Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 5

< January 4	January 6 >

January 5[edit]

File:DJ P Dub posing.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. Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tagged OTRS received for half a year. After reading through the associated ticket, I find it unlikely that permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 00:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2018 (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:The Sabri Brothers.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. Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tagged OTRS received for half a year. After reading through the associated ticket, I find it unlikely that permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 00:39, 5 January 2018 (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:Twink.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. If the copyright holder responds, this can be undeleted. Killiondude (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tagged OTRS received for half a year. Looks like permission was forwarded by someone who is not the copyright holder. Considering that the ticket has been stale for ~6 months, I find it unlikely that permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 00:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an email included in the OTRS. Why not email him directly asking him to confirm the authenticity of the permission? I did my best, but if you want I can have another go at him. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2018 (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:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg[edit]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 January 23.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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: no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image with no significant sourced commentary to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given that the subject died 20 years ago and only spent three years of her adult life not in prison, it's vanishingly unlikely that there's a free-use equivalent, and it has no commercial value. The only potential issue is whether NFCC8 is satisfied, but I'd argue that "what did this person look like?" is almost always going to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, particularly in an article like this where this particular image illustrates the physical condition she was in on her release. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-replaceability is not at issue. If this is being used only as the primary means of identification for a deceased person, then per WP:NFCC#3b, the image should be cropped to show the specific individual. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an historically important image of three women—the defendant and the two women from Justice for Women who arranged her defence—leaving the Old Bailey after taking an important step (as I understand it) toward changing English law on provocation. It is one of a series of Old Bailey images of its kind at that time, after several miscarriages of justice, something British editors old enough to remember will be well aware of.
I'm not aware of any free versions. The defendant has died so other images of her are not available. I'll be expanding the article to explain why the verdict was important and what role Justice for Women played. NFCC#8 says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That seems to fit this very well. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing in the article at the tme of nomination to support this as an historic image. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said above, I'll be expanding it. There are links on the file page if you'd like to know more, or you can watch this. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whpq, could you say, please, whether you're satisfied with the additional information? There are links and an explanation on the file page. The image caption in the article, Emma Humphreys, explains more about the image, links to a video showing coverage and commentary on the release—including commentary from the BBC about the scene on the steps of the Old Bailey—and contains a quote from The Independent: "Pale, nervous and very thin, she was engulfed by dozens of cheering women and children outside the courts." The section R v Humphreys explains the legal significance of the verdict and describes the involvement of Justice for Women (i.e. the women in the non-free image). SarahSV ^(talk) 01:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both unrationaled to any recognizable purpose, and unexplanatory as to its meeting of WP:NFCC or WP:NFC. According to the non-free use rationale for this image, its purpose is "Lead image"; I'm unaware of any policy, guideline, or manual that allows the inclusion of copyrighted material just because it's purpose is to be an image in the lead. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2018 (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:Sultan ul Quam Nawab Jassa Singh Ahluwalia.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. Unclear copyright status. Unless someone can confirm and/or prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is freely licensed, we're better off leaving this deleted. -FASTILY 08:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me because I am not good on image copyright stuff, and in particular on matters to do with derivative works. The subject died in 1783 and at first glance, this image would seem to be from some unidentified painting, with a border drawn round it by the uploader. But as with many images of old Indian rulers, there are numerous other versions out there on book covers, stamps etc - variations in colour, background etc. Eg: compare the image at top left here with the first image here)

The same applies in this instance, eg: this supposedly from 1985 and this undated one. Where do we start with this type of thing? At what point does it become an acceptable derivative? There are older versions in the file history which look more likely to be photos of a painting but the thought that the uploader may have so significantly modified the colour/tone etc to create the latest version seems far-fetched, although not impossible. I could use some guidance, please, in particular because the number of hagiographic books about Sikh heroes is vast and so the potential for this to have been derived from some relatively recently artwork that is itself a derivative of something older is pretty high. Sitush (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would need an art historian here. This is probably old enough but the uploader was absurdly vague about the provenance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend towards Delete. I want a better source and I'm not convinced that the addition of the border/title is sufficient to give the uploader copyright ownership represented in the current licensing. Without an actual source it will be difficult, even for an art historian, to determine the proper license. ★ Bigr Tex 03:37, 24 January 2018 (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:MaharajaAhibaran.jpeg[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. Killiondude (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No way is this "own work" Sitush (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2018 (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:Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum Cover.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. Killiondude (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2018 (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:The A-Team.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. Killiondude (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#8. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2018 (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:Angel Recording Studios.png[edit]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 January 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Killiondude (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO fails NFCC #5 (Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic. ) and #8 (Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.)

