Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16

< August 15	August 17 >

August 16[edit]

File:Radio Free Sarawak logo.jpg[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinked locally, PNG version available at Commons:File:Radio_Free_Sarawak_logo.png. Cube00 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2014 (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:Anthology cover collage.jpg[edit]

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. TLSuda (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homemade(?) artwork using copyright material. Artwork created by someone other than the copyright holder to make a statement about an individual or individuals, and not relevant to the article. Dinkytown talk 03:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated in the article and the fair use rationale, the image is a re-creation of the collage created by Klaus Voormann for The Beatles Anthology. It demonstrates how the album artwork for each of the three albums forms one continuous illustration. It is a significant symbol that is repeated throughout the material it represents, and there is no alternative to its representation. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:24, 20 August 2014 (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:Hearts XP.png[edit]

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 "With free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially" as defined by WP:NFC, this is not free content. With that said, there are not sufficient arguments in policy in this deletion discussion to validate use without breaking NFCC #3a or #8. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin expanded on the close at User talk:DeltaQuad/Archives/2014/August#Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Cunard (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously deleted after being nominated for deletion for the following reason: "Used against WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3 because we already have File:Hearts 7.png." Following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 8, the discussion is relisted because of the previously limited participation in the deletion discussion. This is a procedural nomination and I am neutral. Sandstein 10:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If this file is deleted, where does the precedent end? Will we limit Wikipedia articles to a single non-free image each from here on out? Let's take a look at the unique features of this file compared to File:Hearts 7.png: the name of the software (!), the names of the default players (this is discussed quite a bit in the article, and is sourced there as well!), the dots pointing to the cards, the button (as opposed to the arrow) and message in the status bar, and of course the completely different, classic Windows styling (with the exception of the icon, which is nevertheless different from the other one), the card design actually being specially mentioned at Microsoft Solitaire - perhaps it could be mentioned at the article in question as well. Note that these features (except the icon) are also present in a number of versions of Windows older than XP; this image therefore also serves as a representation of the software as it appeared in those versions, which also means that the deletion of additional such non-free images is unlikely to be as contentious. Furthermore, the points counter in the status bar - which is a functional feature! - along with the aforementioned arrow are unique features of the other file compared to this one. As an additional point, the two versions were developed completely independently as far as I am aware (feel free to correct me on this): the XP version was made in-house at Microsoft, while the 7 version was developed by Oberon Games; I would therefore argue that these are actually two entirely separate games (which should have separate screenshots regardless of the other points I brought up above). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hi. I believe this image violates WP:NFCC, articles 1, 3 and 8 because, in comparison to the primary image (File:Hearts 7.png, also non-free) this image has very little differences. (User:Dogmaticeclectic listed them above.) As a result, this image does not significantly increase the understanding of a person who has seen File:Hearts 7.png. (Significant increase is a requirement of NFCC #8.) The minute differences between the two can be explained with words alone (hence, the violation of WP:NFCC #1) although doing so would be putting too much emphasis on intricate details that lack due weight. And, the very fact that the function of this image is almost the same as File:Hearts 7.png makes it an NFCC #3 violation. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The layout of a Hearts game is something not unique to MS software, and there's little discussion about how the UI looked; we allow exactly one image to be used for software to demonstrate the UI in association with the article, but all subsequent image uses must show strong contextual significance with the text, and this does not. No, it doesn't matter that they are from different versions of the software - we don't use non-free to track historical aspects of software if no one else has commented on that facet. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Showing the history of improvements in a piece of software is a substantially important piece of encyclopedic content. Therefore images showing what older released versions looked like are strongly desirable. While the image is non-free, the fair use rationale is sound, and I see no policy-based grounds for deletion. Specifically in regardes to Codename Lisa's arguments, WP:NFCC article 1 is not violated because there are no free equivalents that illustrate the history of development of this game, article 3 is not violated because this is the only image used to illustrate that history, and 8 is not violated because it illustrates content in the article (i.e. the details of changes made between Windows XP and Windows 7) that are not illustrated by the later image. JulesH (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you keep ignoring the condemning words, well, yes, your analysis would be right. Except NFCC #1 mentions replacement of the image with text alone. Dogmaticeclectic practically demonstrated above that it is possible. NFCC #8 says signficantly increase the understanding, not showing the changes. (Show the changes with text alone.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#3a, as we already have an image of a different version of the software. We have things such as WP:NFC#UUI §2 and WP:NFLISTS which prevent unnecessarily many images in certain situations, and this is basically the same situation. There is furthermore no sourced critical discussion about the evolution of the graphical design of the software, so the image violates WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's some major historical significance to this particular image. We already have another picture of the game on a different version of Windows; why have two? For full disclosure, I was directed to this discussion by a message on my talkpage. --Jakob (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH. I do not buy the NFCC arguments. Showing the difference in aesthetics and interface between two versions of a software is a significant increase in understanding of the software itself, it is something where words cannot really convey such understanding, and it is irreplaceable.