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. — ξ^xplicit 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:WWF Wrestlemania 1991 Ocean game.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ubcule ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free screen shot for a video game being used in WWF WrestleMania (1991 video game). Image is not being used in the article's infobox as the primary means of identification and there is no sourced discussion at all of the Commodore Amiga version of the game in the article so the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC does not exist. Seeing this image does not significantly improve the reader's understanding of the game to the degree that omitting the image would be detrimental to that understanding, so this should be removed per WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ludicrous argument. For a start, it's the *only* screenshot of the actual game (i.e. the subject itself (#)), i.e.- from NFCC- "the [image itself is] the subject of sourced commentary in the article"!

The assumption underlying your entire reasoning is flawed- the image wasn't included to illustrate the Amiga version as a special case, it was a representative screenshot *that happened to be of the Amiga version*. There aren't any other screenshots, so the argument doesn't remotely apply.

(That's not that I'd agree that your reasoning was legitimate even if that *had* been the case).

You can't sufficiently convey what a primarily graphical game is like through text alone (i.e. what "understanding" might mean in this context). The image has a clear purpose.

(#) If you want to make the case that the box art is the game itself... it isn't, it's the packaging. Personally, I strongly dislike the prioritising of box art over screenshots for this reason, but that isn't the subject under discussion here. If you dislike use of more than one "identifying image" (i.e. a separate issue) please make that against the box art elsewhere; personally, I feel there is legitimate reason for having both.

Ubcule (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if the caption of the image on its article is edited in such a way that it informs the reader of what it is the image is illustrating. For example, is this the player character and an enemy we're seeing? The image should be informative. ~Mable (chat) 08:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nomination is puzzling, as screenshots aren't used as infobox images 99% of the time, the boxart is. Beyond that, its generally deemed acceptable to have one singular screenshot of a game in an article, that's hardly excessive. It would make a lot more sense to just add a caption than rally for its deletion. Its a good indication of what the game looked like, what video games of that era looked like, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 22 January 2016 (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 discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zool snes.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fallschirmjäger ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free screenshot of a video game being used in Zool. Image is not being used as the primary means of identification in the article's infobox and is not itself the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so usage fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per the previous discussion, it seems ludicrous that we're having this argument.

For a graphical arcade game, a representative screenshot is almost *always* going to be the closest possible representation of the subject itself and- by definition!- "the subject of sourced commentary in the article", since it's the subject under discussion in the article itself.

