Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

February 8

File:Derrick Ashong-DNA.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 ⚡ 05:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt this is an own work. Seems to be derived from a music video or somesort. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:18, 8 February 2022 (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:Dusty Rychart.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 ⚡ 06:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly cropped from somewhere. Permission/Source needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:17, 8 February 2022 (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 Saturdays on next top model.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 ⚡ 16:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution suggests this is a screen capture of a television show. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2022 (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:2022 Pakistan Super League captains.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 ⚡ 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid fair use. Fails WP:NFCC#8, as not having this image does not significantly deteriorate the article, WP:NFCC#1, as there are free equivalent photos of 5 of the 6 players listed. Also, the image isn't directly relevant to the competition itself (unlike the logo) Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if my reply helps or not, see Talk:2022 Pakistan Super League. M. Billoo 18:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above and my comments on the cricket project talk page. CreativeNorth (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2022 (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:2022 Pakistan Super League trophy.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 ⚡ 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the trophy is not paramount to the article, and so fails WP:NFCC#8. Many higher-quality articles on cricket tournaments (such as 2019 Cricket World Cup, which is a GA) don't have fair use images of a trophy, so no reason why an exception should be made for this article Joseph2302 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if my reply helps or not, see Talk:2022 Pakistan Super League. M. Billoo 18:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. CreativeNorth (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: since the start of the nomination, this image has been removed from 2022 Pakistan Super League article, and added to Pakistan Super League article. This doesn't change my views on deletion though (as it's not a valid fair use there either, in my opinion). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2022 (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:1960 New Zealand parliament.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the same as c:File:1949 nz parliament.svg, so moving this to commons would be redundant. Suggest creating a redirect on commons and deleting the local version. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 16:49, 8 February 2022 (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:1963 New Zealand parliament.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the same as c:File:1954 nz parliament.svg, so moving this to commons would be redundant. Suggest creating a redirect on commons and deleting the local version. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 16:49, 8 February 2022 (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:Leuven01.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 ⚡ 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background is probably copyrighted. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 17:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nice image, but hardly useful. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think copyright is an issue because the wallpaper appears to be part of a free Linux distribution. [1] However, this image isn't too useful due to its low resolution. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (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:Why Marx Was Right.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: There is disagreement below about whether this image is actually PD, and no definitive proof supporting this claim has been presented. Defaulting to status quo. -FASTILY 07:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only copyrightable object on the cover is the photo of Marx and its copyright may have expired. Maybe it should be freely licensed. Jonteemil (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image it's based on may be File:Karl Marx 001.jpg, but I don't know if the (rather strange) editing effect used to blend it into the red background counts as sufficient for the threshold of originality. — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I doubt it strongly.Jonteemil (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like fair use to me. What makes it different than any other book cover? Especially when the underlying photo is deemed to be public domain. --SVTCobra 00:15, 16 February 2022 (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:Sami-Jaber.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 ⚡ 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped from another file. Source/Permission needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 17:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2022 (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:Sheila with Rukmini Devi Arundale.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 ⚡ 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of a photo. Permission cannot be transferred in this manner. Click the source for uncropped version which clearly shows the nature of this image. SVTCobra 18:56, 8 February 2022 (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.