Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

November 6[edit]

File:Nashville Kats 1997-2001 Logo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a re-upload of File:NashvilleKatsOld.png deleted per WP:F5 by Cryptic in July 2015. File:NashivilleKatsOld.png~~File~~ was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 66#File:NashvilleKats.png and File:NashvilleKatsOld.png where the consensus was that it~~the the former logo~~ was too similar to the infobox logo to satisfy WP:NFCC#3a. In addition, the differences between the two logos were not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article, so the former logo's usage also did not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Even though the infobox logo has been changed to File:Nashville Kats 2005-2007 Logo.png, there is still really no discernible difference between the two logos other than a minor color change and a minor change in the football, so both logos are not still not needed per NFCC#3a. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC); [Edited by Marchjuly to clarify file discussed in linked NFCR discussion -- 04:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)][reply]

This is the ORIGINAL logo for the Nashville Kats. The link was wrong. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which link was wrong? This is a discussion about "File:Nashiville Kats 1997-2001". Is the link to that file wrong? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've changed the |source= and |description= for the image here, so I am assuming that's the "link" you were referring to above. Just for reference, the concerns I have about the non-free use of the original logo have nothing to do with its source link or description. The problem is that the two logos ("1997-2001" and "2005-2007") are so similar in appearance (there are only minor differences in color and in the design of the football) that only one is really needed per WP:NFCC#3a. No significant new information is being provided to the reader by the "1997-2001" logo which requires that it actually be seen by the reader. Furthermore, the differences between the two logos it not the subject of any sourced discussion at all in the article, so the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 is not evident. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant extra logo used in violation of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Not critically discussed, and very similar to File:Nashville Kats 2005-2007 Logo.png. Additionally fails WP:NFCC#3b due to the excessive resolution. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2015 (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:ISRO-sre02.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use rationales invalid with free image File:ISRO-SCRE-1-Spacecraft-1.jpg available on Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file does not seem to exist on Indian human spaceflight programme. On Indian Space Research Organisation and Space Capsule Recovery Experiment the file does actually meet WP:NFCC#1 - it's the splashdown that is illustrated, not merely the craft. I don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8 on the Organization article but on the Experiment article it probably meets NFCC#8, seeing as the functions and recovery are described in the article.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its still not very difficult to image how the recovery of the equipment is done from sea with help of a some flotation device. The equipment image is already available on Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, for a subject matter expert maybe but not for a more average reader. I did receive some more understanding of how it works from the image alone.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All floatation devices work like that and I don't think its unique or absolutely necessary in any of the articles. Also, it shows how the equipment was retrieved after its actual work in the space was finished, which is not the most important aspect of the device. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:22, 10 November 2015 (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:GSLV1.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use rationales not worth when scaled down model's free image File:Gslv model at nehru planetarium.JPG is available on Commons. And the model is actually better in understanding than his all fire-y smoke-y image. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:36, 6 November 2015 (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:Gslv-mkiii-x-14.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use rationales not worth when scaled down model's free image File:GSLV Mk-III.jpg is available on Commons. And the model is actually better in understanding than his all fire-y smoke-y image. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:42, 6 November 2015 (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:Ntaf221208.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use rationale not worth when scaled down model's free image File:AvatarTD.JPG is available on Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:57, 6 November 2015 (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:Siddharth Nigam as younger version of Aamir Khan.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and the subject Siddharth Nigam is alive and free image can be obtained. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Everything is correct as per policy. please explain what is wrong in thisSukriti3 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother reading NFCC#1? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: It's only used to show the character, not the person. Sukriti3 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete image is being used to illustrate the person and is not supporting any critical commentary of the character. Fails WP:NFCC#1 because it is assumed that a freely licensed photo could be taken of this living person. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NickW557: This is the character image and only used as fair per policy. And per WP:NFCC#8, The image is supported by commentary, and not used in infobox. Sukriti3 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The images discussed in this and a couple of other sections below seem to have been uploaded by a user who has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Shouldn't the images simply be tagged with {{db-g5}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2015 (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:Siddharth Nigam as Ashoka.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and the subject Siddharth Nigam is alive and free image can be obtained. