Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 July 14

< July 13	July 15 >

July 14

File:4cc-mlp.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 ⚡ 14:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree. Derivative of scene from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic as seen 25 seconds into S1E1. If unfree, will need a valid WP:NFUR to stay on 15.ai. 9³ (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uneasy keep There's certainly a relationship to the scene, but the colors are different as are the designs just on the horses (unicorns...pegasuses?...I dunno, not into this). And then there's the rest of the shield which does not seem to appear in the scene at all. To me, this seems more like an original work inspired by the series, not a derivative. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The linework is almost certainly derivative. 9³ (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, they're alicorns. Or at least, that's the terminology the show uses and has thus popularized outside the context of the show. Dogman15 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's transformative enough to be original for fair use. I think it's based on a fan imagining of the Flag of Equestria (which I don't think has ever been officially depicted), but in shield shape instead of rectangle shape. Dogman15 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a derivative work based off copyrighted material. As used in the article, I see nothing about its use that suggests it would meet all of the non-free content criteria. Whpq (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly a derivative work of the image shown in the YouTube video, or of an earlier common source. There is no free license on the video, which was uploaded to YouTube before the file was uploaded here. The changes may be sufficient to give the creator of the derivative work a copyright, but this would be in addition to the copyright on the original design and would not replace it. "Original for fair use" is not a concept that I recognise. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, this specific episode aired back in 2010 on The Hub. The YouTube channel looks official but I haven't been able to confirm. 9³ (talk) 09:51, 17 July 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:Ferrari 599 from Lusso.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 ⚡ 14:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful own work per uploader's talk page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Delete I'm suspicious that he's had so many nominated for deletion. Without a reason, I'm inclined to believe it's a copyvio. All that said, it's been up for 12 years. I'm surprised it hasn't been up here before. Buffs (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: A Tineye search found this on lussoluxury's page from 2010. I find it unlikely that a company would use a free image from Wikipedia. Buffs (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the uploader's history of copyright violations, the claim of being the copyright holder for this is dubious. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the 'Lusso' on the file name suggests that this is from Lusso magazine, particularly as the same uploader also uploaded File:Lusso-Magazine-16-Cover.jpg. This has the look of a professional publicity photo, there is no camera metadata and the image size is consistent with a web download. This raises sufficient doubts to merit a precautionary deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:26, 20 July 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:BatmanRoguesGallery.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 ⚡ 15:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is used in the Batman article with a claimed purpose of "Illustration of a specific point within the article." without ever identifying what the specific point is. The image is used in the Enemies section with a caption of "Batman surrounded by his enemies, art by Alex Ross". That use is decorative as the image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary nor is there any specific point in the enemies section that needs this image to illustrate it. Fails WP:NFCC#8. If used simply to illustrate Batman's enemies, this is already being done with a different image in List of Batman family enemies so that use would fail WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NFCC fail. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant NFC. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:27, 20 July 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:Catwoman art.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 ⚡ 15:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of Catwoman used in the Batman article with a claimed purpose of "For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article". Use of non-free images for identification of a section does not meet WP:NFCC#8, and the image is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary. Anybody wanting to see what Catwoman looks like can do so at the Catwoman article so also fails WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as previous. Buffs (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant NFC. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:29, 20 July 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:Para Obtener Un Si.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 ⚡ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what this image is for. Likely out of scope. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It appears that this is a unused personal image. The uploader was banned many years ago, so it is very unlikely that their image will be used in the future. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - uploader has been indef blocked as a hoaxer. This looks like an attempt at a fake album cover for Shakira. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:29, 20 July 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:ParksInSrikakulam-2.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 ⚡ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim; looks like a screenshot from some website. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:17, 15 July 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:Pierre Boulez conducting at Blossom Music Center in 1969. Photo by Peter Hastings. Courtesy of The Cleveland Orchestra Archives.tif

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 ⚡ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as free images exist that can illustrate the conducting style of Boulez. Wcam (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added this and one other image to the article several years ago. The copyright holder (the same for both images: the Cleveland Orchestra Archive) gave express permission for this and one other image to be used in this article. The article was scrutinised at length at peer review and no issue raised with either image. Please refer identify the specific provision in the relevant policy which prohibits use of images in these circumstances. Dmass (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have the email from the Cleveland Archive giving permission, if required. Dmass (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images permitted to to be used only in one Wikipedia article are too restrictive to be considered free content. See WP:DCP. --Wcam (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless VRT can confirm a free license. Permission from the copyright holder to use on Wikipedia might be nice for non-free content but is ultimately irrelevant as no permission is needed from the copyright holder. What is needed is for the image to satisfy all of the non-free content criteria. Although the image is a nice accompaniment to the the description of his conducting style, I don't feel that its removal is really detrimental to a reader's understanding of the article, and so it fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 15 July 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:Pierre Boulez and George Szell in Cleveland.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 ⚡ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1: Both Boulez and Szell have free portraits available for use as free equivalents with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. Wcam (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added this and one other image to the article several years ago. The copyright holder (the same for both images: the Cleveland Orchestra Archive) gave express permission for this and one other image to be used in this article. The article was scrutinised at length at peer review and no issue raised with either image. Please identify the specific provision in the relevant policy which prohibits use of images in these circumstances. Dmass (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have the email from the Cleveland Archive giving permission, if required. Dmass (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless VRT permission of a free license can be confirmed. The association with the city of Cleveland, and with mentor zell is adequately expressed with text without need of an image so fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 15 July 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:Meshack kimutai.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 ⚡ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph is unused and does not depict a notable subject. The uploader has not edited in two years, indicating that this photograph is unlikely to be used in the future. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:18, 15 July 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:Superman (Kal-L - circa 2005).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 ⚡ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This artwork does not satisfy the eighth criterion for non-free images. His appearance in the relevant storyline is obvious. Furthermore, it adds little to a section that already has two other images in it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - image is claimed to be used for identification but is not in the infobox. The use is decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 23:30, 17 July 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:Crisis5p3.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 ⚡ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much like the other one, this non-free image does not add that much to the articles on Earth-Two and Superman (Earth-Two). In the former, there is little discussion of the fight itself. In the latter, the fight does not require an image. If any of the section's three images should stay, it should be the one depicting his death. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the images are used decoratively in the articles with vague NFUR that provides no actual explanation of purpose. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 23:36, 17 July 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:NewEarth2.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 ⚡ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is another comic image that violates criterion eight. It adds little to the relevant section in Earth-Two's article. Meanwhile, it is completely unsuitable as a depiction of the Huntress (Helena Wayne). ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the provided NFUR are vague boilerplate statements which provide no real explanation for use. The image is not the subject of significant sourced critical commentary in either article. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 23:43, 17 July 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:Black Lantern Kal-L.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 ⚡ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While Superman (Earth-Two)'s appearance changed during his time as a Black Lantern, there is no real commentary on this in the article. Therefore, this non-free image violates the eighth criterion. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the provided NFUR provides only the vague purpose "Illustration of a specific point within the article." with no explanation of what specific point n requires this image. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 23:49, 17 July 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:Adventures of Superman 649 coverart.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 ⚡ 01:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this non-free image is not necessary for the reader to understand what happened in the relevant storyline. This applies to both Alexander Luthor Jr. and Superman (Earth-Two). ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the removal of this image does not detract from a reader's understanding of the articles. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 23:52, 17 July 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.