Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 April 25

< April 24	April 26 >

April 25[edit]

File:Belton. Church.Giano.gif[edit]

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: keep. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 01:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

superseded by File:Belton Church Giano.jpg Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the second nomination in less than a year. The previous discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 17 #File:Belton. Church.Giano.gif is useful background, and it's notable that the nominator failed to mention it (or even read it, apparently). --RexxS (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep: (1) This is the original uploaded file. The derivative file is File:Belton Church Giano.jpg. The jpg format is lossy, so the conversion from a gif (a lossless format, albeit restricted to 256 colours) will always lose information. Any image created as a jpg from a gif is therefore intrinsically of lower quality, because it cannot "magically" recreate extra colours that were not present in the original gif, and will lose some of the high frequency information as all jpgs do. Interpolation of colours such as by applying a Gaussian filter can be performed when reducing the resolution, at the loss of some sharpness, but this has not been done in this case. If any attempt is made to improve this image, it needs to start with the original, therefore the gif version needs to be kept.
(2) When Giano uploaded this file in 2006, he released it into the public domain. When User:Amandajm created a jpg derivative and uploaded it in 2008, they gave the source as "Wikipedia" and failed to note that the evidence of Giano's PD release was at File:Belton. Church.Giano.gif. That has now been corrected, but nevertheless, the file history at Special:History/File:Belton. Church.Giano.gif is essential in order to verify the licence status of the file and any derivatives. Therefore the gif version needs to be kept. --RexxS (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: what is wrong with people here? This is an obvious keep, I sometimes think that a certain type of editor thinks that deletions are some sort of points system towards becoming an admin. They are not! Giano (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We have been using this work for twelve years. This is the sort of irritating fiddling we can do without- I hope the nominator can find somewhere else to use his talents. Get involved in Women in Red and produce some serious BLPs, go over to Wikishootme and convert some red-dots to green ones- or just follow me arounf and correct my typos- and I have a to-do list of vital articles that need referencing.ClemRutter (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Words fail me! Jon Kolbert, in addition to ClemRutter's requests, might I also suggest that you pop over to good article nominations where you will find many dozens of articles that need reviewing. This will undoubtedly improve this godforsaken place far more than deleting a particularly fine, not to mention, free, picture taken by Giano. Cassianto ^Talk 19:10, 25 April 2017 (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:Raj-Shetty.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article on subject was deleted, only linked to from an abandoned userspace draft Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2017 (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:Apple valley flag.jpg[edit]

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-simple}}. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 01:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not public domain. Non-free logo, not needed for identification. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems simple enough to convert to "pd-logo" or "pd-simple". Salavat (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2017 (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:MeadSingapore1991Stamp.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This 1991 stamps fails WP:NFCC especially criteria #8 because the use of a non-free image of the stamp is no essential to the reader's understand that a stamp was issued to honour Theodore Luqueer Mead as fact that is already well stated in prose. ww2censor (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2017 (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:Se-tenant Stamp Cuba.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this image is used to illustrate the topic of the article Se-tenant (philately) but fails WP:NFCC#1 beacaue there are plenty of freely licenced se-tenant stamp images on the commons c:Category:Se-tenant ww2censor (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2017 (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:1921 stamp Liechtenstein Gutenberg Castle.jpg[edit]

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 2017 May 31. czar 17:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:1921 stamp Liechtenstein Gutenberg Castle.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.

File:Coggon August 27 2010 (N).JPG[edit]

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 ⚡ 01:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyright Violation, based on text in image Paltron (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (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:Eric Presten's Bleriot XI.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 03:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader is asserting own work but the description provides a photo credit to Roger Cain. We would need WP:OTRS confirmation of license. Whpq (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't you think that leaving that information on the uploader's talk page first (and giving time for a reply) would be preferable to jumping straight into FFD? It looks like our uploader is likely to be the builder and pilot of the replica, so there's every chance that he will be able to arrange OTRS if somebody can explain it to him (as he's only been editing for two weeks so far). --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Benpresten5875, are you the photographer/copyright holder (Roger Cain)? If not, would you please have Roger use an official email to send permission to use the listed Creative Commons license via [email protected] (you can use boilerplate at Wikipedia:Consent)? And then list the ticket number here. czar 17:02, 31 May 2017 (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.