRS.~~ (He hasn't yet, but says he will.) Don't think he'd be too keen on rephotographing each one, though, and wouldn't ask him to. If there truly is a policy saying his "trash" logo is unecyclopedic, the ShareAlike 3.0 allows us to crop or obscure that. But I don't see the harm. If anything, it's more educational, since it informs readers who made the belt. I agree that NFCC8 is questionable, but think it meets that. Likely a moot point soon, though, so I won't argue why. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2013 (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:Celebrity Championship Wrestling belt.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 as above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things like this need two licences: a free licence from the photographer and a non-free licence for the belt. The image only has the latter. Stefan2 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the belt design and the owner of the photograph are the same. He has granted permission to use both here. It's a bit confusing to me. Which licence tag would be appropriate for the image? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no OTRS ticket and the e-mail quoted on that page doesn't mention any appropriate licence anyway. Without an OTRS ticket mentioning an appropriate licence, the image can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be the appropriate licence? I don't know the formalities. If someone says we can use their work, it seems appropriate to me to use their work. I have no intention of sharing this on Commons, so not sure what a Commons "ticket" has to do with anything. I'll gladly follow rules, but I'd like to understand them. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand a bit more now. Correct me if I'm wrong: There is no way to upload, solely to en.wikipedia, an image which isn't completely free to the known universe, without filling out Fair Use rationale, the way we would for an image we don't have permission to use. Even though the owner says we can use the image and belt design, we must still explain how we could justify using it if he theoretically didn't give clear permission, or revoked it. My next step should be allowing deletion and reuploading as fair use. Yes? No? And what exactly is a "higher resolution than necessary"? If I upload these under fair use, can someone claim they're too detailed and remove them or replace them with a fuzzier free use image, even though the owner is cool with detail? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image needs to be filled in with {{Photo of art|some free licence provided by the photographer||{{Non-free 3D art}}}}. As no free licence has been provided by the photographer, the image can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it would still be fine reuploaded as a fair use pic? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would still have to obtain a proper licence statement from the photographer and have that licence sent to OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I'm having a problem. What, exactly, does he further need to do to properly licence the photos? Is there a form he needs to fill out, or certain words he needs to use? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer should follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. As the photographer isn't the copyright holder of the underlying belt, this additionally needs a fair use rationale for that part. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Lazarchik guy holds the copyrights to the belt and image. Seems that way, anyway. Anything you see suggesting otherwise? I'll definitely show him that template, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the belt was made by the World Wrestling Entertainment so the copyright holder to the belt would be the World Wrestling Entertainment. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one has absolutely nothing to do with WWE. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case that appears to be correct. This was a belt for a reality show hosted by Hulk Hogan and does not appear to have any connection to the WWE outside of the fact that he previously worked for the company.--174.93.164.125 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2013 (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:OhFather1995.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 (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. The first, because it does not add anything to the reader's understanding and is not being discussed anywhere. It might be a re-release cover, but there is absolutely no reason to add a non-free image just for the sake of it. What next? Remix, etc covers.? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 as stated on Template:Infobox album, "An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion.", which could be logically used for singles. Aspects (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are contradicting your own statement. First of all, this cover being discussed is not widely distributed, it has not replaced the original cover as the new artwork and neither is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary, hence it does not pass the criteria for inclusion. And yes, NFCC criterions take precedence here. You go on re-adding the covers in every article and frankly I find that disruptive. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "The song was not released as a single in most European territories until December 24, 1995, when it appeared on the 1995 ballads compilation Something to Remember." So it was widely distributed in Europe and it is the cover version that Europeans would expect to see for identification purposes and does not need to be "subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary" since it is being used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. The file use rationale for the image states "This cover meets criteria as it depicts the 1995 single release which is significantly different from the original release." Altogether this means the image passes WP:NFCC#3a. This also passes WP:NFCC#8, since it is being used for identification purposes, that European readers who would expect this cover version over the original version would impair their understanding of the article and would be detrimental to their understanding of the article.

