Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 6



File:The Top 5 Def Jam Unstoppable Street Team in London.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  08:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * File:The Top 5 Def Jam Unstoppable Street Team in London.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by JKibble ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Uploader states that he's in the photo, so he couldn't have taken the photo. No authority to license this photo for free use. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't care much for this strict interpretation of the licensing but it's an orphaned photo that isn't used anywhere and not likely to be used anywhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:Chuck.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  08:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Chuck.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by TheGreatWazoo ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Personal photo of an editor who was never active. Old revision is a copy of File:Chuckandmini2.jpg, which is pending deletion as per WP:F11 (daughter took the photo). ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete only the June 5, 2006 version which is what I presume is being discussed here. The first version is the same as the second image. The other uploads seem fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:Rock Goddess young and free.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: WP:NFCC czar  22:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Rock Goddess young and free.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Lewismaster ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC, there is already another album cover in the infobox. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Multiple covers are allowed when all of them are important for identification and are cited in the text. In this case, the cover in discussion is not the original album cover but the best known, thanks to the worldwide distribution of the CD edition. Lewismaster (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, that makes sense. I'm not going to insist, I've just seen alternative album covers deleted before. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The use of multiple covers has been controversial and no consensus was reached about it in more than one RfC. Identification and presence in the text are two parameters that could justify the presence of multiple covers, but not every editor would agree, hence the deletions you mentioned. Lewismaster (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit  01:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Normally I'd agree that multiple covers aren't necessary but here, it seems like it was re-released with a different album title so the different versions are helpful for identification purposes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Long Beach Jane Doe.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: Relist czar  23:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * File:Long Beach Jane Doe.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Gourami Watcher ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Is this a fairuse replaceable image? We have File:700UFCA Recon 08-12-2014.jpg which is another reconstruction but that's just a creation by an editor from what I can tell. Note that List of unidentified murder victims in California uses the commons image and not this one. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The image is used because it was created by professionals - NCMEC has state-of-the-art technology as well. The watermarking part of the argument does not apply because it is only recommended for free images, which this image is not.--Gourami Watcher Talk 20:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the other image then? It isn't like that specific image is famous or something (like if it was the first reconstruction or some wrong reconstruction) so if someone can create a free version, isn't our usage of the non-free one problematic? I'm wondering about that other reconstruction entirely; we don't know anything about it other than one editor claims that it is another reconstruction and that editor is not a reliable source on whether or not they know how to reconstruct images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Boxclocke, as Pop Icon2.gif

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  08:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Boxclocke, as Pop Icon2.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Boxclocke ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Uploader requested speedy deletion under CSD G7, but file was uploaded to Wikipedia 11 years ago, which probably makes it ineligible for that deletion criterion. Image appears to have only ever been used on uploader's user page. Delete as out of scope and I have declined the copy to commons tag as it is clearly out of scope for commons. Safiel (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.