Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

February 3

File:Winshell.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of non-free software. Although the author has released a different screenshot under a free license, one cannot assume that applies to all screenshots. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:31, 3 February 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:Kalmunai Zahira Entrance.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logo on the left is likely above the threshold of originality. Source is in Sri Lanka, which has no freedom of panorama at all. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 09:54, 5 February 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:Bolero (Jeff Beck) UK single cover.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: Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. No comment on {{PD-UK-typographical-25}} eligibility, however anyone is free to transfer if you're confident about this. -FASTILY 01:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This label should be either transferred to Commons or labelled "PD-ineligible-USonly". As I found out, similar "musical notation" logo of Columbia Records was published/released in pre-1927 era, like this one and that one. Furthermore, the difference between the 1919/1920 logo and the logo seen in a 1967 label is very minimal or nonexistent. Indeed, they look very similar, and I can't tell whether the 1950s–1960s Columbia Records (UK) logo is substantially different from the other. Furthermore, the rest of the 1967 label has text too factual for copyright (especially as artistic work), and the label's UK copyright as a typographical arrangement has already expired. (I recently created c:Template:PD-UK-typograhical-25.) I doubt that the "45" logo passes UK's threshold of originality, despite its very low standards, but I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar image of the 1919 single is collected on Commons: File:Columbia A2797 Happy Six.jpg. George Ho (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I uploaded the image six years ago, I wasn't sure about the copyright status. So, it seemed prudent to treat it as if it were copyright protected to be safe. Do what you need to do, but the label image does confirm the fact that the original release had different credits, as discussed and referenced in the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:12, 3 February 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:Delta at DUS.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarked. Not own work. Alternatives available. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 09:57, 5 February 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:Desmond Mullen in 2010.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader = Person in photo. Source/Permission from photographer needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:28, 3 February 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:Devdas1.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful file licensed as own work. Seems to be part of a photoshoot. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 09:59, 5 February 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:Srk1.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful file licensed as own work. Seems to be part of a photoshoot. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 10:00, 5 February 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:Srk2.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful file licensed as own work. Seems to be part of a photoshoot. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 10:00, 5 February 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:Srk3.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful file licensed as own work. Seems to be part of a photoshoot. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 10:00, 5 February 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:DirtyPrettySwisher.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting license. Tagged as PD-self and fair use. Andrew Schawl is probably the copyright holder --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the fact that the uploader has credited multiple authors in different uploads suggests they are not the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 10:00, 5 February 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:MPpunkrocksingle.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting license. Tagged as cc by-sa and fair use. Probably stripped off from ebay --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the low resolution and the mention of eBay suggests the uploader is not the copyright holder. Even if they did take this photo, the pictured album is also presumably copyrighted. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 10:01, 5 February 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:MPwoz3.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting license. Tagged as cc by-sa and fair use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the fact that the uploader has credited multiple authors in different uploads suggests they are not the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 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:ReelBigFishMarquee.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting license. Tagged as cc by-sa and fair use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the fact that the uploader has credited multiple authors in different uploads suggests they are not the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 10:01, 5 February 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:Dylankeefelive.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting license. Tagged as cc by-sa and fair use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the fact that the uploader has credited multiple authors in different uploads suggests they are not the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 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:Popoff Schawl.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting license. Tagged as cc by-sa and fair use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the fact that the uploader has credited multiple different authors in other uploads suggests they are not the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 10:02, 5 February 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:FingerElevenliveinTempe.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting license. Tagged as cc by-sa and fair use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the fact that the uploader has credited multiple authors in different uploads suggests they are not the copyright holder. Copyright issues aside, the image is of very poor quality. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 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:JeremyJacksonAndrewSchawl1.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 ⚡ 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting license. Tagged as cc by-sa and fair use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the fact that the uploader has credited multiple authors in different uploads suggests they are not the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 10:03, 5 February 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:Emblem of the African Union.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: Procedural close, nominated for deletion on Commons. -FASTILY 01:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An SVG is availalble in Commons with file name Emblem of the African Union.svg DownTownRich (talk) 23:01, 3 February 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.