On a separate note, my re-adding of images based on WP:NFCC guidelines is no more "disruptive" than the deletion of images based on WP:NFCC guidelines and is something that should have been addressed on my talk page and not brought up in a file deletion discussion that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Aspects (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does this differ from, say, The Quest for Kalevala? That article only contains the German cover and not the Brazilian cover, the Dutch cover, the Italian cover or the Finnish cover. The main difference, as I see it, is that this is a music product (so that most consumers only hear the songs by listening to radio broadcasts or streaming music on the Internet and don't see the cover art at all and that the cover art thus doesn't help you identify the product) whereas The Quest for Kalevala is a product that you must consume by holding it in your hands (so that the cover art is highly visible and that the cover art thus helps you identifying the product). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects, even if I take your points under consideration for sometime, is it Wikipedia's responsibility to make reader's recgnize a product by its cover art, irrespective of where it was released? I donot think so. The main purpose of adding a cover is identification, which is already present by the main infobox cover. Any additional content being added needs to pass NFCC#8, and this does not simply because removing it would not make it any difference for readers reading the article. There is no commentary for the second cover art, unlike articles like The Fame Monster or "Like a Prayer" where removal is harming the article as the covers are extensively discussed in the article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 are policy whereas {{Infobox album}} is not, so whenever {{Infobox album}} conflicts with WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8, then WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 take precedence. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFCC#3a - as a distinct cover that is discussed in the article, the other image does not convey equivalent significant information. Meets WP:NFCC#8 as its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic and supports the language in the article describing the alternative cover. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is just a simple statement that the image is different (unless I've missed something). You don't need to see the image to know that the image is different; a short textual statement telling that it is different provides the same understanding. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2013 (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:Rehtaeh Parsons.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 - the article is not about the person, but an event, which makes NFCC #8 a higher bar to clear. The reader's understanding is not necessarily augmented by a photo of the victim in this case. The issues with sourcing, etc. are also problematic. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this file requires discussion. It is taken from a Facebook page by an editor in good standing on Wikipedia and used to illustrate an article on the eponymous young lady's suicide. I do not believe that the usage qualifies for Fair Use. Wiser heads than mine need to consider this with care. While not strictly relevant to the discussion, editors should note that the young lady's death is a highly emotionally charged area with a police reinvestigation pending. Comments should be made with care regarding the feelings of her family and friends. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally, I would prefer there not to be a photograph. However, I see plenty of photos on her Facebook memorial page, including a cropped version of this one. So, maybe the one we have here does not add to the agony of her family and friends. If it is of relevance, precedent does seem to be to allow fair use images of people deceased, even if the death is recent. In a general way, I think this policy is appropriate. Thincat (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we are not discussing precedent nor preference. If we were then that would be for article talk pages. What we are needing to discuss is the purely technical matter of this copyright picture being loaded here and given the description of fair use. I believe it fails those criteria in a big way, and thus must be deleted. That a picture is on Facebook does not make it freely licenced. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was regarding this as a general ethical matter, and not one primarily regarding copyright. There are varied opinions regarding WP:NFCC#1 and copyright photographs of deceased people. There is a very recent, and ongoing, discussion of a different image.[1][2][3] My own view is that use of such images is lawful but it is not clear what WMF or WP policy is. However, maybe in this case WP:NFCC#8 is not met (does the picture increase our understanding? — I actually think it does but other people might strongly disagree) and I might possibly quibble with the exact wording of the fair use rationale. Thincat (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article that uses this picture is about the suicide, and this is not a biography, I consider that a personal picture cannot meet WP:NFCC#8. If it were a biographical article I would hold a different view. It is not that the picture is of a dead person that is important. It is that the picture is copyrighted at all. That copyright is owned by someone. If it is the dead person then their estate owns the copyright. SOme rights do not evaporate with death, others do. Copyright does not evaporate with death. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not a self-pic and so we have no idea who the copyright holder is. We could potentially consider seeking a free-licensed photo from the family at some point in time down the road, (not now in their moment of grief) but such an effort would be impossible if we are willing to settle with a fair use photo. Also, it's worth noting that at least one editor of the article - Nsgirlie (talk · contribs) - is possibly from the family or at least friends with them. It couldn't hurt to ask if that's the case or if that person could ask on our behalf for a free photo. But as long as we tolerate a fair use one, nobody anywhere is ever going to donate a free photo to the cause. --B (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other free licence images aren't that difficult to find. I am going to remove it from the article. If friends or family see no image then they may wish to provide one under a free licence. This is being discussed at village pump policy. We should