Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 April 2

< April 1	April 3 >

April 2

File:PushPull System.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:PushPull System.gif Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2019 (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:MagicaBeagleBoys.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative use of non-free screenshot in Duck Tales. This particular screenshot itself is neither the subject of any sourced critical commentary nor does is provide any significant encyclopedic information to the reader which provides the context for non-free use generally required by WP:NFCC#8. The reader doesn't need to see the screenshot to understand certain elements from the comic this series was based upon were incorporated into the series per WP:FREER -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2019 (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:MalteseFalconsoundtrack.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in The Maltese Falcon (1941 film)#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2019 (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:Annemarie Schwarzenbach.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed, we have now a free image: File:AnnemarieSchwarzenbach.jpg Yann (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#1. @Yann: If you're sure the Commons file is OK (which you most likely are because you're a Commons administrator and OTRS volunteer), you can probably tag files like these with {{rfu}} instead of bring them here for discussion. There's nothing wrong with discussion per se, but clear violations of WP:F7 usually only need administrator review. Most Wikipedia administrators working with non-free content will check whether the file is really replaceable before deleting, and will suggest WP:FFD for any questionable or unclear cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am not 100% sure that the other file is OK. Some IP added a different author, which would make it non-free. Wait for a few days. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After after extensive research by Vysotsky, I closed the DR on Commons. So we have more evidence that the replacement image is a self-portrait, and is OK. This file can be deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Abzeronow (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2019 (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:New York Excelsior (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 ⚡ 03:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file was licensed under fair-use but was changed to {{PD-textlogo}} on this edit by Benstown. I wanted to get consensus on whether or not it withholds the threshold of originality. Pbroks13 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With one (possibly two) typefaces and a simple, repeating "X" motif, I'd say this doesn't meet the TOI. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:32, 3 April 2019 (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.