--cyclopia ^speak! 12:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both images are used in the article, and both show how it has changed over time. Dream Focus 14:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the differences between the images are minor and both are not required to adequately convey the necessary information. What differences there are (mostly changes to bring the application in line with more general Windows styling changes) can be easily summarised in text, as demonstrated by the current state of the article and some of the keep comments above. To address some of the Keep arguments: the fact that this is the only historical screenshot in the article doesn't mean its usage is minimal, the fact that the changes to the UI are mentioned in the article text doesn't mean they are significant, and the fact that the code for the two versions was written by different companies doesn't mean they are different pieces of software. Hut 8.5 19:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the better picture of the two of them, anyway. Red Slash 21:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on balance. That's not to say that a historical screenshot is necessarily inappropriate, if we had one from Windows for Workgroups I be pleased to see it in the article in addition to the Windows 7 image in the infobox. - Pointillist (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have permission to use this image and I can't see how deleting it improves the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 11:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about improvements? WP:NFCC is a stringent policy that is made because of dire need, not to make Wikipedia more fun or more beautiful. NFCC violation is actually an avenue of speedy deletion with {{di-fails NFCC}}. In addition, unlike what you said, I don't see a permission registered with OTRS system; but again, as long as it is non-free it make no difference. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Microsoft screenshot}} documents a permission from Microsoft for using Microsoft screenshots. I assume that this is what the user refers to. Unfortunately, the permission in {{Microsoft screenshot}} is not sufficient to treat the files as free files, and files with {{Microsoft screenshot}} are therefore still subject to the limitations in WP:NFCC and subject to deletion if the limitations aren't satisfied. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The actual permission is here. Given that we do have such unequivocal permission to use the image, deleting it doesn't benefit the encyclopaedia in the slightest. I believe the pretext for wanting to delete it is because some Wikipedians find non-free content ideologically unsound.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pretext to deleting it is that the foundation mandate that the project is based as far as practical to use free content, and that non-free content is only used in limited circumstances (Foundation resolution on such). The resolution requires projects wishing to use non-free content implement an exemption doctrine policy. EN wikipedia have that in the form of WP:NFCC, in order to be in line with the foundations requirements that policy needs to be followed. That you disagree with the foundation about the basis of the project which they sponsor is not a reason to ignore it. It's been suggested previously if you aren't happy with the basis of the project as heavily favouring free content, you try and get the foundation to change it's view, I guess you've had no luck so far. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation's resolution on this appears coherent and reasonable to me and I would not take issue with it. My position is that there's a mismatch between the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution and Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The mismatch is specifically in the area of images we have permission to use. I understand and agree with Wikipedia's stance on commercial images where we don't have clear permission to use them. But where we do have permission, I think our current rules are unnecessarily obstructive and there's room to fix them.
Specifically I feel that where two tests are satisfied, being (1) that a good faith user wants to use images in a relevant encyclopaedia article and (2) that we have clear evidence that the user has a good faith permission to use that image then (3) we should be able to host that image on Wikipedia. I believe that to allow image files in these circumstances would be consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution that you linked above, and that Wikipedia's failure to allow for permitted use in the non-free content criteria is myopic.
I have other thoughts about the way Wikipedia treats Crown Copyright media as if it were the same as commercially copyrighted media as well, which aren't relevant to this discussion. Experience with Wikipedians tells me I'll probably to be told to take these arguments to RfC. Since I've now largely recovered from my two-year crusade to rid our policies of "verifiability, not truth", I probably do have the stomach to begin that shortly, but I will just pre-empt that predictable point by saying that our policies are supposed to document our practice rather than govern it, so a change to practice could come first. It follows that it's reasonable for me to make the case in this FfD discussion and not just at RfC.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the many points raised above. If there is third party coverage discussing the evolution of the look of this particular software item, then perhaps there is a case to be made, however I've yet to see one. The differences seem trivially describable (and indeed have been described multiple times). --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree entirely with Codename Lisa and Stefan2 about the significant WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 problems with this image. This is not to say that non-free screenshots from multiple versions of software are absolutely forbidden; there is a very high hurdle, though, that additional screenshots will need to surmount in order to meet WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, this file fails NFCC#8 and #3a. Tina Gasturich (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said in the closure review, it was deleted correctly. The image fails WP:NFCC#8 & #3. There may be a possibility that the text could eventually support its inclusion, but I see no such possibly now, or in the future. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons.--ɱ (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The screenshots are clearly from different versions of the game, which only serves to illustrate it better. And I feel the Hearts 7 version is very cluttered compared to the Hearts XP version. Aren't there also other software articles on Wikipedia with multiple screenshots? Windows Hearts is a very notable game, given that it is found on so many Windows installations, so I see the need for screenshots of multiple versions. JIP | Talk 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Within the the general acceptance of the NFCC rules as they stand , we should try to interpret them in a reasonable fashion, not the most extreme possible fashion, or the loosest possible fashion.. Given the special nature of the Microsoft license, which permits most of the likely uses of the image, and does not restrict commercial use, I think it would be reasonable to make an exception here. We have the right to do so: tho a limitation on NHCC is an outside rule from the WMF, the exact rules on their use are our own: since we can make such interpretations, we can also make exceptions to them. Such an exception of course requires consensus, and I think we have consensus it would be helpful to do so in this specific case. Doing so does not upset the general NFCC rules. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe that the use of the image on the Hearts page meets all of the NFCC criteria. In contrast to comments from above, I don't think that words can adequately convey the difference between the two versions of the software, this is best done through including both images to give the reader a visual indicator. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Merely my opinion: This image has a "free" licence so NFCC considerations do not apply. The licence is not completely free because it has restrictions.[1] However CC licences have restrictions, for example "... if You Reproduce ... the Work ... You must not ... modify ... in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's ... reputation."[2] The Microsoft licence is saying this in other words. The WMF resolution does not require a CC licence but a "free" one[3] citing this which allows for permissible restrictions. There seems to be nothing in Microsoft's restrictions that prevents its licence from being sufficiently "free". Thincat (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you seem a little ill-informed about the scope of NFCC. NFCC applies to anything that is not "free content". "Free content" is defined as "content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially". (This screenshot's license grant, while generous, denies many of these.) You are saying CC is also restricted. That's right; and that is exactly why CC is sometimes forbidden in Wikipedia. Image uploaded under CC-NC and its derivations are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F3.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do have permission to use this image, I see no reason to delete it. Ahmer Jamil Khan^Who?_Chat? 12:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. The license tag, which tells you that we have Microsoft's permission, also reminds you that NFCC's permission is required too. (Or you can read the message like this: Yes, we do have author's permission to display the image but that's not enough.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's enough is a matter of opinion. I know it's fashionable to talk about NFCC#3 and NFCC#8 as if they were simple objective tests that can be passed or failed, but if you read them, they aren't. Read them. They're matters of discretion and judgment and they allow for shades of grey. If you think Ahmer Jamil Khan's view is wrong, then surely there's an onus on you to explain why your opinion that NFCC#3 and #8 are failed in this case should outweigh his view that they're passed. Isn't there? It would be nice if this FfD could move from contradiction to discussion.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marshall. It is the wrongest place to invoke discrete judgment because discrete judgment is the one thing that is overlooked. For one thing, both you and AJK ignored NFCC outright, let alone apply discrete judgment to it. But if discrete judgment is what you want, here it is: For a person who does not know what is a game of Hearts, (our optimal audience) both screenshots are equally baffling and unnecessary. (Now, it is a matter of fashion that each article must have one image.) Also discrete judgment says information, (text or image) must have due weight. It is against discrete judgment to tell a person who doesn't know about the game itself that one of them uses dot as card indicator! Or to use something just because you can. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by "fashionable" you mean that it's normal for articles to have images, then yes, of course. Relevant images normally enhance the reader's understanding of the topic, so it's better to include them. I think these images are central to the topic being discussed, and I don't see any reason why users would find them baffling or unnecessary. In fact, I think someone looking up the game of hearts on Wikipedia would expect to see images of games in progress and would be surprised if these were absent.
I've just looked up other game-related and software-related articles. As a random sample, I went with chess, go (game), cribbage, Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word. I see that it's perfectly normal with Wikipedia game articles to have images of games in progress and with software articles, to have images of different versions of the software.—S Marshall T/C 13:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for confirming my statement with examples; I had faith in its accuracy. It appears off topic, but duly noted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2014 (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:Pat1908.jpg[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could be copied to Commons, but I don't see the point. Just a drawing from a random patent; nothing special or encyclopedic about it from what I can see. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a number of images uploaded by the same editor and used in this edit. None are in use anymore. They may have had some use back in 2006, but none serve any purpose now. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:15, 16 August 2014 (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:Mc at Work.jpg[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This person appears to be the self-proclaimed "mascot" of the Cronulla Sharks sports team. See User:Mchammerhead. As such, the picture is somewhat unencyclopedic. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2014 (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:Mc Hammerhead and Razorback Jack.jpg[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This person appears to be the self-proclaimed "mascot" of the Cronulla Sharks sports team. See the uploader's user page. As such, the picture is somewhat unencyclopedic. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2014 (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:Aliconazole chemical structure.png[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Aliconazole.png on commons DMacks (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2014 (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:Alifedrine structural formula.png[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Alifedrine.png on commons. DMacks (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2014 (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:Simpsons-Guy.jpg[edit]

