Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 4

< November 3	November 5 >

November 4

File:Tuanzebe vs. Swansea.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 ⚡ 02:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF indicates screenshot. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Train2104. Also fails NFCC#1: Subject is a living person and a free image could be created. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:04, 6 November 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:Independence Party of Iceland 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; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SVG version available at commons, as a public domain file as File:Independence Party (Iceland), 2017 logo.svg Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 00:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I'm in favor of deleting this then. Thanks. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 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:Gay-Times-October-2013.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 ⚡ 02:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple copyrighted magazine covers on one page is not acceptable. WP:NFCCP #3 violation. Majora (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not a multiple cover. It is an illustration when the magazine was called GT rather than Gay Times for almost ten years. So it is there to illustrate the significant change of name title of the magazine. I could incorporate as as alternative cover within the infobox page if its independent appearance outside the infobox is the real issue. werldwayd (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative covers are not generally acceptable. Name changes do not change that. There would have to be significant coverage of that name change or the original name in order to qualify under our fair use standards here. They are quite strict and require that the person that wants to use an image ensure it fits all 10 parts of the policy. Using it in this manner fails #3 and possibly #8 as well as the image isn't really discussed beyond, "the name was changed" in the article. --Majora (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image is not necessary for a reader to understand that the magazine has been rebranded. The current infobox image is sufficient to serve as primary identification for the magazine. Neil S. Walker (talk) 19:37, 6 November 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:Gaytimes2.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 ⚡ 02:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple copyrighted magazines covers being used on one page is not acceptable. Violation of WP:NFCCP #3. Majora (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Majora. The article's infobox already has a suitable non-free image. Neil S. Walker (talk) 19:38, 6 November 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:Vishnu-Manchu.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 as F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improper licensing. Pretty sure teluguodu is a license laundering site. Image was already deleted one under F9 (File:Vishnu-manchu.jpg) and then it suddenly appears on this site under a "free license"? Yeah, I highly highly doubt that. In any case, the license isn't complete and correct anyways. Majora (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFCC#1. Subject is a living person, free image could be created. Also licensing concerns as outlined by Majora. Neil S. Walker (talk) 19:48, 6 November 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:Mohan-babu.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 as F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete license. See the above FFD on another image from teluguodu.com. It seems like this site is a license laundering site. Majora (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFCC#1. Subject is a living person, free image could be created. Also fails NFCC#7 as an orphaned non-free file. Neil S. Walker (talk) 19:50, 6 November 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:Bob Hasegawa Official Portrait.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 ⚡ 02:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is in violation of copyright law. It should have never survived the first FFD in the first place. The State of Washington does not release their images into the public domain. There is no case law, no definitive statement from the courts as to such a release. Without further information or an OTRS confirmed statement of permission this image needs to be deleted. Majora (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the arguments raised at the original nomination, which I agree this file probably should have never survived. GMG ^talk 18:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviewing the first deletion discussion, I note that the language used on the website is ambiguous: "Our site may contain text, artwork, photos or other content that is copyrighted by others and is being used with the express permission of the copyright holder. Therefore, it is recommended that you contact our Webmaster or Communications Director for permission to use information contained on this site." As a potential copyvio the image should be deleted; Bob Hasegawa is a living person and a free alternative could be created. Neil S. Walker (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since people are discussing the "original FFD", it would probably be helpful to provide a link to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 5#File:Bob Hasegawa Official Portrait.jpg. Just a general comment, I am a bit puzzled that a "no consensus" close such as this should automatically be defaulted to keep. It seems that this type of file is either clearly PD or it is not. So, part of discussing whether this license is acceptable should also be whether the file would be accepted by Commons. There was recently a whole slew of files, including pictures of government officials such as this, deleted from Commons per c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/10#Arkansas license plate images because their licensing was questionable. There is nothing mentioned in Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments about the State of Washington, and {{PD-author}} does not seem appropriate for this type of "official" image since it is clear that this is not always the case per Public Domain & Copyright Information. There is also this which shows the state being listed as "yellow" (an in between color which means "unclear": compare to Florida and California which are respectively "green" which helps explain Template:PD-FLGov and Template:PD-CAGov). So, I'm going to ask about this at c:COM:VP/C#State of Washington official photos to see if there's any chance as to whether Commons might possibly accept such a photo because if they won't accept it, I can't think of a good reason for that Wikipedia should keep it as a local file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (from Commons admin) Initial discussions seems to indicate that Commons would not accept this file per our policies under current circumstances. (t) Josve05a (c) 18:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this file should can be kept as long as there continue to be significant doubts raised about it's copyright status. Moreover, I don't see any way that this type of file can be justified per WP:NFCC#1, so it cannot be converted to non-free content, which means I can't think of any reason to justify keeping this file locally . The copyright status of an official photo of a state legislator downloaded from an official government website should not be too difficult to verify for Wikipedia's purposes; it either is clearly licensed as public domain /released under a free license or it is not. The only other way I can think of possibly keeping this file locally is as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but that is not applicable because the country of origin is the United States. This means the file should really be hosted on Commons, and tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} so that it can be moved there. Since it appears from the above-linked discussion at the Commons Village Pump that it is highly unlikely that this photo (as currently licensed) would survive a c:COM:DR per c:COM:PCP and c:COM:L, there's no point doing such a thing. So, unless it can somehow be clearly shown that this photo is really in the public domain. My understanding is that deleting the file does not mean that it's gone forever; it only means that it is hidden from public view. The file can be rediscussed at WP:DRV at a later date if it can be clearly shown that to be in the public domain or to have been released under a free license (i.e., OTRS verified), but the default should not be to allow a questionably licensed file/possible copyright violation to remain to be used on Wikipedia per WP:COPY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because of the reckless claim that this "is in violation of copyright law" which is not only without competence (you're not a qualified judge, rendering a legal judgement) but also a likely violation WP:BLPCRIME, rather delete because there is an explicit claim of copyright in the EXIF data, which has not been refuted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G12. This is an unambiguous copyright violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as I gave in the first FFD. -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 10 November 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:Culpeper Militia Hanging Flag.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 as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source is given as Ebay, no indication image is free. MB298 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an unambiguous copyvio. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:01, 6 November 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.