Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 30
August 30
- 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Iran ethnics flag.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by David12885 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Appears to be based on editor's original research and at least right now is not used in any articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 30 August 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.
- 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 F5 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:KFF - Youtoons II.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sb101 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Blatant violation of WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#7. Tagged for F5 deletion for almost a week, but the uploader keeps deleting the tag. Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale to retain content: Explicit permission from the content provider (circumstances should give benefit of the doubt to me and leeway towards retention); Per WP:NFCC#7: short and indivisable content (for practical and fair use reasons); Per WP:NFCC#3b: intent to use per fair use claim; and deleting this article helps no one and is not adequate resolution of the issue: no objections to claim of fair use, therefore it wouldn't be a violation of policy to re-upload the file for use, but that (deleting vs retention) creates unnecessary and unproductive hassle that doesn't benefit me, the content provider, or the community. (See file page and file talk page). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 17:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Permission from the content provider doesn't have any effect on any of the NFCC criteria discussed here. Also, the article in the fair use rationale doesn't seem to contain any critical commentary about the film, so even just a single screenshot of it would appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To repeat what I said on the talk page re:#8 - I do think it's inclusion would significantly increase users understanding; it is a non-partisan, reliable source whose content is an overview (which is what the section I would include it in covers). This is, it seems to me, a case where retention is more consistent with the stated rationale of WP:NFCC i.e. this is case where I have not seen a completely free/public, reliable source substitute (given controversial topic), where there is guaranteed to be no legal risk, and where inclusion facilitates the quality of the encyclopedia. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources are listed in the "references" section in the article, not quoted verbatim. See WP:CITE. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To repeat what I said on the talk page re:#8 - I do think it's inclusion would significantly increase users understanding; it is a non-partisan, reliable source whose content is an overview (which is what the section I would include it in covers). This is, it seems to me, a case where retention is more consistent with the stated rationale of WP:NFCC i.e. this is case where I have not seen a completely free/public, reliable source substitute (given controversial topic), where there is guaranteed to be no legal risk, and where inclusion facilitates the quality of the encyclopedia. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Permission from the content provider doesn't have any effect on any of the NFCC criteria discussed here. Also, the article in the fair use rationale doesn't seem to contain any critical commentary about the film, so even just a single screenshot of it would appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 30 August 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.
- 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Star Wars Ewok Adventures DVD cover.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adamwankenobi ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uploader is blocked indefinitely. That aside, it fails criteria of "contextual significance", "no free equivalence", and "minimal use". Just a DVD cover of double-feature presentation of "Ewok" TV movies, especially since the theatrical film posters are used in infoboxes. George Ho (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since the poster is already in the article, having an image of a DVD is useless. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:16, 30 August 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.
