Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 31

< July 30	August 1 >

July 31

File:Koda Kumi - NEVER ENOUGH.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 ⚡ 03:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Single cover used in a section of the article about the parent album, not the article of the single itself. Its usage is equivalent to the second example listed at WP:NFC#UUI. ℯ xplicit 02:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This possibly could be kept if it were being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the single itself; however, per WP:NFC#cite_note-3, I think there needs to some actual sourced critical commentary about the cover art itself in the album's article for the context required by NFCC#8, but there no article content of that nature anywhere in the relevant section where the cover art is being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It’s used in a section of the parent album describing a physical single release. The purpose is for identification of the single, so readers can quickly identify and understand the information. Xenobia4 (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The image itself is not discussed in the article. It's use as identification is for an article about the album, and as such, does not meet WP:NFCC#8, and it's removal does not detract from the understanding of the article which is about the album and not the single. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no critical commentary of the cover itself thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Cover art is rarely discussed in articles and predominately used for identification purposes. Given that the single was released prior to the album, its artwork is required for wiki users to understand the mentioned single. Xenobia4 (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reader would only need to see the cover art if there was some discussion of it in the relevant section about the single. The reader doesn't need to see the cover art to understand that Koda released the single and when she released it. The fact that the single was released prior to the album can more than adequately be understood per WP:FREER by text content supported citations to reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFCC#8 by lack of critical commentary when the image does not identify the main subject of the article (NFCI#1 footnote 1) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 3 August 2018 (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 frogs who wanted a king by Wenceslaus Hollar. The Hollar Collection, Toronto.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this under non-free criteria if it dates to the 17th century? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously public domain in all countries. I am removing orphaned revisions tag, as deleting will not be useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly public domain. Salavat (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2018 (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:Ryukyu independence flag.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: keep. As free image Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original raster was deleted as non-free, this is claimed as PD-simple. Which license is correct? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who changed it to pd-simple. I don't see anything here that approaches Wikipedia:Threshold of originality. It's two rectangles of differing blue color, with three five-point stars with white stroke. There's really no creative element here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about this at WP:MCQ#File:Ryukyu independence flag.svg because I also felt it probably was PD. The only response I received was from Graeme Bartlett, and he seemed to concur. Even if this was by chance not PD in Japan, it probably could still be licensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Lots of files get uploaded as non-free content even though they might be too simple for copyright protection, and sometimes it takes a bit of time before someone notices them. I can no longer see the original raster version, but it was deleted way back in 2007. Perhaps the non-free content use policy at that time was a well-delveloped as it is today, or maybe nobody really considered whether it really needed ot be non-free at all. It's possible that the deleted file might have also been slightly different than this svg one. Anyway, here's what I think happened. This file was uploaded about a week before the other was deleted. The uploader might have just tagged replaced the other file with this, making the older file an orphan to be deleted per WP:F5. The reviewing admin probably didn't look much beyond that, and just deleted the file as orphaned non-free use. F5 deletions tend to be non-contentious deletions simply because the file is an orphan; they don't really have anything to do any of the WP:NFCCP other than WP:NFCC#7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from serious .jpg artifacts, File:Ryukyu.JPG looked exactly the same as the .svg version. I still think that pd-simple is appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2018 (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:Farooq leghari.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 ⚡ 03:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referral over the copyright claim included. Either this is expired or it isn't. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2018 (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:Archita photo.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 RHaworth per F9: Media file copyright violation without credible claim of fair use or permission. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay who actually created this photo? The image has one name, the file description page another, neither of which has an obvious connection with the uploader. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio. The image is watermarked with the photographer's name "Rakesh Shrestha" who is a professional photographer covering film stars. The same image was published in Feb 2013. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2018 (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:OscarLopezRivera Holyoke.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 ⚡ 03:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image without any significant sourced critical commentary about the image to support its inclusion in the article. Fails to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq:, Is that better suited to this criteria now?--Simtropolitan (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I still don;t think it meets WP:NFCC#8, and the image is really not needed for understanding and as such the text description is adequate so it fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this kind of goal-post moving is why this will be the last contribution I make on Wikipedia. --Simtropolitan (talk)

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:FB IMG 1532367106854.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 ⚡ 03:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy, violates WP:NFCCP#1 Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The image is not being used under a claim of non-free usage, so the nomination statement makes no sense. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete given the name, poor quality, and lack of exif data, it was probably copied off the internet somewhere (Facebook?) I can see better quality images online when doing Google image search, so I reckon the uploader was not the photographer. I will not link as there is NSFW content with what I found. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:F9. Unlikely to be own work, and Facebook's licensing is not compatible as a WP:ICT/FL per WP:COPY. Even if this file was licensed as non-free, it would end being deleted per WP:F5 since it's not being used in any articles, or WP:F7 if the subject were still living. An alternative to FFD might've been to tag with {{npd}} and let the file be deleted per WP:F11, but there's no point in that now since we're already discussing it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2018 (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:CT-WEX-0010.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, low-res, unclear encyclopedic value FASTILY 19:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2018 (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:CT-WEX-0020.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, low-res, unclear encyclopedic value FASTILY 19:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2018 (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:Yarram.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 ⚡ 08:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, low-res, unclear encyclopedic value FASTILY 19:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was used in this older revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberton_Football_Netball_League&oldid=221384753 to indicate club colours, so it did have encyclopedic value. But resolution is too low for current use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2018 (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:Wonthaggi3.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 ⚡ 08:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, low-res, unclear encyclopedic value FASTILY 19:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image was used in Alberton Football Netball League to indicate the colours of the Wonthaggi Power Football Club. It seems resolution is too low for the current style and size of images used. So although encyclopedic, it is only useful when looking at old revisions of the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2018 (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:Curvature Headquarters.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

claimed as own work, but source states "By in house photographer". Missing evidence of permission FASTILY 20:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2018 (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:Alex morgan raising the european cup.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 ⚡ 02:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 20:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2018 (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:Lenguas eslavas orientales.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is incorrect. The regions in Georgia Abkhazia and South osetia don't talk slavik. These regions were occupied by russia, but the still belong to georgia. Currently they are thought as otonomous republics, but their languages have always been Georgian. Only russian soldiers and russians talk russian in these regions. 62.168.183.119 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2018 (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.