Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

September 8

File:Unidosxingenieria.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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is PD, but is unused. There doesn't seem much point in transferring it to the Commons, as there's no article on any wiki about this organisation. Diannaa (talk) 19:19, 8 September 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.

File:Eurocrem packages.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Packaging artwork Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be deleted? How do you want me to provide an image of this product? I can't find or get a written permission from the manufacturer or somebody else — nobody cares or wants to deal with that over here. Any suggestions, please? -- Dsimic (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, found another picture on the manufacturer's site, and replaced the one used in Eurocrem article's info box. New picture used there is File:Eurocrem 90g retail package.jpg, and the copyright owner states it can be used within articles etc. — please check out http://www.swisslion-takovo.com/uslovi-koriscenja/ . Thank you. -- Dsimic (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. At the link you provided copyright owner stated (my translation) "Unauthorized use of any content without approval of the copyright holder is prohibited. The content of the website, like photos and texts, can be used only for the purpose of its advertising in newspapers, magazines, advertising areas and media.". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your translation is correct. Any chances, please, for advising me on how to provide an acceptable image of product(s) for the Eurocrem article? First I tried taking a picture myself, and it was deleted as unacceptable. Then tried using an image from a third-part site (File:Eurocrem packages.jpg), and it's already marked for deletion as unacceptable. Last, tried using an image from the manufacturer's site (File:Eurocrem 90g retail package.jpg), and it seems not to be good as well, according to your note above. So, what should I do, please? Give up and forget about how nice it would be to have an image as part of the article? :) -- Dsimic (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got the PNG version uploaded (File:Eurocrem 90g retail package.png) and article is updated to use it, with "Obsolete" tags all around and everything. Should be fine now, please check. Thank you. -- Dsimic (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-tag properly as fair use and be done with it? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NFCC#7. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a reason not to include it in the Eurocrem article? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I totally agree that it should be included within the Eurocrem article, but it's already marked for deletion as it seems to be unacceptable. Better said, it used to be included — see my comment(s) above. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be no purpose of including such a picture within the article. -- Dsimic (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is already another image in that article: File:Eurocrem 90g retail package.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree, having just one image (File:Eurocrem 90g retail package.jpg) is perfectly fine. -- Dsimic (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The suggested replacement image has been deleted. What now? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only Eurocrem image that should end up being around is the File:Eurocrem.jpg, which is the one I took some time ago. The File:Eurocrem packages.jpg image should be deleted, as it's a non-free image. -- Dsimic (talk) 19:05, 29 October 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.

File:ABugsLife Soundtrack.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original soundtrack article, where this image originally appeared, was previously merged into the main film article. Since the main article already contains a theatrical poster, per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, a soundtrack cover is unnecessary for its identification. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already. I'm sure that readers can understand the soundtrack without this image. --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 23 September 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.