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. Any detail need to identify the uniform of the team properly should be shown as a magnified inset in the uniform drawing image not in another non-free image per NFCC 3a. -Nv8200ptalk 01:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This logo is already contained in the Image:ALE-Uniform-NYY.PNG, therefore the image fails WP:NFCC 3a, Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Fasach Nua (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Keep This is the an illustration to show the uniforms, this is not the same as just showing the logo. Does not fail NFCC 3a. -Djsasso (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This logo is already contained in the Image:ALE-Uniform-NYY.PNG, therefore the image fails WP:NFCC 3a, Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cap logo on uniform picture is not legible therefore it is not violating overuse. Infact in the uniform picture it just looks like some squigly lines that are made illegible for the very reason to not violate overuse. -Djsasso (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The difference between the Yankees' cap logo and uniform logo is a feature of the article, and therefore versions of each legible enough to show the difference contribute a great deal to the quality of that article. SixFourThree (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[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.
This screenshot from Walking with Beasts is currently used only on the Dinofelis article, to illustrate what this prehistoric cat looks like. Consequently, it fails WP:NFCC #1 because it could be replaced with a free image. Wikipedia has some talented paleo artists who have produced excellent, free drawings of extinct animals; alternatively, someone could go to a museum where a Dinofelis skeleton is on display and take a photo of that. *** Crotalus *** 03:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete it is only one organisation's interpretation of what it looks like, a skeleton shot would be more appropriate Fasach Nua (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Flickr page for this image, here, shows a CC non-commercial license. Insufficiently free. Angus McLellan(Talk) 08:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons version has already been deleted by an administrator. Since there is no record of it being approved by a bot or anyone at Commons, which would indicate that it used to be free but the uploader has changed it to a non-free license (they can't actually do that, legally), I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted.
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 debate was:
- Delete - unless circumstances are exceptional per WP:NFC (unacceptable use, images) - images of living people are deemed replaceable and so the image fails NFCC#1 - Availability of a current image is not pertinent, just that a free image could be created - Peripitus(Talk) 11:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the image is that of a living person, it don't fail WP:NFCC#1. A free equivalent is not avilable and the image ceratinly adds more effect to the article. Moreover, the image abides by all the non-free content criteria and adequate fair-use rationale is given. With these facts, I challenge the notion of bringing the image to deletion list --Anoopkn (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (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.
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 debate was:
- Delete - no convincing argument about how this image is NOT replacable with a free alternate - Peripitus(Talk) 11:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the image is that of a living person, it doesn't fail WP:NFCC#1. A free equivalent is not avilable and the image ceratinly adds more effect to the article. Moreover, the image abides by all the non-free content criteria and adequate fair-use rationale is given. With these facts, I challenge the notion of bringing the image to deletion list --Anoopkn (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An image certainly need not be replaceable just because it is of a living person. I mean, look at the article Vera Lynn - having an image of her when she is nearly 100 isn't going to be a replacement for a fair use one of her when she was 30. Wikipedia is really anal about this - it's hard enough to upload an image of a non-living person, but one of a living person basically tells you not to upload it before you start. Richard001 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2008 (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.
orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, likely used on a deleted article about the resort Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, recently absent uploader, an unencyclopedic personal photo, the other images in the history would be non-free book cover. Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, recently absent uploader, the source is listed as a commerical site but tagged as PD-self, all likely used on a deleted article Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orpahned image, the current license is unlikely to have been added by the uploader as it appears to relate to the old image. There is a question if the current image is free or from the source (T-TopsOnline) listed in the comments by the uploader. Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, questionable PD-self license given the framing of the image, also low quality due to extra whitespace around image Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, questionable PD-self licnese as it appears to be a logo, history shows a number of different versions of the logo Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, questionable GFDL-self license as it appears to be a crop from a tv screen capture (one of the latenight talkshows) Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use, quality of image of the hawk is not sufficent to warrent transfer to commons. Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, image likely used on deleted article on subject (as infered by uploader's talk page) Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot of a Celine Dion music video, fails Wikipedia:NFCC#8 as it fails to significantly increase the readers understanding of the song or it's music video being only a screenshot of the artist Million_Moments (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, while its a nice shot without any information about location it would be hard to determine an encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, the darkness of the image does not make it a great candidate to be moved to commons, I am sure much better images of a Dash 8 plane can be found. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, image is likely usable in Bernard de Wolff's article, but I question the PD-self license as the summary indicates the photo by Lex Verspeek and no indication that is the uploader; also a duplicate copy was previously uploaded as for use on WP only. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, is a corporate logo and it is questionable if it has been released under GFDL and that the uploader owns the copyright Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]