set a time limit on fair use images of the recently deceased. Readers seeing no image in an article may come forward with any they have but if they see one in the article then that lessens our chances of getting more or better ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Other free licence images aren't that difficult to find" - really? Where did you see one? This seems to be a purely strategic deletion request. For now, I fail to see why the original fair-user rationale "Subject is dead and there is no free substitute." should be no longer valid. --Túrelio (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a fair use image in the article then that severely lessens the chances of anyone coming forward with a free licence one. We don't want to fill Wikipedia with fair use images for this and other reasons. There is no need to have an image of her to help readers understand the article on her. If her looks, hair, tattoo, etc were mentioned in the article then I would agree with a fair use image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the file from the article. That pre-empts the result of the discussion. Now the file is not in use it may not remain anyway. Please replace t until the result of the discussion is available to us, thus allowing a continued valid discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is due to close today or tomorrow. It will take a another week for the bot to tag and delete the image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, pre-empting the result is inappropriate, unless you have removed the picture for reasons of its irrelevance to the article rather than reasons of the deletion discussion. An article reason for removal trumps a picture deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid deletion rationale stated. "I wish everything was PD" is not good enough; if a freely licensed replacement is not difficult to find, please find it and then replace the image and no one will complain. There's an explicit "subject is dead, free image is difficult, FU is acceptable" rule which I see no reason to think should be circumvented. Since it's her Facebook image (of herself), she clearly had permission to use it. The copyright holder is not a major concern anyway except for the "no FU images from Getty" rule which is kind of dumb anyway; whoever the copyright holder is, as long as they're not a commercial photo entity, Wikipedia still has Fair Use rights. The odds of her personal FB image being that of a commercial entity which took the picture and intended to monetize it BEFORE knowing she'd have a moment of "fame" are nil, so. SnowFire (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to email Halifax and try and get a free licence one then.Canoe1967 (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. If you can find one of decent quality, no need to reopen the debate; just replace the image and let the orphaned image bot kill this one. SnowFire (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to the school if they can't help I will try the Mayor next.Canoe1967 (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowfire, you cannot use the logic that "She used it so she must have been allowed to" because Wikipedia requires a correct trail of attribution. It matters that a picture is in copyright. This is a technical thing about lawful use, and our not endangering Wikipedia by using copyright items unlawfully. If we are to deploy a Fair Use rationale for an image it must pass our full list, each and every item, of the Fair Use criteria. At present I see this image as decorative and thus not available to us under Fair Use. One might desire than a particular image be used, but one may not be allowed to use it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. It is a picture of *herself* that she herself uploaded to Facebook. By doing so she asserted compliance with the FB TOS that she had permission to do so, which is not exactly a leap since - let's say it again - it's a picture of herself that she obviously posed for. This is the same issue as Flickr license fraud basically: does license fraud exist, where people claim a copyrighted image is PD? Yes. Because fraud exists, does that mean we assume every image on Flickr is fraudulent? No, we actually investigate the issue and think about it. Is it POSSIBLE that she didn't have the rights and somehow stole a posed image off some mysterious photo agency's files? Sure, just as it's possible all the images uploaded on Wikipedia have lying licenses, but it's incredibly incredibly unlikely. We DO have a copyright trail - to the original Facebook image upload which we have no reason to doubt - so problem solved.

As for your other comment, which is totally different. You can swing the word "decorative" at every single image in Wikipedia if you choose to ignore the reasons in the Fair Use rationale. An image to identify the subject is almost always appropriate for the extremely obvious reason of "to identify the subject" in 99% of cases, WP:NFCI notes that FU is acceptable for dead or missing people as long as it isn't overused, and a single photo is not overuse. SnowFire (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We differ, simply, on what is ridiculous in copyright terms. The other item is interesting. The subject is not the young lady but is her death. The Fair Use rationale is open to interpretation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image may have the correct criteria for Facebook but we need the copyright holder to licence it here. I found an email for a friend of the family and sent them a request as well. Still the Mayor next if I don't get respnse. Emails such as school, friends, mayors etc. may not be out of line but family would. I did recently ask family for one but he had passed in 1984. His son didn't mind at all an provided a very iconic image of the subject. I don't know why we need to include images in a hurry for these articles. Her looks, tattoo, hair color, etc. are never mentioned in the article so there is no need to hurry with a fair use one. Again I wil state that if friends and family see no image then they may provide one but if they see one that they hold the copyright to then they may even contact WMF and wonder why. Then WMF may ask us why we used it when it was bending policy and should have been deleted as a precaution.