It seems ridiculous that we're arguing that the one and only "fair use" screenshot of an arcade game itself isn't warranted! If this is the case, the vast majority of "fair use" screenshots should be deleted. Ubcule (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if the caption of the image on its article is edited in such a way that it informs the reader of what it is the image is illustrating. For example, is this the player character and an enemy we're seeing? The image should be informative. ~Mable (chat) 08:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nomination is puzzling, as screenshots aren't used as infobox images 99% of the time, the boxart is. Beyond that, its generally deemed acceptable to have one singular screenshot of a game in an article, that's hardly excessive. It would make a lot more sense to just add a caption than rally for its deletion. Its a good indication of what the game looked like, what video games of that era looked like, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 22 January 2016 (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 discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xenon II Megablast in-game screenshot (Atari ST).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Green Lane ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free screenshot of video game being used in Xenon 2 Megablast. There is some brief discussion of the graphics, etc. in Xenon 2 Megablast#Themes and gameplay, but none of it is supported by reliable sources and none if requires that a non-free image be "seen" for the reader to understand what is written. Decorative usage which is not allowed by WP:NFCC#8, so the image should be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, disagree with logic above for reasons already stated in this discussion and this discussion. (I don't want to have the same discussion in several different places). Ubcule (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if the caption of the image on its article is edited in such a way that it informs the reader of what it is the image is illustrating. For example, is this the player character and an enemy we're seeing? The image should be informative. ~Mable (chat) 08:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nomination is puzzling, as screenshots aren't used as infobox images 99% of the time, the boxart is. Beyond that, its generally deemed acceptable to have one singular screenshot of a game in an article, that's hardly excessive. It would make a lot more sense to just add a caption than rally for its deletion. Its a good indication of what the game looked like, what video games of that era looked like, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 22 January 2016 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bane cosmic forge panels.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RJHall ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free screen shot of video game being used in Wizardry VI: Bane of the Cosmic Forge and First person (video games). Usage in "First Person (video games)" seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 because the screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article (the only mention of "Wizardry" is in the image's caption) so there's no need for the reader to see this specific image. Moreover, the non-free use rationale's claim that the image is needed "To show an example of software technology relevant to video games" does not require this particular image be used, when a freely licensed image could be used for the same encyclopedic purpose. So, the image should be removed from the "First person" article. Usage in "Wizardry VI" also seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 as well because there is no real discussion of the game's interface or graphics itself except for brief mentions in the "Gameplay & Atmosphere" and "Reception" sections. The image also appears to be a user-created montage of 4 screenshots from the game, which may be problematic per WP:NFCC#3a since a "single" screenshot could provide essentially the same information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (see below; this is now no longer a vote either way), disagree with logic above for reasons already stated in this discussion and this discussion. (I don't want to have the same discussion in several different places). Ubcule (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file is being used in two separate articles and each usage is being challenged for slightly different reasons. Are you arguing that it should be kept in both or in just a particular one? You're also arguing that it satisfies NFCC#8, which we disagree on, but there is also a question as to whether this is user-created montage (I've played the game and this is a picture of four (non-free) screenshots from four different points in the game combined into a single image. It is not a single screenshot.) satisfies NFCC#3a. All 10 of the non-free criteria need to be satisfied and this kind of montage really does not seem appropriate when a one screenshot from the game could be used instead (assuming that NFCC#8 is satisfied) . -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, as you'd used similar arguments across several Files for Discussion, I skimmed this one a bit too quickly and assumed it was referring to the first of the two uses. Ubcule (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2016 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wishbringer screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Prhartcom ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free screenshot of video game being used in Wishbringer. File's non-free use rationale claims it is needed "To show an example of software on a given platform", but there is no sourced discussion of the screenshot itself within the article at all. Decorative usage which is not allowed per WP:NFCC#8. However, I am wondering if this can be considered too simple to be non-free because it is basically an image of a screen of text. Can this be treated as {{PD-simple}}? Even so, the image still may not be needed per WP:MOS#Avoid entering textual information as images if the text on the screen is relevant enough to include in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't illustrate the point alleged, and the text itself in the screenshot would be under copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, disagree with logic above for reasons already stated in this discussion and this discussion. (I don't want to have the same discussion in several different places).

(Specific to this case; yes, we *know* the text is non-free and under copyright. That's a given, since it's the only reason we're having this discussion in the first place(!)) Ubcule (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned elsewhere, I now realise Whpq was talking about the "pd-simple" suggestion. See that discussion for my response.

This does not, however, change my opinion that even if the image is copyrightable (and it almost certainly is) its use is fair, reasonable and within the guidelines for the reasons referenced. Ubcule (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2016 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zork screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Prhartcom ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free screenshot being used in Zork. File's non-free rationale claims screenshot is needed to "show an example of software on a given platform", but the screenshot itself is not the subject of a sourced discussion within the article and there are freely licensed image being used in the article which serve basically the same purpose, so file's usage fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. Is it possible, however, that this can be treated as {{PD-simple}}? It is essentially just an image of text on a computer screen, and text is generally considered to be too simple to be protected by copyright, isn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - text itself would still be copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)+[reply]

Keep, disagree with logic above for reasons already stated in this discussion and this discussion. (I don't want to have the same discussion in several different places).

(Again, Whpq, of course it's copyrighted and non-free; you do understand that's why we're having this discussion in the first place, right?) Ubcule (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is in regard to the suggestion that it be treated as pd-simple -Whpq (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq:; Thanks for the clarification; yes, I agree that it's definitely not pd-simple. There's enough original text in there that's almost certainly copyrightable (even excluding the boilerplate legalese and copyrights which probably aren't). I still believe it's well within the bounds of fair use, though.

@Marchjuly:; forgive me if I've misinterpreted what you're arguing, but going by this...

