Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 5

< February 4	February 6 >

February 5

File:Mame2.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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC #1 (replaceability); a free arcade game can be found or made and then run in MAME RJaguar3 | u | t 02:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC) EDIT: It appears that the MAME license terms are incompatible with a freely-licensed screenshot. However, I think the usage of what appears to be a non-free game is unnecessary, and that aspect could be replaced by a screenshot from another game pursuant to WP:NFCC #1 (although, to be fair, it is unclear whether, if all images that could serve a suitable encyclopedic purpose are necessarily non-free, it is required to use an image that implicates the fewest non-free copyrights per WP:NFCC). RJaguar3 | u | t 03:32, 5 February 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 in the Family (Body of Proof).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: not deleted. This image does appear, from looking at the article, to be the subject of sourced commentary and thus, there's no necessity arising from policy to delete it and no consensus to delete it for editorial reasons. --B (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file appears to fail WP:NFCC, which states that images should only be used if they "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". In my opinion, the rationale provided is not substantial. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 04:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certaintly does, and the rationale contributes to the readers knowledge clearly. — M.Mario (T/C) 17:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, I do not believe an image of two people who are happy will contribute to a readers' knowledge as per WP:NFCC. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with all respect, the image is one of the main foccusses of the subject, mentioned 4 times throughout. — M.Mario (T/C) 18:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall consensus: Keep — M.Mario (T/C) 16:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make a point here. There is no consensus to keep or delete. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of the discussion, if the user who uploaded the image is not allowed to make "points"? :S — M.Mario (T/C) 12:23, 22 February 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:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And NFCC#3, a 3,246 × 2,111 pixels 4Mb file is hardly "minimal". Fram (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The image is dated from 1910, which puts it well within PD-US. The fair use license is erroneous and we don't delete images just because they're tagged with an erroneous fair use license. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 23:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- {{PD-US}} requires that the image was published before 1923, but there is no evidence that the photo was published before it ended up on Wikipedia in 2013, and it doesn't look like the kind of images which would normally be published. If it was first published in 2013, then the copyright expires 120 years after the photo was taken, or 70 years after the death of the photographer (if the photographer has revealed his identity). The photo is not yet 120 years old, and there is no evidence that it is anonymous either, or that the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years. See {{PD-US-unpublished}}. The only reason why it ended up here is because the uploader changed the licence to fair use when the image was brought up at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a real photo postcard, not just a photograph. This must be taken into consideration when determining whether it was published. Many real photo postcards were taken and then published and distributed. Many were not and were only created for a small set of people (some are unique). Due to the subject matter, I would venture to say that this photo postcard was not published according to US law, as it would have been disseminated among a small group of friends and family, not the general public. Them From Space 04:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Please don't delete this image, which is from my personal family collection. My Great Grandparents are two of the people shown. It was me who gave my explicit permission to R.A. Norton to post this for the Wiki about the Isle of Pines, where my ancestors settled in the first part of the 20th century. He was nice enough to do that as I haven't really taken the time to learn how to properly do so yet. Feel free to contact me should there be any questions as to the validity of this statement. Thanks. Jnarrin (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the copyright holder isn't any of the people on the photo but the photographer's heirs. Unless you are the photographer's heir, then you aren't authorised to grant any permission whatsoever. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an unpublished work, its copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer, meaning that if the photographer died in 1943 or earlier, it's public domain. [1] I have reached out to Jnarrin to ask him if he knows when the photographer died. --B (talk) 23:54, 6 March 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:XingXiu(2).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 ⚡ 01:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image is duplicated in function by (XīngXiù.png) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The file was moved from File:XingXiu.png to File:XingXiu(2).png by Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) at 10:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons license is compatible. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:48, 6 February 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:1930's Joinerville.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: No consensus -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be in the public domain for some reason. If not, it should be deleted for failing WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it might be in the public domain, but why mention it if you have no evidence? It doesn't fail NFCC#8 as the entire article is about the expansion of Joinerville during the 1930s, and the file is a photo of what Joinerville looked like during that period. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 8 February 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:Columbus Marion Joiner.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: No consensus -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be in the public domain for some reason. If not, it should be deleted for failing WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it might be in the public domain but why mention it if you give no grounds. Does not fail #8 - there's an entire section of the article about this chap - I fail to see why the reader's understanding is not improved by including a photograph of him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 8 February 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:Columbus Joiner 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: No consensus -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be in the public domain for some reason. If not, it should be deleted for failing WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. File might be pd but why mention it without giving any evidence. Does not fail #8 File shows the Daisy Bradford No 3 oil well, together with the men who drilled it, and appears in the section of the article about the Daisy Bradford No 3 oil well. In what way can including it do other than enhance the reader's understanding of the period in history and the characters involved. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 8 February 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:Gaston School Auditorium.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: No consensus -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a building. Claimed to be unfree, but might be in the public domain for some reason. No claim that the building no longer exists. Unless it is shown that the photo is in the public domain, it should be deleted per WP:NFCC#8 and likely also per WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why might it be free? All the information I have says that the school was abandoned in 1965, although some of the buildings are still somewhat above the ground. They are certainly not in the same condition as they were during the time they were in use. Certainly meets #8 - it's in the part of the article talking about the time Elvis played in the school auditorium. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:30, 8 February 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:A Trick of the Light - Nature Cover 2007.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: No consensus -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2: You claim this is invalid because it contravenes WP:NFCC#8 "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I cannot agree here, this is a journal cover, and it relates directly to the significance of one of the most important experiments in low temperature physics that has ever been performed. To be listed on the cover of Nature, the experiment or research must be absolutely outstanding. As the premier science publication in the western world, to be on it's cover indicates the importance of the reported story. That alone is enough to assist readers to understand the significance. If you do not comprehend the actual content of the picture, I would suggest reading the page, as it is a rather long experiment to describe. I cannot think of a MORE contextually significant picture than this one actually, it's quite famous, and I think it's grossly incorrect to call it out of context, or to assert that it's omission would NOT be detrimental. It would. Please retain for reasons of relevance and demonstration of the importance of the work done in this experiment. Ybidzian (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omission of journal covers from the articles about people is only detrimental if the illustration on the cover is discussed critically in the article. See the footnote to WP:NFCI §1. In this case, I see zero discussion about the cover illustration. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)" is the rationale from [[2]] and I believe I have met this clearly in this case. Ybidzian (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) In addition, the caption to the cover is "Transfer of light into matter, then back to light using Bose-Einstein Condensates". This is clearly there, and it indicates that THIS cover, on a very prestigious journal, is devoted to this experiment. When you discuss a scientist you discuss their work. You do not see great amounts of personal details, because in a sense their importance IS their work. It is not possible to discuss Hau without discussing her work, because it is her work, and this experiment in particular, which are the most important things she has achieved in terms of information to the public. I am unsure if you are familiar with scientists and their work, but the achievement of getting scientific work on the cover of this journal is far more important than a discussion of a scientist's [personal life. Ybidzian (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this file has been in the article for a long time, and has previously been edited and in January the result was : Updating license tag(s) with image has rationale=yes Therefore I see no reason for this to be changed, as this article and the journal it is in are famous, every scientist on the paper has advanced their career on the strength of it, and the image is entirely relevant and contextual. Ybidzian (talk) 18:50, 5 February 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 & Mouton's Leadership Grid, 1964.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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused non-free file that is largely redundant to the free image File:Management Grid.PNG. Hairhorn (talk) 13:38, 5 February 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:Lincoln Bank Tower.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 March 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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: deleted - Images can only be used under a claim of fair use if they are essential to the user's understanding of a topic. A photo of a groundbreaking ceremony is not. --B (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why an image of the construction of a building would help you understanding the building better. Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is a bizarre reason to justify deleting an image. - Davodd (talk) 23:07, 5 February 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:NixonandMeir.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: No consensus -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we need a non-free photo of two ministers when there already are free photos of both ministers, although not on the same photo. It could be replaced by a collage of two photos. Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Purpose of the photo is to give further information for the reader about the historic meeting, not to show them what Tricky Dicky and Golda looked like. A montage would hardly achieve the same effect - or would you replace the photo of Neil Armstrong's moonwalk with a free shot of a spacesuit photoshopped onto some rocks? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 8 February 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:Anita Tsoy - The Black Swan album cover.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 ⚡ 15:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is only used on the artist's page where it fails WP:NFCC#8. See also the footnote of WP:NFCI #1. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 5 February 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:To the east.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 ⚡ 15:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is only used on the artist's page where it fails WP:NFCC#8. See also the footnote of WP:NFCI #1. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 5 February 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:Anna Meyer.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 ⚡ 02:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image of a baseball card being used to illustrate the player, not the card. This is an example of unacceptable use of non-free content as indicated by WP:NFC#UUI point 8. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:53, 5 February 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:Annastasia Batikis.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 ⚡ 02:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image of a baseball card being used to illustrate the player, not the card. This is an example of unacceptable use of non-free content as indicated by WP:NFC#UUI point 8. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:54, 5 February 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:Little & Ashley - Stole My Heart Album Art.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is only used on the artists pages where it fails WP:NFCC#8. See also the footnote of WP:NFCI #1. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:56, 5 February 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:Apostoliaapodokaipera.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is only used on the artist's page where it fails WP:NFCC#8. See also the footnote of WP:NFCI #1. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:59, 5 February 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:ArleneSierraVolume1.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is only used on the artist's page where it fails WP:NFCC#8. See also the footnote of WP:NFCI #1. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:02, 5 February 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:Muslim Belal - Pray Hard.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is only used on the artist's page where it fails WP:NFCC#8. See also the footnote of WP:NFCI #1. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:07, 5 February 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:Muslim Belal - The Transition.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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is only used on the artist's page where it fails WP:NFCC#8. See also the footnote of WP:NFCI #1. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:07, 5 February 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:Silenthillposter.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. Wizardman 04:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fan art derived from Game/Film series... Possibly out of scope Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyright violations -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio surely. Better to use the original film poster under a FUR --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 8 February 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.