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach is pragmatic. It is not as if we need a picture of the young lady. If and when a properly licenced picture becomes available it may be uploaded. It may also be appropriate to include it in articles. But I believe we must close this current discussion about the current file as a deletion because it can not, as it stands be a valid Fair Use. I've realised that my nomination was neutrally done. I now wish to record my view formally as delete. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per my own first comment and per the rationales provided by SnowFire. In case Canoe1967's welcome efforts to obtain a freely-license image are succesful, this one has to go anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the file has been altered, but so far there is no evidence, unless an OTRS submission is made, that this file has any substantially different copyright attributes from the previous file. "Used by most media" is not a valid justification. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was just my justification for changing it to the most common image of her. The upoader of the orginal doesn't mind.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be able to state "The upoader of the orginal doesn't mind" you must have evidence of this. That you state it and that others use it does not make it either true or a lawful use of this picture. Evidence, submitted through OTRS, is essential. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See her talk page. I am not saying it is a licenced image. I am just saying that is a more common one. I assume that common name can apply to common image as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear. The original is in the place where you found it. The uploader of the original is thus not the person who uploaded it to Wikipedia, but is the person who first uploaded the photograph to the site where you found it. So, to increase my precision beyond Wikipedia-speak, Evidence that the picture may be used and is genuinely available to Wikipedia must be given by the copyright owner, and that logged via the OTRS system. A valid alternative is that the copyright owner must upload a useful image themselves to Wikipedia, or place a licence where the image was found to show that it is freely available. I apologise for becoming confused and thus confusing you with my strict interpretation of the original uploader. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2013 (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:So Happily Unsatisfied 2001 Demos.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:So Happily Unsatisfied.jpg. Violates WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This file is different artwork for demo recordings associated with the album and should not be deleted.--Emgee1129 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2013 (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:So Happily Unsatisfied Demos 2.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:So Happily Unsatisfied.jpg. Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC) This file is different artwork for demo recordings associated with the album and should not be deleted.--Emgee1129 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2013 (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:Docsity Social Learning Features.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2013 (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:Abracadabra dance.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2013 (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:All Stars Football Club.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious own work: looks like an advertisement for a club. Not eligible for F1 due to different file format. Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2013 (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:Indiacom Webpage Screenshot Apr 2013.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: Keep (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images are only permitted if removal of the image would be detrimental to the understanding of the article, see WP:NFCC#8. This image is hidden by default. This screams that the image is unimportant and that you can easily understand the article without the image. Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is too broad an interpretation of WP:NFCC#8. Screenshots of websites on the articles about those websites are permissible and serve to demonstrate the appearance of the site to readers. If the nominator feels that screenshots should never be included within infoboxes such as at Template:Infobox dot-com company, this is the wrong forum. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm? WP:NFCC#8 is very clear: you can only include non-free images if they are important to the article. If an image is hidden by default, this obviously tells that the image isn't important to the article and that it violates WP:NFCC#8. This is not about all screenshots in infoboxes, only those which are hidden by default. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - All screenshots included in Template:Infobox dot-com company and Template:Infobox website are hidden by default. That they are hidden doesn't mean that they are unimportant to the article, only that they are more compliant with WP:NFCC#3b than is required by policy. This is the wrong forum to propose that all non-free screenshots should be deleted. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:57, 21 April 2013 (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:Woolworths logo.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: Delete Manning (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, see File:Woolworths logo 2012.svg. Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we commonly show old logos of organizations and groups. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't, and especially not when they largely duplicate the current logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2013 (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:Blake's 7, Series 4 Logo.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 (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sourced critical commentary about the logo designed by Doug Burd in the text of the article, making this meet WP:NFCC#8. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's no critical commentary, it is just a bare mentioning of the logo. You don't need to see the logo to understand that he made it. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2013 (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:Suzanne Mizzi.