"It is essentially just an image of text on a computer screen, and text is generally considered to be too simple to be protected by copyright, isn't it?"

...it looks like you've fundamentally misunderstood what "pd-simple" means, at least with respect to rendered text.

It certainly *doesn't* mean that any text rendered as a graphic is inherently uncopyrightable.

What it *does* mean, essentially, is that if (emphasis "if") the abstract textual content itself is inherently not copyrighted or copyrightable- i.e. in Commons' words "The image only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes"- then a rendering that text in a straightforward, uncreative manner (e.g. using a standard typeface) isn't copyrightable either.

(A highly artistic and creative rendering, on the other hand, probably *would* be- the copyright would then be in the rendering, not the textual content).

Note that {{PD-simple}} and {{PD-logo}} both state "The image only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes."

On the other hand, if the textual content *itself* is copyrightable/copyrighted, that copyright remains, regardless of how the content is rendered. Which is the case here. Ubcule (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a fundamental understanding on my part; just a question in attempt to see if there was any possible alternative to non-free. So, thanks to you a Whpq for clarifying that. However, the image itself imay still not be needed based upon WP:MOS#Avoid entering textual information as images. The usage of a similar non-free image was discussed in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 5#File:Levofloxacin-black-box.png and the consensus reached in that discussion was to delete. I'm not saying the two files are exactly the same and it's possible that things might are for a screenshot. Even so, there are two freely licensed images being used in the "Zork" article which seem to be serving the same purpose as is claimed for the non-free, so it's not clear exaclty why a non-free image is needed per NFCC#1 in addition to how it satisfies NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct; the two examples aren't the same.

The MOS section you linked to is a very sensible policy under most circumstances; as with most places on the web, it's almost always far less helpful to have text rendered as a graphic. No-one wants an article rendered as a JPEG, for example.

However, it helps if one thinks about and understands the rationale behind a rule like this, rather than following it blindly, because this is one of the cases where it could be argued it doesn't apply; it's a screenshot representation of a game itself, and quoting it as regular text would *not* convey accurately the layout, appearance and rendering of that text as it appeared on its original format.

Wikipedia guidelines generally *don't* bog themselves down with excessive detail to cover a small number of niche cases. Rather, they tend to follow a common-sense approach where most people will understand the reasoning behind them, and why and where it applies in 99% of cases... and also where it makes sense *not* to follow them.

Regarding the image of the freely-licensed BSD version of Zork; that's quite distinct entity from the Infocom version, and thus serves a different purpose. (The Infocom version is very famous, and the BSD screenshot does not sufficiently cover it). Ubcule (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this image illustrates commands perfectly, and works with the prose of the section in which you find the image. ">Open mailbox" and ">Read leaflet", combined with the game's responses, is what is being illustrated by this image. ~Mable (chat) 08:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nominator, please look into video game articles are typically handled. The infobox typically included the boxart, for identification purposes, and then the body typically contains a screen shot of the game in progress, to give the reader an idea of what the game actually plays like. Your qualms are better served with improving the rationales or captions (or articles themselves) rather than these deletion nominations. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to improve the rationales, captions or articles themselves if you have the specific knowledge to do so. It is, after all, the "duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" per WP:NFCCE, isn't it? If it was a simple tweak of the nfur to fix a typo, etc., then I would have tried to do it myself. My opinion, however, is that there is more involved which is why I brought it up for discussion here, and at least one other person (possibly two) seems to agree. Using a single screen shot in the body (for game play) in combination with the boxart in the infobox (for identification) may be enough to satisfy NFCC#8, but there's still the question of NFCC#1. It seems to me that the reader can get a general idea what the screen, etc. looks like from the freely licensed File:Zork photo.jpg. Couldn't that be moved up to the "Commands" section to serve basically the same purpose? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The text on the image is likely copyrighted, and this can simply be replaced by actual text as it would not need to adhere to WP:NFCC. — ξ^xplicit 22:57, 27 January 2016 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smokin Anthrax.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheDethklokGuy ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free cover art being used in Smokin' (Boston song)#Anthrax version. Cover art itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article and it is not being used in the article's main infobox as its non-free use rationale claims. Usage fails WP:NFCC#8 (see WP:NFC#cite note-2) and should be removed. Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marchjuly: You may want to compare this to Knockin' on Heaven's Door. In this article, there is a separate infobox for the Guns N' Roses version lower in the article. If that is valid usage (I cannot find a guideline for it right now), then that challenges the WP:NFCC#8 invalidity claim. About the "unreferenced" issue, I have no opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: I am sure there are many more similar examples which can be found. Perhaps in many of these cases, the cover version started out as a stand-alone article, which was then merged (for one reason or another) into the main article about the song. Maybe the cover art was being used at the time of the merge or maybe it was added after the fact. Still, I'm not completely sure if cite-note#2 was intended to apply to these subsection infoboxes in the same way as the infobox of a stand-alone article. An article about a particular song may include subsections about a number of cover/alternative versions ("Knockin' on Heaven's Door" has subsections about 18 different versions), but I don't think that necessarily means that an infobox is all that is needed to use the cover art, at least not based upon Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 66#File:TheRoseCD1.jpg and File:TheRoseCD2.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 6#File:Dancin Queen.JPG, and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 6#File:Cant help - cd single - sweden - 000.jpg. The usage of the cover art in Walk This Way seems to be, at least at first glance, where such usage is acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2016 (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 discussion was: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ^xplicit 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:DNPrices.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Landain ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This logo doesn't really look like it's original enough for a copyright claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally subscribe to this statement, the logo is not trademarked even as the site claims the copyright, the logo is free to be published on the Wiki page. Landain (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2016 (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 discussion was: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ^xplicit 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ifia logo.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salhayedor ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is eligible either as PD-textlogo or PD-USOnly I think - just a cut off letter on a blue background. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 19 January 2016 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unknown Lady (Cleveland).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rjm at sleepers ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