The logo is just black text letters of "Angel Recording Studios" with a yellow music symbol to the left - I don't believe this is encyclopedic nor do I believe "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - The infobox title in the article "Angel Recording Studios Limited" IMHO does the job just fine, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the primary identification symbol for the company, and there is no other, even if the logo is fairly simple. Microsoft is also just letters and four squares, Samsung is just letters in an oval; alot of company logos are just letters without much stylization, but while the simplicity of a logo might be a factor for moving it to Commons, it is not one for deletion. Still, a move to Commons would be wrong as the "winged note" might cause copyvio under British law when presented as free use. Hence, the file should be kept as it is. Lordtobi (✉) 13:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well IMHO that's another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement but anyway personally I don't think the logo has any Contextual significance but I've said my peace directly above so shan't bludgeon, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lordtobi, it is the primary identification symbol for the company. Salavat (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may well but then why can't text achieve this alone ?.... –Davey2010^Talk 11:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image meets WP:NFCC#5 and #8 because it does meet general Wikipedia standards, is encyclopedic and helps readers' understanding of the company since logos are fair use for use in infoboxes about companies. Aspects (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All images and infobox logos need to meet NFCC which as I've explained above this doesn't meet it, Simply saying "is encyclopedic and helps readers' understanding of the company" doesn't make it any more true, –Davey2010^Talk 11:53, 8 January 2018 (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:RKAL CCHQ campaigning phone-bank.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the source listed on the pages for these files, http://www.wellingboroughconservatives.org, there seems to be no proof that these files are released under the free licenses which they are tagged, given that these files seem to represent political parties as opposed to government entities. Also, the subject in the left in both images is Andrea Leadsom, who is still alive; for that reason, as a non-free file, regarding the criteria for non-free content, this images would fail criterion 1 since the subject is still alive (though I am unsure about the other subject in the image on the right, but it doesn't seem as though that subject has an article, so notability at the present time for that subject cannot be determined.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated lisences and confirmed myself as copyright owner, releasing udner licencse now specified. Thanks for your help, thepoliticsexpert 15:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

- @Thepoliticsexpert: I'm looking at the images right now, and comparing the source to the lincensing, one could say that this is copyright infringement since the source is listed at a web site, and there is no evidence that you are the owner of the web site. There is a process at WP:OTRS that explains how to verify that you are the copyright owner (or that the copyright owner validates the image's release). At the present time, these images do not have sufficient information or proof to validate their free release licenses. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the heads up @Steel1943:. I have corrected the souce by removing the URL (image is not on that website, but was just for reference-not needed so removed) and have clarified it is my image. Hope that helps and thanks for your help. thepoliticsexpert 17:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thepoliticsexpert: Just out of curiosity, why did you give that website as a source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked for socking and copyright violating. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orphaned, no description to provide evidence of future encyclopedic use. If we are going to keep one, keep the one without the flag shape in the corner. ★ Bigr Tex 03:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as probable copyright violations. Both orphaned. Green Giant (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:RKAL.png where you may want to contribute. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: thanks for pointing that out. Deleted because probably copyright is not enough to keep it on Commons. Green Giant (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2018 (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:Samsung Bixby Logo.svg[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 2018 January 12. Killiondude (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samsung Bixby Logo.svg (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:Jacksonville State University logo.svg[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. Per Commons:COM:TOO#United States, this seems to fall within the realm of the examples given of PD-textlogo. i've updated the licensing accordingly. Killiondude (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that the flames on the "U" create enough originality for this image to be eligible for copyright protection in the United States. If not, {{PD-logo}} should be utilized. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I debated on this myself, but decided to go to the safe side. I support whatever the outcome is. Corky 22:36, 5 January 2018 (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:G I Joe Real American Hero 150 Cover.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. Killiondude (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On *both* pages where this file is used, there are already multiple pieces of non-free media, including comic book art already. There is no need for five pieces of non-free media per page and this adds no value (certainly not any that isn't otherwise present). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 5 January 2018 (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.