Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 April 17

< April 16	April 18 >

April 17

File:The Echoes - Publicity Photograph for Vox Equipment - 1962.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

advert/promotional image, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 01:20, 17 April 2017 (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:Salman Rasheed jpg file.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused promotional image, unencyclopedic, dubious self-work claim (see watermarks) FASTILY 05:00, 17 April 2017 (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:Akbar Moideen Thumbay.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 05:00, 17 April 2017 (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:Dr. Koirala during an interview in 2012.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

looks like a video screenshot, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 05:01, 17 April 2017 (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:Smith chart.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

missing verifiable source information and evidence of permission FASTILY 05:02, 17 April 2017 (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:Sommerstimberland90(1).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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 05:03, 17 April 2017 (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:Snapshot 20110905.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 ⚡ 04:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 05:04, 17 April 2017 (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:Rajesh, Satyajit.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2017 (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:Nuevo Leon State Highway 1.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be so harsh on a route marker file if it weren't so inaccurate. Mexican state highway shields have their own shape, separate from the federal ones (such as File:Sonora 40.svg). This would not be an actual road sign in use in any Mexican state. Raymie (t • c) 08:02, 17 April 2017 (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:Ralph Reed in Scotland August 2002.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

too low in quality to be of any good use Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2017 (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:Rambokills.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unneeded graphic Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2017 (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:Raleigh mie fry1.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned diagram with watermark that makes content unreadable Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2017 (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:Raliegh mie fry3.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

watermark makes image unusable in articles Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2017 (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:Raliegh mie fry7.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

watermark makes image unusable in articles Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2017 (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:Rayleigh mie fry1.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

watermark makes image unusable in articles Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2017 (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:Weird Al Yankovic - Weird Al Yankovic.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: no consensus. No consensus to reduce in resolution. There is a valid argument against resizing in that doing so would make relevant detail disappear. Sandstein 08:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Querying whether this non-free image should be a lower resolution. It has been reduced by bot but reverted multiple times. I believe it shouldn't be stored at a much higher resolution than how it's used in the article itself to ensure it's covered by fair use. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twice Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has tagged the file with {{non-free reduce}}, saying only in his edit summaries "{{non-free reduce}} using AWB". Both times, DatBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) uploaded a smaller version of the file (at a different size ratio) before I had a chance to dispute Ronhjones' tagging (6.8 and 6.717 hours respectively). Twice I've reverted DatBot to the 16:07, 22 October 2008 original version of the file, noting that I'd done so in accordance with my non-free use rationale.
I've implemented a 600² pixel image because every song on that album has an individual representational element in the album cover. It's a very busy piece of art and, despite having owned a copy since the early 1990s, even I can't quickly or easily find each song's place with the "MAD Magazine-like drawing style." — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should be reduced to guideline size of <100,000 pixels. It's an album cover. The guideline for a non-free size is 315x315. I don't know of any album cover that has been tagged for non-free reduce that has been disputed before (and I have tagged thousands). The image in the infobox on the article will never be 600x600. If readers are determined to see a full size image then the image description page has a link to enable them to do so. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're referring to WP:IMAGERES, which gives a "low pixel count end of the range" as 100000 pixels and an "extreme high end of the range" as "non-free images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel". At 0.36 megapixels pixels, this file is much closer to the low-end than the high-end. Then again, you might be referring to another policy or guideline; I have no way to know.
Whether you do or don't personally know of any disputed reduced album covers isn't really salient.
Lastly, is it written somewhere that clicking on an image to see it duly enlarged isn't an aspect of the encyclopedia? Is clicking on media for enlarging or reading about their source considered an editor-only action not pertinent to readers? I really don't know; it's never occurred to me. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images can be over-reduced to the point that they become useless. I am not convinced that this is such a case, but that's my personal opinion. Anyway, pounding the revert button is not a way to get a problem solved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw my reversions in the context of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Granted, I'd've preferred to have reverted Ronhjones' initial edits to the file description page, but I didn't have enough time before the bot took action. Ultimately though, this right here is the discuss phase, so ::shrug::. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:06, 21 April 2017 (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:Bill P Corgan.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2.5 versions of CC-licenses have never been avalible on Flickr. The file is now delete on Flickr (or at least a bad link). No evience of which license it ever was licensed under. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:41, 17 April 2017 (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:Nada Records, South Korea.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Unused non-free mislicensed files. XXN, 16:52, 17 April 2017 (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:Nick Brophy, 08-20-2015.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: Tagging as "No evidence of permission". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused studio portrait, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of this photo and all rights of its use. I followed the rules of uploading and selected the appropriate fields during that process. I simply wish to provide Wiki the best quality photo possible. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbrophy00 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nbrophy00, would you please email permissions-en@wikimedia.org from an official email address to confirm ownership of the copyright? The photo is from a high-end camera so I would assume you are a professional photograph or representative of the artist, but either way, confirmation of ownership via confidential email helps us protect the rights of copyright holders. czar 18:05, 17 April 2017 (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:State of Washington, DC Boundaries.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: no consensus. It remains unclear whether this image is public domain or fair use, but there is no argument here for why it should be deleted. Sandstein 08:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://dc.gov/page/terms-and-conditions-use suggests that if this was produced by the council, it may fall under a free license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the information on the site, there is material that is federal government (public domain), material created by the district (CC-BY-3.0) and material from third parties (std copyright) with the third party material being identified. This map doesn't have any identificatio so it would be either PD or CC-BY-3.0 depending on the source, but either way, it;s acceptably free. -- Whpq (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-3.0 to err on the side of caution. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What extant evidence do we have that the image came from the site? Where else is it shown, and who created it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the copyright status of the map isn't a problem but, looking at HR 1291 on the Statehood site, page 8 onwards has a detailed description of the boundary of the post-statehood federal district. Wouldn't it be better in the long term for someone to make a new, bigger map? — OwenBlacker (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