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: DeleteFails NFC#UUI 7, image is syndicated through News International. Deleted by Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Comes from a newspaper, but unclear where the newspaper found the image. Might violate WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 'Might violate' is not a reason for deletion. The guideline WP:NFC#UUI §7 is meant for press or photo agencies and no evidence has been provided that this file comes from either. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NFCCE: I only need to show that the image might violate the policy. It is the uploader's responsibility to show that it doesn't violate the policy. If the uploader doesn't have a clear evidence that the image doesn't violate the policy, we can't keep the image. That is why we have WP:NFCC#10a: the uploader has to provide sufficient information to show that the image doesn't violate either WP:NFCC#2 or WP:NFCC#4 (only the former may be an issue with this image) --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The uploader has provided a valid non-free use rationale for the article where this file is being used. The rationale is compliant with WP:NFCC#10a as the source has been provided. 10a only requires supplemental information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder where possible. The image clearly doesn't violate WP:NFCC#4 as it has been published. The limited web resolution of the image further ensures that the file is compliant with WP:NFCC#2. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 18:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NFCC#10c should contain satisfactory evidence that the image doesn't violate WP:NFCC#2 (or any other criterion of WP:NFCC). The fair use rationale doesn't address this criterion at all. Using a limited web resolution is not sufficient for photos from commercial sources as commercial sources also sell copies of photos in limited web resolutions. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2013 (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:Mabel Strickland.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 Fails NFCC#1 - replaceable image. Free image of subject available on Commons Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Photo taken from a newspaper website, but it doesn't say where the newspaper got the image from. Photos used in newspapers usually violate WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:NFCC#2 as a small file such as this doesn't come close to replacing the market role of the original image. Also, photos in newspapers do not usually violate WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. No evidence has been provided that this image comes from a press or photo agency, so this meets the guideline WP:NFC#UUI §7 as well. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-read WP:NFCCE. I only have to show that there is no evidence that it conforms with the policy; it is up to the uploader to show that there isn't any policy violation. Also, photos in newspapers do usually violate WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §2 since the usual source for newspaper photos are commercial agencies. Also, commercial agencies do sell low-resolution copies such as this one. For example, check Getty's website and pick a random image from their "royalty-free" collection, and you will find that the lowest resolution copy will be something like this (probably slightly smaller). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you may be misrepresenting WP:NFCCE. The uploader has already provided a valid non-free use rationale, which is exactly what the enforcement provision calls for. You seem to be making the claim that all images from newspapers are violations of our non-free content policies because they might come from Getty et al. This assumption is not grounded in fact and is not a part of policy. Newspapers get their images from a variety of sources and many don't use commercial agencies at all. Moreover, image warehouses often sell images that are in the public domain. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NFCC#10c should contain satisfactory evidence that the image doesn't violate WP:NFCC#2 (or any other criterion of WP:NFCC). The fair use rationale doesn't address this criterion at all, so the fair use rationale looks incomplete. Using a limited web resolution is not sufficient for photos from commercial sources as commercial sources also sell copies of photos in limited web resolutions. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2013 (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:Rollergirl-DearJessiesingle.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 as the only image for identification in a separate article on a single. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 by inclusion in an article where already a cover art is being used and there's hardly any source and critical commentary for this one. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cover art for the Madonna version cannot help for identification purposes of the notable, sourced Rollergirl version and therefore this image passes WP:NFCC#3a. I do not think I have ever seen an argument that says a notable cover version cannot have its cover art in the article because the original version has its artwork in the article. Since the image is being used for identification purposes, it would readers' understanding of the article and would be detrimental to their understanding of the article, if the image for the notable, sourced version were not in the article, therefore passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does this differ from The Quest for Kalevala? That article only contains the German cover and not the Brazilian cover, the Dutch cover, the Italian cover or the Finnish cover. The main difference, as I see it, is that this is a music product (so that most consumers only hear the songs by listening to radio broadcasts or streaming music on the Internet and don't see the cover art at all and that the cover art thus doesn't help you identify the product) whereas The Quest for Kalevala is a product that you must consume by holding it in your hands (so that the cover art is highly visible and that the cover art thus helps you identifying the product). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is all that was there for Rollergirl Dear Jessie and checking the source I can see there's zero notability and its not even a cover of the Madonna song. And there's no identification purpose being utilized here when there's just one line about the song. Again, its no WP's job to help readers identify content, it is used for reader's to better their understanding of the content. I would strongly recommend you go through WP:NFCC#8 once again. