Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 March 7

< March 6	March 8 >

March 7

File:The Umbrella Academy.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in Infobox and File:Umbrella_Academy_logo.png also in use not in low resolution. Willy1018 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now being used in the infobox. --Elisfkc (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the file is not in the infobox is not a valid reason to delete it. Sebastian James (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Textbook failure of Wikipedia:Non-free content#cite note-3. Not a word of critical sourced commentary on the cover art and logo already serves the purpose of identification at the top of the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No critical commentary and not necessary for visual identification. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2019 (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:TheWho-ThenAndNow19642007.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: relisted on 2019 March 15. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheWho-ThenAndNow19642007.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Stochastic failure (missing hole).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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file is marked as public domain "because [i]t is publicly released presentation (marked Public)." However, I could find no such rule saying that a publicly released presentation must be public domain. Therefore, I don't think the {{PD-because}} license is valid. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete as although the file is from the stated source, and the page is labelled "public", public ≠ public domain. Public just means released to the public, and does not confer a license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To explicitly label "public" indicates an extra level beyond mere public release. The previous argument could be valid if "public" were not displayed but still publicly viewable.Guiding light (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2019 (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.