czar at the same site mentioned there's another PDF found here which illustrates the image in question. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (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:Big-Boy-Comic-Book-Composition.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: relisted on 2017 June 29. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Big-Boy-Comic-Book-Composition.png (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:Ratatatariteti - omot.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

possible non-free album cover Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2017 (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:Rati7.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this was copied from a non-free web source, given the size and lack of metadata. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2017 (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:Emily Warren Profile Pic.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder. However, the EXIF shows the copyright holder as Blythe Thomas. We would need OTRS confirmation that the uploader is indeed the copyright holder. Whpq (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2017 (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:Raven old.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no clear source Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2017 (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:Ravimatwala.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned file with no clear usability on project Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (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:RawdogBRADLEY2.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 ⚡ 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the filter on this makes it unencyclopedic Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2017 (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:Mosaics flies flowers.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. Until evidence of freeness is forthcoming Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely Flickr wash and missing evidence of permission. See also: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mosaics flies flowers.png FASTILY 21:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a derivative image of a Flickr image whose source image clearly shows a signature of the artist "Kate" and there is no evidence the Flickr user has any rights to the image. Its issues were discussed at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/April#copyright issues derivative work where both the original image and the derived image were questioned but the original uploader never followed up to clarify the issues. ww2censor (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor: A bit of patience. As I said on 11 April 2017, I will do it. As a matter of fact I am working on both i) the copyright on this image, and ii) an alternative image. But right now I am too busy to complete the task. Fpvidal (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fpvidal, it's not up to me, but to the editor closing the discussion. BTW, I was not the one to initiate the deletion nomination. If the image has been deleted before you verify the permission, then it will be restored and if you can upload an image whose copyright is not in question, then that would be even better and maybe easier. ww2censor (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2017 (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:Man in wig.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. Copyright violation (unattributed derivative image). Sandstein 08:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned image, no clear encyclopedic value Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep I need this image for a biography which I am planning to write. Giano (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak transfer to Commons. This file was uploaded about 8 years ago, and since the uploader claims that the file is for a biography and not an article, WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies. Otherwise, this file may be eligible to be transferred to Commons if an applicable free license can apply to it, but only the uploader would know if such a license could apply to this. Either way, the file doesn't belong hosted in the English Wikipedia since it has no encyclopedic use. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? A biography could very well be an article - that's the B in BLP. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The file is not orphaned as it was used when posting a comment at User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 2. It's also an unattributed derivative image of File:Self Portrait (A Study Upon The Effects of Aging - LessHeard vanU).jpg. There's no indication where the wig part of the composition came from so it could possibly be a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Giano, please credit the origins of the works used in your image (original photo, original hair image, etc.) and consider moving it to Commons czar 08:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FGS! Any half-witted idiot can see that it was a joke (funny at the time) uploaded to User talk:LessHeard vanU. It really is of no importance now years later - the hair could even have been my own, I had more of it in those days. I strongly doubt anyone will come creeping out of the woodwork claiming that hair. Have you nothing ore important to do? Giano (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2017 (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:Giano'patentcureforflu.gif

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. The one "keep" opinion is not credible, as the image purports to be of the ingredients of a "flu cure" invented by the uploader, and depicts a package of flu medicine and some alcoholic beverages. Clearly this is not going to be useful in illustrating an article about actual medicine. Sandstein 08:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned image, no clear encyclopedic value, WP:NOTWEBHOST Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I need this image for a page on lesser known European rural medicines and cures. Giano (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or weak transfer to Commons~~. This file was uploaded about 10 years ago, and since the uploader claims that the file is for a reason that doesn't seem like inclusion in an article, WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies. ~~Otherwise, this file may be eligible to be transferred to Commons if an applicable free license can apply to it, but only the uploader would know if such a license could apply to this. Either way,~~ The file doesn't belong hosted in the English Wikipedia since it has no obvious encyclopedic use. (I wonder if this can be used in Granny cure ... if the article existed, and I'm now shocked that it doesn't.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...And ironically, I just created Granny cure, but as a redirect. Turns out that the subject already existed, but as a different name. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out opinion about transferring this to Commons. Multiple copyrighted labels on the containers in this image could be problematic in regards to copyrights. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2017 (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:Soarin' 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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like only shapes and solid colors. Probably is considered free in the United States per {{PD-logo}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I usually upload logos as non-free logos, as I figure it is better to upload a Public Domain logo under non-free rather than the other way around. I am perfectly fine if this is declared as being Public Domain. Elisfkc (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2017 (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:Rainbow Poster.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 as F9 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned file with no clear usability on project. - probable copyvio Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its not an orphaned file, its in use at Life at the End of the Rainbow Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Delete as there is a duplicate file in use, apologies for deprodding Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2017 (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.