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Everything is correct as per policy. please explain what is wrong in thisSukriti3 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete image is being used to illustrate the person and is not supporting any critical commentary of the character. Fails WP:NFCC#1 because it is assumed that a freely licensed photo could be taken of this living person. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NickW557: This is the character image and only used as fair per policy. And per WP:NFCC#8, The image is supported by commentary, and not used in infobox. Sukriti3 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (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:Roshni Walia as Maitri.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and the subject Roshni Walia is alive and free image can be obtained. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Everything is correct as per policy. please explain what is wrong in thisSukriti3 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete image is being used to illustrate the person and is not supporting any critical commentary of the character. Fails WP:NFCC#1 because it is assumed that a freely licensed photo could be taken of this living person. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NickW557: This is the character image and only used as fair per policy. And per WP:NFCC#8, The image is supported by commentary, and not used in infobox. Sukriti3 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (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:Roshni Walia.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and the subject Roshni Walia is alive and free image can be obtained. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Everything is correct as per policy. please explain what is wrong in thisSukriti3 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete image is being used to illustrate the person and is not supporting any critical commentary of the character. Fails WP:NFCC#1 because it is assumed that a freely licensed photo could be taken of this living person. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NickW557: This is the character image and only used as fair per policy. And per WP:NFCC#8, The image is supported by commentary, and not used in infobox. Sukriti3 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (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:Gautam Gulati and Spandan Chaturvedi.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1, the subject Spandan Chaturvedi is alive and free image File:Spandan Chaturvedi as Chakor.jpg present on Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Everything is correct as per policy. please explain what is wrong in thisSukriti3 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete image is being used to illustrate the person and is not supporting any critical commentary of the cover. Fails WP:NFCC#1 because a freely licensed photo already exists. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NickW557: This is the cover photo and only used as fair per policy. And per WP:NFCC#8, The image is supported by commentary, and not used in infobox. Sukriti3 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (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:Ruhanika Dhawan as Ruhi.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1, the subject Ruhanika Dhawan is alive and free image File:Ruhanika Dhawan.jpg available on Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Everything is correct as per policy. please explain what is wrong in thisSukriti3 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete image is being used to illustrate the person and is not supporting any critical commentary of the character. Fails WP:NFCC#1 because a freely licensed photo already exists. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NickW557: This is the character image and only used as fair per policy. And per WP:NFCC#8, The image is supported by commentary, and not used in infobox. Sukriti3 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (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:Vishesh Bansal as Karna.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1, the subject Vishesh Bansal is alive and free image can be obtained. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Everything is correct as per policy. please explain what is wrong in thisSukriti3 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete image is being used to illustrate the person and is not supporting any critical commentary of the character. Fails WP:NFCC#1 because it is assumed that a freely licensed photo could be taken of this living person. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NickW557: This is the character image and only used as fair per policy. And per WP:NFCC#8, The image is supported by commentary, and not used in infobox. Sukriti3 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (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:IlGrandeSilenzioLP.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Steel1943 (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was unsure of how to properly upload the file, so I based my form based on that of the file for soundtrack of A Man and a Woman. PatTheMoron (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The soundtrack in that article has also been listed at FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2015 (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:Yearning by Hang-Ryul Park 2010.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely fails WP:NFCC#8 since the article which this image is placed does not go into detail about the subject of the image itself in the least (the subject of the article is its creator.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission from the author to upload any pictures from the website. Also, I thought it was relevant because those are his notable pieces. The article includes his style of painting which can be seen in the paintings. If you need any information, please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeji0210 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 8 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Yeji0210:, if you have permission from the creator to use these images, then the licensing tag on the page is incorrect; you claimed fair-use, essentially meaning that the uploader (you) does not have permission to upload the image, but believes that it meets the non-free content criteria with its use, which is what I'm disputing. If the images' creator has provided permission, then the information on the files' pages will have to be changed to free licenses with appropriate rationale, and an email proving permission sent to the OTRS from the copyright holder (most likely the creator of the images). For more precise information on this, see WP:CONSENT. