Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 8

September 8

File:WADL CW38 2023.svg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No logos from Logopedia; similar logo already in Commons Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if i find an SVG version on WADL (or owner Mission Broadcasting)'s website, is that acceptable? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 14:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Logopedia not okay? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retag as {{PD-textlogo}} Stifle (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvcg66b3r: Please can you expand on what you feel is an issue with Logopedia? Stifle (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ask @Wcquidditch: Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow more explanation about Logopedia
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Htetaungkyaw.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 09:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. This is the uploader's last surviving contribution. ✗plicit 05:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Cartrain1.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. No evidence of permission Whpq (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume that on the photo is Cartain, then without a face it is not very encyclopedic. And the same information in the columns “source”, “author” and “description” forces to assume that either the photo was taken from a tripod, or the photo was taken by another person. — Ирука¹³ 08:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This rationale makes no sense. What is it a derivative work of? There is no policy or guideline against uploading art to Wikipedia. jp×g 21:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assuming that the description is accurate and that this photograph is indeed depicting User:Cartrain, then the photograph is, at best, missing evidence of permission. Cartrain is clearly not the person taking the photo, so the photographer is the true copyright holder here. The photographer will need to submit a declaration of consent to VRT before the image can be safely used on Wikipedia -FASTILY 07:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:CartrainArt2016.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If on the photo is art, then it is a derivative work and is in violation of copyright. — Ирука¹³ 08:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And if on the photo is no art, then it has no visible encyclopedic value. — Ирука¹³ 23:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Argentinohastalamuerte.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is screenshot from movie, not a photo: 50 years p. m. a., not 25 from creation. As a non-free file, it is violates WP:NFCC#8. — Ирука¹³ 09:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per our own definition, a photograph is "an image created by light falling on a photosensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic image sensor, such as a CCD or a CMOS chip". This definition has some some legal precedent. This image is obviously a frame from a movie taken with a film camera, making it a photograph, so this nomination seems to consequently lack basic diligence. jp×g 21:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film stills are not covered by photograph copyright in Argentina. Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Argentina distinguishes between photographic and cinematic work, and cinematic work is 50 years. -- Whpq (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:MississippiStateGuard.gif

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 2023 September 17. FASTILY 08:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:MississippiStateGuard.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Shi Shankar Maharaj.pdf

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 G7 by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PDF document pretending to be an encyclopedia article, with hagiographic content which would need extensive revision to be suitable as an article. Version on Commons is already nominated for deletion there. Omphalographer (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:FAKEARTICLE with no encyclopedic merit. jp×g 23:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A PDF is not the way to create an article and that content is not useful for the creation of one. -- Whpq (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.