Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 3

< October 2	October 4 >

October 3[edit]

File:Alexis Preller 118.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 ⚡ 13:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of presumably copyrighted paintings, not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The summary information indicates these images were taken at the "Alexis Preller Exhibition at the Standard Bank Gallery in Johannesburg South Africa". Alexis Preller died in 1975 so these paintings would still be under copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2021 (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:WCM plain.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no forseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 13:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2021 (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:Keith Harring Crack is Wack Mural.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: Convert to non-free, removed from Crack epidemic in the United States -FASTILY 05:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama for murals in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free 2D art (I think) and add a fair use for the Crack Is Wack article, remove from the Crack epidemic in the United States article. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2021 (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 Penny Dreadfuls.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted on Twitter. Can't verify if a licence was provided there. Stefan2 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This archive states "Yes am aware of the CC licensing. I’ll just make my money by selling jars of my tears. Go for it." Is that sufficient? the specific CC license is not mentioned but the statement implies that the commercial use is allowed but is silent on derivatives. This is why WP:VRT confirmation is a better way to go. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The Twitter statement was made at 2.20 AM (unknown timezone) while the file was uploaded at 9.24.44 (GMT) on the same date. We don't know if 2.20 AM (unknown timezone) was earlier than 9.24.44 (GMT). If it was earlier, then he can't have seen the licence statement on Wikipedia. If it was later, then the Twitter person could have meant a different licence, for example cc-by-nd. I think that the Twitter comments are too unspecific. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky, because both my message (asking Sukan for the CC, including the specific license) and her reply are now deleted. But anecdotally I can say that I got the reply confirming the license at 9.20 AM GMT and put the image up four minutes later. We could tweet Sukan again (although she wasn't thrilled the first time), or just delete the image (a shame, because it's quite nice for the article). Either way, sorry for providing a fairly unstable license link. Professionalecho (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2021 (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:Guerin Austin July 2019.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 ⚡ 01:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2021 (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:Randy Lennox Kiefer Sutherland 2016.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 ⚡ 01:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The linked licence statement has been deleted so it can't be verified. Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2021 (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:Full Throttle Logo.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: convert to free license. ✗plicit 23:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this meets the threshold of originality because more complex text logos like File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg have been denied copyright registration. Posting this here because I'd like a second opinion. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2021 (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:Waupaca Railroad Depot.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: Missing verifiable source. No prejudice to restoration if someone can provide a source/citation from a reliable publication explicitly naming this exact image to be indisputably in the public domain -FASTILY 05:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete source. Impossible to verify copyright status. Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The photo has been in the public domain for more than 50 years. The depot has not been in use since 1965. A reverse image of the photo shows it is used freely and there is not a copyright asserted. Lightburst (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the file. Based on the photographed wagon transportation - the photo is the early 1900s. Please let me know what else is needed. Thank you Lightburst (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep early 1900s public domain photo widely published without any entity asserting copyright. Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, maybe not. With no verifiable source, it's not possible to tell. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2021 (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:Jean Mill holding a Bengal cat.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 ⚡ 01:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus FUR. Not used for the stated purpose. Also violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stefan2 Thank you. I understand the issue presented here. You are right that the subject photo is not used to identify in the infobox. I think the purpose has evolved. Being that the subject is deceased can the photo be edited to reflect a different use? Lightburst (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the file to update the use in the article. Please let me know if that is sufficient. I see that the original website is now a dead link. Lightburst (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8. Unless Mill became a bengal cat upon her death, then the stated purpose of "for use within the subject's biographical article" is simply not true. The image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary and is not needed to understand that Mill initiated the breed. -- Whpq (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq thank you for the clarification. The photo was once used for the Jean Mill's infobox. I agree with your statement about the photo not being needed. I am sure I moved it to the Bengal Cat article in error. Lightburst (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support to delete : this img does NOT contribute anything to improve understanding of the breed. And it is not a nice photo. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2021 (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.