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2015 (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:A Stare by Hang-Ryul Park 2008.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely fails WP:NFCC#8 since the article which this image is placed does not go into detail about the subject of the image itself in the least (the subject of the article is its creator.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission from the author to upload any pictures from the website. Also, I thought it was relevant because those are his notable pieces. The article includes his style of painting which can be seen in the paintings. If you need any information, please let me know. Thanks. Yeji0210 (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeji0210:, if you have permission from the creator to use these images, then the licensing tag on the page is incorrect; you claimed fair-use, essentially meaning that the uploader (you) does not have permission to upload the image, but believes that it meets the non-free content criteria with its use, which is what I'm disputing. If the images' creator has provided permission, then the information on the files' pages will have to be changed to free licenses with appropriate rationale, and an email proving permission sent to the OTRS from the copyright holder (most likely the creator of the images). For more precise information on this, see WP:CONSENT. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2015 (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:The Dawn by Hang-Ryul Park 2009.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely fails WP:NFCC#8 since the article which this image is placed does not go into detail about the subject of the image itself in the least (the subject of the article is its creator.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission from the author to upload any pictures from the website. Also, I thought it was relevant because those are his notable pieces. The article includes his style of painting which can be seen in the paintings. If you need any information, please let me know. Thanks. Yeji0210 (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeji0210:, if you have permission from the creator to use these images, then the licensing tag on the page is incorrect; you claimed fair-use, essentially meaning that the uploader (you) does not have permission to upload the image, but believes that it meets the non-free content criteria with its use, which is what I'm disputing. If the images' creator has provided permission, then the information on the files' pages will have to be changed to free licenses with appropriate rationale, and an email proving permission sent to the OTRS from the copyright holder (most likely the creator of the images). For more precise information on this, see WP:CONSENT. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2015 (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:Daydreaming by Hang-Ryul Park 2006.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely fails WP:NFCC#8 since the article which this image is placed does not go into detail about the subject of the image itself in the least (the subject of the article is its creator.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission from the author to upload any pictures from the website. Also, I thought it was relevant because those are his notable pieces. The article includes his style of painting which can be seen in the paintings. If you need any information, please let me know. Thanks. Yeji0210 (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeji0210:, if you have permission from the creator to use these images, then the licensing tag on the page is incorrect; you claimed fair-use, essentially meaning that the uploader (you) does not have permission to upload the image, but believes that it meets the non-free content criteria with its use, which is what I'm disputing. If the images' creator has provided permission, then the information on the files' pages will have to be changed to free licenses with appropriate rationale, and an email proving permission sent to the OTRS from the copyright holder (most likely the creator of the images). For more precise information on this, see WP:CONSENT. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2015 (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:GreatSilenceCinematographyExamples.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6#File:GreatSilenceCinematographyExamples.png. — ξ ^xplicit 02:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free file montage seems like it may fail WP:NFCC#8 at its current location. The caption for the image on The Great Silence seems to do more to explain Silvano Ippoliti's filming style rather than contextual significance to the subject in the article which it is placed. However, due to the lack of content at Silvano Ippoliti, I'm not sure if the image could fit there either per Wikipedia's fair-use policies. Steel1943 (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of writing about the film's themes, which is where this image would be better placed when I'm finished writing it. Just give me some time. PatTheMoron (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally sure, but since this is a user created montage, it may require a non-free use rationale for each screenshot. I could see possibly using one of the three to support sourced commentary within the article, but don't think multiple screenshots are really needed per WP:NFCC#3a in addition to NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I've added the thematic section I mentioned. Take a look, and see what you think. If your assesment is that it's not nessecary for three images, I can just do a n upload of the top image. PatTheMoron (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2015 (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:Southern Crossing.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. — ξ ^xplicit 02:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as a non-free poster, but next to the source given it claims Creative Commons, they can't both be correct. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing that folks are used to posters being non-free (because they usually are) that they don't always notice the exceptions. The website this image is sourced to appears to be the official website of the producer. Thus I support retag as free image with proper attribution.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the information with a fully completed non-free rationale as we are really not sure about the copyright status. ww2censor (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the source itself does give CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, both Wikipedia-compatible licenses. Is there something doubtful about them?