Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 April 27

< April 26	April 28 >

April 27

File:Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute (logo).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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo image without corresponding article. No need to transfer to Commons. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2021 (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:DGWhereDidItAllGoWrong.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 ⚡ 04:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused album cover image without corresponding article. No need to transfer to Commons due to out of scope (also evidence of permission issues). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2021 (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:Leone 13.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: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can provide a citation explicitly proving this file to be freely licensed under a Wikipedia-compatible license -FASTILY 02:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

false copyleft, the image might be copyrighted Veverve (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out, how can an image of the arms of a person dead for more than 100 years be subject to copyright? I'm sure there's a way, but this nomination doesn't get me there. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: there is no proof that this version of this coat of arms has not been made recently. The remake, using modern means, of an old design is still considered as an original work. Veverve (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, if there is a creative element to the addition. Are you saying that there is? Or that there is some other reason to believe that a 120+ year-old coat of arms is subject to copyright? I'd just like to know what you are claiming. It's very unclear from your nomination. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: It is not a 120-year-old coat of arm. You do not have any proof that this very same image appeared more than 120 years ago. Thus, it is safe to assume it is a remake of the original model made in the 21st century. Veverve (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do such things have enough creative input to count as original? I don't know, but I think that's a key point here. And if we do delete this, should we be replacing it with the original? Hobit (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: Yes, I believe they do have enough originality. There is already numerous, high quality SVG versions of this coat of arms; the image we are discussing is not used anywhere in the main space. Veverve (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2021 (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:TheWire28.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: relisted on 2021 May 28. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheWire28.jpg (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.