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it is confirmed not to be a cover version, apparently it is just a sample being used in the song, they just share a common name. So first of all those details about the Roller girl single shouldn't be in the article at all. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:34, 15 April 2013 (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:Peyton-Lucas-Brooke promo picture.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 (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not discussed critically. Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image itself does not need to be discussed critically. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, that is only the #9 criteria: "Images that are themselves subject of commentary." I used the the #4 criteria: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." Per the #8 criteria you cite (WP:NFCC#8), such images may be used "if [their] presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." I used the love triangle image in a section that heavily discusses the love triangle and notes that the love triangle was promoted by using promotional images, commercials and sexual situations to entice viewers. Whether the love triangle image's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" in this case, however, is a matter of opinion. But during the GA review, with that image still in the article, the use of the images were graded as "appropriate use with suitable captions" by a very experienced GA reviewer. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It must pass all the criteria, not one of them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~That is not correct, Timtrent. Read the policy and guidelines; all of the criteria do not apply to every case, and they cannot. Flyer22 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oops, in my response to Timtrent above (which I obviously stroke through), I was referring to the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images; however, as it states: "All non-free images must still meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here." I still contend, though, that whether the image's use passes or fails WP:NFCC#8 is a matter of opinion; this is clear by it having passed during the GA review by a very experienced GA reviewer. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page tells that the article didn't meet the GA criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the GA reviewer's decision clearly shows in the GA review I linked above. But whether or not the article met the GA criteria as a whole is a different matter as to whether or not the images passed the WP:NFCC#8/GA criteria. Like I stated above, the GA reviewer very clearly graded the images as "appropriate use with suitable captions." And since that GA reviewer is so experienced, it would be good to have him weigh in on this discussion and state whether or not he feels that he made a mistake in his assessment of the love triangle image. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is always good to see additional opinions. However, the criteria, all of which it must meet (Thank you for striking through your comment) are absolute. We have no discretion here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the GA reviewer if he wouldn't mind weighing in on this discussion. Perhaps if I had included text (significant text, at that) about how the love triangle was promoted by using promotional images, commercials and sexual situations to entice viewers, instead of having noted that in the image's caption, the image would not have been nominated for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full examination of all of the WP:NFCC criteria generally not undertaken for GA reviews. I wouldn't say that I made a mistake, but perhaps I should have looked more closely at the reliance on non free imagery throughout the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you weighing in on this, per query, Jezhotwells. Flyer22 (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2013 (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:Box Set Cover Art for One Tree Hill.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. See for example MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2013 (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:90210 Season 5 Promotional Poster.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#1: essentially just a photo of the characters, but you get the same understanding by looking at the photos in the articles about the actors and in the articles about the characters. Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2013 (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:90210 Season 5 Promo Poster.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#1: essentially just a photo of the characters, but you get the same understanding by looking at the photos in the articles about the actors and in the articles about the characters. Stefan2 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2013 (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:Holditdontdropit-musicvideo.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2013 (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:Freshpair, Soho, New York.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This document is too small to be legible and is not in use. Dianna (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2013 (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:1987-1992 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA Cloisonné Nose Emblem.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. Killiondude (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 in two articles and WP:NFCC#10c in one. Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time responding to a deletion request, and I'm new at uploading. I may have used incorrect selection when describing the image, but it is relevenat in terms of illustrating how the cloisonné technique is used in modern ways, such as mass produced automobiles as the one described. Can you tell me more specifically what changes I need to make to the way I uploaded it to make it more acceptable? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBOT Guy (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the image wouldn't be detrimental to the understanding of the articles, so the image should be removed per WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2013 (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.