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: Still a keep. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This still fails WP:NFCC#8 - it can easily be described with words. Peter and Homer both have their own articles with images - there is no need for this one. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meeting the requirements of NFCC#8 wasn't a condition of closing the last FFD. It was added as an "aside" comment by the closer. Nothing has changed since that discussion that would justify another nomination only 4 days after the last FFD was closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it again because I didn't notice there were comments on the first one until it closed. I'm going to address them now - the image needs critical commentary to be justified. Right now it's just a picture of two people - and the keep votes on the first nomination are greatly overexaggerating its usefulness. It is clearly easy to picture two characters (who have articles with pictures) together. There is no justification for a fair use image that can easily be described by text. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to start another deletion discussion just because you didn't think to keep track of a deletion discussion that you started. Really, that's your fault for not paying attention. Your nomination then argued that it was "just a picture of two characters" but that was addressed 7 days before the discussion closed, so you had plenty of time to respond. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I agree, this person should not be able to renominate something that ended in KEEP. This is ridiculous. And the picture does illustrate two characters from two well known series getting together. Dream Focus 14:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please address how this meets WP:NFCC. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. You had time to discuss this a few days ago. The discussion ended in KEEP. This bad nomination should be closed. You aren't allowed to game the system. Dream Focus 15:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly gaming. Explain why you think it meets WP:NFCC. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shows a notable event, covered in the news media, of these two characters getting together. I just added a couple of reliable sources to the article its featured in that demonstrate this. [4] Dream Focus 13:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6. The copyrighted artworks (the character designs) have their own articles: Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson. Therefore, anyone who needs to know what they look like should go to those articles instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NFCC in showing the meeting between two characters in a crossover, a unique occurrence, and as such it adds reading understanding. Also, renominating something after a few days is absolutely disruptive. One can't just go around and renominating until they get the result they like. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I pointed two weeks ago and as pointed out above, this image aids understanding and meets WP:NFCC. It's not just a picture of the Simpsons character and a picture of the Family Guy character. Note: I was asked to comment by Dream Focus—because I was the only registered user to comment on the previous deletion nomination. —innotata 21:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not just a random image of the two characters it is an image of two major characters appearing in the first ever crossover between the two series the characters appeared in. I see the image as significant enough for inclusion.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Clearly for fans of the two cartoons there will be a cosmic contextual significance to this image BUT that cannot happen until the episode is broadcast. Currently the Keep arguments are based on the speculated significance of the two oafs meeting from a 5-minute preview. The episode will go out on 28 September 2014, less than six weeks from now, so let's all be patient and just wait for that. The image can always be recreated at the time if we feel it is needed. Green Giant (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is notable enough to exist, so its the picture that goes into it. No sense deleting something only to recreate it later on. Dream Focus 13:02, 20 August 2014 (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:111 wendy msellen.gif[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used as decoration. There is no critical commentary and there is also nothing here that absolutely requires a fair-use image. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:03, 16 August 2014 (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:Butt Out scene.jpg[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used as decoration. There is no critical commentary and there is also nothing here that absolutely requires a fair-use image. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:04, 16 August 2014 (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:Structural formula of alentemol.png[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Alentemol.svg on commons. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2014 (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:Chemical structure of acronine.png[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Acronine.svg on commons. DMacks (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2014 (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:Muhammad Junaid Chheenah.jpg[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image uploaded by blocked sockmaster INeverCry 20:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:50, 16 August 2014 (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:Zaheer Ahmed Gujjar.jpg[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image uploaded by blocked sockmaster INeverCry 20:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:50, 16 August 2014 (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:Zaheer Ahmed.jpg[edit]

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image uploaded by blocked sockmaster - I've deleted the version on Commons INeverCry 20:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:50, 16 August 2014 (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.