Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 June 22

June 22

File:Gulf Club Champions Cup 2015 Official Image.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 non-free & remove from all except GCC Champions League -FASTILY 04:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted logo, not own work as the uploader claims. If a valid fair use rationale is added, it looks like a possible valid fair use on GCC Champions League. However, use on 2016 GCC Champions League and 2017 GCC Champions League violates WP:GETTY point 14 (don't use generic logos on specific articles) Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convert licensing to non-free logo and add a non-free use rationale for use in the main infobox of GCC Champions League. Remove from the two individual season articles per item 14 of WP:NFC#UUI and also from GCC Champions League#Logos per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFG. Just going to add that an official source for the file (if one can be found) should be added to the non-free use rationale for the main infobox use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2023 (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:Rendezvous society logo.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. Image is unused so there is no justification for a non-free rationale. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the United Kingdom. The pictured sign is almost certainly above the UK's infamously low threshold of originality. As the organization was founded in 1985, the logo could have been published no earlier than that year, and is too recent to be in public domain due to age. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination since there appears to valid reason for converting the file's licensing to non-free. FWIW, the file was uploaded in 2006 and the uploader hasn't edited since 2012. The uploader appears to have uploaded several other file's during around the same time as this one (File:Kisumu rendezvous.JPG, File:Rendezvous shop.JPG and File:The rendezvous charity.JPG; none of them seem to be currently used, but maybe the uploader was working on a draft for a future article at the time or they were being used here prior to its deletion earlier this year. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2023 (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:RoyKhan 2007 Live.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

contesting keep local; unused locally, already on Commons, no reason to retain local copy FASTILY 20:58, 22 June 2023 (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:Evelyn Ruggles-Brise.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 by User:Explicit Lenticel ^(talk) 23:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

contesting keep local; unused locally, already on Commons (see first revision of File:Evelyn Ruggles-Brise Bain Collection.jpg), no reason to retain local copy FASTILY 20:58, 22 June 2023 (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:Stockton Rush.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 by User:Explicit Lenticel ^(talk) 23:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OceanGate's official YouTube channel has a freely licensed video that features Rush. It's not the best quality, but I believe it could replace this non-free image. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the original uploader, but I agree with the decision to replace this, in order for the article to be illustrated. It is already freely available and will avoid any wait for a file to be released in the public domain. Mechanical Elephant (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've replaced the image. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 21:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFCC#1- a free image exists. This is exactly why we shouldn't immediately upload non-free images once someone dies, because often there is a free image available. I notice Knightoftheswords281 has also uploaded non-free images of other victims of this incident, and I wonder of they did any proper checks for these people either, or whether they're just hoping that WP:NFCC#1 applies. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed do a search for all four figures, including Rush, on both Google, Flickr, and YouTube. The reason why I didn't see it was because the video that we extracted the image from didn't have his name in the title or any of its tags presumably; I'm guessing that Ixfd64 searched "OceanGate" instead of just "Stockton Rush." - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually found the free image by searching "Stockton Rush" on YouTube. It's possible the video was only recently changed to Creative Commons, as none of OceanGate's other videos show a free license. From what I could tell, YouTube does not show license history like Flickr now does. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as free image is currently available --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 29 June 2023 (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.