already in Commons Rjm at sleepers (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There seem to be two copies of the painting on Commons: File:Portrait of a Woman by Cornelius Janssen van Ceulen, 1619 - Cleveland Museum of Art - DSC08862.JPG and File:Portrait of a Woman, 1619, oil on wood painting by Cornelius Janssen van Ceulen, Cleveland Museum of Art.JPG. Neither is identical to this copy, but this one has inferior resolution, so in my opinion, we can delete this one and use the Commons files instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2016 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CarlaConnor2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheStreet60 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is being used in addition to File:Carla Connor.jpg. Both are non free, and this one one is not the one used in the infobox. Violates WP:NFCC point 3a. Whpq (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of them per WP:NFCC#3a. No opinion on which one. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one of the images per NFCC#3a. Just for reference, the current version of "File Carla Connor.jpg" appears to be different enough from this previous version to be considered a different file entirely and not an update. Not sure if that matters in deciding which one to delete. Also, the sourcing for both images appears a little lacking, so not sure if there are any WP:NFCC#10a problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2016 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berenstain Bears Atari 2600 back cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Darb02 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The back cover is not needed per WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Let me first admit that this is the first video game article I've created, however I do believe the photo is justified. I believe this to be an example of fair use for a couple of reasons, though I maybe didn't include them in the description when I uploaded the file. First, the image shows a screen shot of game play that is representative of the gaming. I understand this - and have seen many examples to support it - to be a fair use. No other free image of gameplay is available and the photograph is used to solely improve the article's quality. I also believe that this is a historically important photograph for the fact that it shows the game being played on the short-lived Coleco Gemini game system. This game system was the subject of a lawsuit due to the fact that it was (as deemed in court) an illegal clone of the Atari 2600. The Gemini system was available for less than two years but Coleco developed many games for this system, including the Berenstain Bears cartridge and the Kid Vid system in general. Consequently, there is very little historical or photographic evidence of the system in use or games developed by Coleco being demonstrated for this use. While the back cover of a game package is not generally necessary, I think in this case, it adds significantly to the article and is used solely to give the article more clarity and depth. Darb02 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2016 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naveki.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kuban kazak ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The copyright law in Russia now has 70 years since the death of the author, and the file is from 1954. Even if the author is unknown, it is still unfree until 2025. The file is used 5 times; possibly some of them can be re-licensed for fair use. Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2016 (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.