Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 14

< February 13	February 15 >

February 14

File:Lal in Manjil Virinja Pookkal.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a & #8 (possibly) - a poster is already used in the film's article. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image has significance, its the first scene of Mohanlal shot in his debut film. The image is a black and white copy of a still photograph, and not a screenshot from the film. It's a rare case to obtain a still photo from a veteran actors' debut film scene. The image was also under use in Mohanlal filmography just before the nominator removed it after nominating it here. --Inside the Valley (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same character seems to be visible on the poster, so this image violates WP:NFCC#3a. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per the concern I had removed the image from its film article. But included it in article Mohanlal and Mohanlal filmography, where it is very much significant as its his debut film performance. --Inside the Valley (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file fails WP:NFCC#1 in Mohanlal and Mohanlal filmography as there are freely licensed images of the person, WP:NFCC#8 because the picture isn't critically discussed and WP:NFC#UUI §6 as the film has its own article. The file additionally fails WP:NFCC#10c in both articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:FredericksburgSEAL.png

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: remove from Princes Town, Ghana. — ξ ^xplicit 05:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in Fredericksburg, Virginia and Princes Town, Ghana. Each usage has a non-free use rationale, but only the one for the "Fredricksburg" article seems even close to being valid. Usage in Princes Town, Ghana#Sister cities is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFTABLES). Unless this is possible to covert to public domain (perhaps by {{PD-US-not renewed}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, etc.), I suggest remove from "Princes Town, Ghana" and keep in "Fredricksburg, Virginia". -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Wendy Richard AYBS.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: remove from Wendy Richard. — ξ ^xplicit 05:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3 in Wendy Richard as File:Pauline Fowler.jpg is also in use in that article. Needs a rationale for Miss Brahms. January (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Miss Brahms is her most notable acting role. If anything, the Pauline Fowler image should be deleted before the Miss Brahms image. 71.195.159.137 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of which is her most notable acting role, since it not the norm to have non-free images of actors in character in their biography. One free image of a person (but not two) can be justified for visual identification if, as in this case, the person is deceased and there is no known free image. January (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Lowellseal.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of official seal being used in Winneba#Sister cities. A non-free use rationale is provided for this usage, but this clearly decorative usage fails WP:NFCC#8. I'm not sure if this file can be converted to {{PD-MAGov}}, but suggest remove from the "Winneba" article if it cannot. File also has a non-free use rationale for Lowell, Massachusetts, but it is no longer being used in that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Macon SEAL.png

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: remove from Elmina. — ξ ^xplicit 05:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in Macon, Georgia and Elmina#Twin City. File has a non-free use rationale for each usage, but the decorative usage in "Elimna" clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. Suggest keep for "Macon, Georgia" and remove from "Elmina". -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-free cycling team logos

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: convert the first to {{PD-logo}}, the remaining two to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 05:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cycling team logos being used in Cannondale-Garmin, Drapac Professional Cycling and Lotto-Soudal respectively. Files were also being used in the individual season articles 2016 Cannondale season, 2016 Drapac Cycling season and 2016 Lotto–Soudal season, but I removed them per WP:NFCC#10c and numbers 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Each file has a non-free use rationale for its respective usage in the main team article, but I am wondering if these are simple enough to qualify as {{PD-logo}} or at least {{PD-USonly}}. If these can be freely licensed, they would not be subject to WP:NFCC and be used in individual season articles, etc. They might also be OK to tag with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. If, however, they are non-free then they should only be used in the main articles about the teams themselves, and not in any individual season articles, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:EMP container.jpeg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic. Looks like a Paint drawing of a trucking container. B (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's in use, which suggests that it does have some encyclopedic value. An article is under development on Draft:EMP and this shows their livery and logo. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in use, but that's only because someone added it to some articles and nobody has actually noticed it. Can you actually make a case for this being an encyclopedic image fro the articles in which it is used? As for Draft:EMP, an actual PHOTO of an EMP truck container would make sense. This is a bad photoshop of one and doesn't make sense. --B (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep I don't think this is particularly unencyclopedic. It's of suboptimal quality, but that's not a deletion criteria. It's currently used in a few articles as a means of illustration in an encyclopedic way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:EngadgetLogo.png

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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being merely slightly modified letters, this surely qualifies as PD-textlogo. Not convinced any of the previous copies are copyrightable, either (the sound icon is just a standard symbol, yes?). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:John Lyng.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is currently non-free and shadows the Commons file commons:File.John Lyng.jpg which is about the same subject. Now, while that file on Commons may have been recopyrighted by the URAA and is thus up for deletion; however one could argue that the current enwiki file fails WP:FREER and should be replaced with a locally uploaded fair use version of the Commons image up for deletion for two reasons:

The Commons file on its source site is licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND while the file here does not seem to have any license, and is thus more restrictive.
The Commons file may be in the public domain in Norway at least since 2014, whereas there is no indication of such on our file.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Allen Theater, Allentown, PA.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged with {{db-f7}}, but does not seem to qualify for instant deletion. The file seems to fail WP:NFCC#10a as the image does not appear at the indicated source. Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Americus Hotel Lobby 1927.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: convert to {{PD-US-not renewed}}. — ξ ^xplicit 05:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged with {{db-f7}} but doesn't seem to qualify for instant deletion. Additionally, if this really is a postcard from 1928, then it's unlikely that the copyright was renewed even if there was a copyright notice on the other side of the postcard, so the postcard is probably in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Josh Crutchley signing autographes.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no evidence of permission/self-work. Source website joshcrutchley.com is down. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webarchive has a copy of the website here ... and that permission statement about images and Wikipedia does explicitly exclude commercial use. Not sure if the copyright claim is correct (the image is not a selfie) though but that doesn't make the copyright status any clearer.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Birminghambulletslayup.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no evidence of permission/self-work. Source website joshcrutchley.com is down. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webarchive has a copy of the website here ... and that permission statement about images and Wikipedia does explicitly exclude commercial use.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Signing AutoGraphes.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no evidence of permission/self-work. Source website joshcrutchley.com is down. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webarchive has a copy of the website here ... and that permission statement about images and Wikipedia does explicitly exclude commercial use. Not sure if the copyright claim is correct (the image is not a selfie) though but that doesn't make the copyright status any clearer.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:HoverEE.png

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 ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is in a Window, not full-screen. It contains images of identifiable individuals, so may not come under Microsoft's permission grant. Not to mention an incomplete non-free use rationale which I would have completed if not for those. And do we really need screenshots of video game Easter Eggs anyway? Adam9007 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ahmed Bilal ART Doodle.jpeg

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 ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic use. Doodle used in page deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ahmed Bilal ART (2nd nomination). JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kindercop90.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is used in the plot section of Kindergarten Cop against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.