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 15 November 2015 (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:Jhabua tribe.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referring as a file for discussion, given that their appears to have been a CCI about the uploader, which led to the removal of this image at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2015 (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:Timbo-super-serious.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and deleted at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was put up as a courtesy at Commons during my run for WMF Board. I put it up here to illustrate the candidates pages because I don't upload to Commons myself. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of permission from Laura Howard. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2015 (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:Andre Lambert Footjob 1917.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. — ξ ^xplicit 02:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image, which is not yet out of copyright in it's home country, meaning it cannot be moved to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not just leave the picture on Wikipedia? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thusly until ready for move to Commons. Keeping it here means that it won't be forgotten after a deletion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 8 November 2015 (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:Saavn Logo SVG.svg[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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, replaced by new logo File:Saavn logo.png. In my opinion, this is borderline in terms of the threshold of originality. It could be argued as being original enough for protection. It's also not a very good svg and has no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks too complex for "PD-textlogo". Delete as presumably unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems too complex at least in picture form.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 8 November 2015 (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:Sachin Tendulkar and Shane Warne with the Cricket All-Stars Trophy.jpeg[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 as F9 by Harrias (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somethings not right here, Seemingly the uploader is the author, but this is not claimed as own work, the source being a media site. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this as F9. Yahoo cricket is a reuser of material from Sportskeeda.com; the uploader has been uploading images under dubious licenses in contradiction of what the source actually says. —SpacemanSpiff 19:04, 6 November 2015 (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:Sorted table.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikipedia screenshot. Kelly ^hi! 21:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally uploaded the image five years ago to demonstrate the effect of trying to sort a table containing rowspans. Since then, the sorting algorithm has been improved so that it works properly, and the image has only historical interest. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2015 (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:Ketnet Hits.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 and add too Ketnet Hits. — ξ ^xplicit 02:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image is Non-free, but it's only appearance seems to be in a gallery on Ketnet. Are Galleries of Non-free content acceptable, because I thought otherwise? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is another file File:Vrt ketnet hits.jpg identical to this one that is being used on Ketnet Hits as a logo. I don't think the gallery is justified here; I'd be inclined to move the file to the Ketnet Hits page and delete the logo there as F1-F5, unless there are WP:NFCC#3 concerns about the logo Ketnet Hits.jpg. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Ketnet: Former logo without sourced critical discussion. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Add to Ketnet Hits as this is of better quality than File:Vrt ketnet hits.jpg, and remove File:Vrt ketnet hits.jpg from that article. User:Jo-Jo Eumerus: WP:F1 demands that the file must be identical (or a lower resolution copy), but the amount of whitespace differs, so F1 does not apply here. F5 potentially applies if the file is unused for a week. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was using F1 as a synonym for "pretty much a duplicate" (the whitespace is not much of a difference) here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 8 November 2015 (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:20130425 HK Dockers1.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and uploader apparently did not want it at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much focus on the propaganda, in particular the man who looks like a devil. Presumably unfree for that reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2015 (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:87thregimentalcrest.jpeg[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 as F8 by Miniapolis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This file should be at commons, but there is a claim that a title filter prevents it's upload.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to move it to see what kind of error message would come up and it did move to commons:File:87thregimentalcrest.jpeg. Evidently, the original tag reason does not apply. Beyond that, the license appears to be valid (when checked against the Wayback Machine version), so delete local copy as F8.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, Much appreciated if you could also review other media tagged with that reasoning, as I found some others. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These tags all appear to come from a single editor, Mike Hayes, according to this edit list. Perhaps they ran into an upload issue?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 7 November 2015 (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:Josiah-henson-cabin-img-034510.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 as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per tag, there was a concern about a possible copyright issue, from 2006! Let's resolve it and get this moved to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfan00 IMG: this has been resolved, I just forgot to remove the tag!!! Mdann52 (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move and delete local copy It's time now.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 7 November 2015 (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.