Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 11

< September 10	September 12 >

September 11

File:Clash-The Guns of Brixton.ogg

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 on 2021 October 10. FASTILY 09:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clash-The Guns of Brixton.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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 Clash - London Calling.ogg

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: Removed from London Calling & Punk rock, kept in London Calling (song) -FASTILY 09:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used in album article London Calling (~~not~~ London Calling (song)) and genre article punk rock. Reading the album article, I'm unconvinced that the sample is necessary to identify the album release. Details about the song itself, including references to events, in the album article are brief but can be already understood without the sample, IMO. The usage may fail WP:NFCC#8.

For usage in the genre article, the song itself is mentioned only in the sample caption; it's not mentioned outside the caption. Also, there are other samples used in the genre article. I'm uncertain whether the usage meets WP:NFCC#8, but I default to deciding that it may fail that criterion, just in case. I don't think a sample of lyrics (in any medium, like an audio clip or text) is necessary to understand what the genre is about. A sample of instrument, like an electric guitar or drums or cymbals, would do. Right?

Maybe the sample belongs in the song article, but the song article as-is probably doesn't detail much about the composition and musical arrangement. I could stand corrected, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC); edited, 23:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs in the song article, but not necessarily the album article. Rlendog (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the genre article? --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on that one. This is one of the most recognizable punk rock songs so arguably could belong there as an example of what a punk rock song sounds like. But it is not necessarily a typical punk rock song, since (in my opinion at least) the Clash had by then moved to include other musical influences. Rlendog (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: Now used in song article. George Ho (talk) 23:02, 18 September 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:Aalborg Boldspilklub logo.svg

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: No action. The Commons copy has been nominated for deletion, we can revisit this matter if Commons decides to keep the file -FASTILY 05:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this actually text logo? Commons seemed to think it was ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:COM:TOO Denmark: Three fonts not eligible for copyright protection (Supreme Court 30 June 2006, U2006.2697H). Two other fonts were found eligible for copyright.

If some fonts are copyrighted in the source country, maybe this applies to the font used here? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 11 September 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:Amruta Khanvilkar.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 ⚡ 12:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo. Not sure if poster in the background is de minimis. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ixfd64, I'd consider the background de minimis which could be cropped anyway and a photo of Amruta Khanvilkar is obviously within the educational scope of Wikimedia. However, this photo is also found in a slideshow on Rediff.com with the same 667 × 1,000 resolution. According to that page, it was uploaded there on Sun, 3 August 2014 while our image was uploaded on 4 December 2015. This isn't 100% definitive proof (some websites might display wrong dates or change content to add photos from Wikipedia after the fact), but considering that the slideshow contains more photos in the same setting while File:Amruta Khanvilkar.jpg is AlyssaRachelleSara's only upload, I think that the Rediff user RealTime Photos is, in fact, the author. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:33, 11 September 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:1st seap games.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considered simple at Commons c:File:1st seap games.png ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Transfer, ShakespeareFan00, Commons hasn't really considered anything. Trongdao294 has uploaded three files to Commons, this logo and two deleted copyvios. There is no threshold of originality section on c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Thailand so we don't really know. I changed the license to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Paul 012 I have changed the license to PD-Thailand+PD-textlogo and changed my vote. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Properly transfer upload history, and delete local copy. Even if it were considered copyrightable in Thailand, institutional copyright lasts fifty years after first publication in the country, so protection would have expired in 2009. This is beyond the URAA restoration date, but as it wouldn't be beyond the threshold of originality in the US, this shouldn't matter. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 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:Persitara.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historical logo for Persitara Jakarta Utara, fails WP:NFCC#8. The filename shadows a copyvio on Commons, c:File:Persitara.png which is used on w:id:Persitara Jakarta Utara. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:58, 11 September 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:Western Fair Raceway Infield.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As well as File:Burnsy at Labatt Park Ldn.jpg. Poor quality, non-descript. Not useful for an educational purpose. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, poor quality images adding no value to the Western Fair article. Feels like a troll as there are two identical images claiming to be represent two different things. Salavat (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Salavat, without further evidence we should assume good faith, maybe they intended to upload two different images but selected the wrong file for one of the uploads. Or they remembered incorrectly where it was taken for the first upload. (File:Western Fair Raceway Infield.jpg was uploaded in 2020, File:Burnsy at Labatt Park Ldn.jpg in 2013) This IP edit that changes the description and date from "A fan celebrates the London Majors' 2013 season at Labatt Park." on "2013-06/09" to "A Majors fan celebrates the historical baseball displays in Centre Field during Baseball Day, 2006." on "2006-07/01" would suggest some serious confusion. But either way, I see little value of this picture to any article. It could have been taken anywhere, anytime. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:38, 13 September 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.