Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

September 8

File:Ana's Cross.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: Relisting again --B (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging the {{Keep local}}. It was originally added citing that this image has no educational value, but I believe it actually does; it depicts a monument in a national park. It's also worth noting the Commons version of this file is being used on another wiki, so obviously it has some cross-wiki value. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to keep this copy overlapping the Commons file. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:16, 25 August 2018 (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) 06:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have always been a proponent of giving uploaders wide latitude when it comes to requesting that files be kept local. Not doing so may make them unlikely to upload further in the future. There are many reasons to make such a request (e.g. keeping it under the local rules as opposed to the arcane common ones). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image was a user page photo for Gilderien that is unlikely to have encyclopedic use. He is obviously welcome to upload (within reason) images for his user page. If they are in use, they are retained and if they are not in use, we don't need to keep them. This shouldn't be controversial. It never should have been uploaded to Commons to begin with because it's a userpage photo with no general encyclopedic use. If it's not going to be used here, it should be deleted both here and at Commons. --B (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: c:COM:INUSE does seem to allow photos for userpages to be upoladed and kept as long as they are in use. So, deleting it from Commons might not be as clear cut as deleting the local version of it here may be. Regarding the local version, WP:MTC used to have a section titled "What not to transfer" which stated the following:
Some users request that their work remain on Wikipedia, and does not move to Commons. Don't fight them over it; with tens of thousands of files to transfer, it's not worth it. There is no commonly used template to indicate a desire to keep one's files off Commons, however many users who wish to keep their work off Commons use custom templates or the {{keeplocal}} or {{Do not move to Commons}} templates, neither of which are designed for that purpose. The {{esoteric file}} template can be used for files of no interest outside Wikipedia, for instance self-portraits uploaded purely for use on a Wikipedia userpage.
but that seems to have been removed here as part of a major revising of the MTC page in November 2016. Whether that was the result of talk page consensus or just a bold edit, it does seem that the project was once a little more tolerant of "keep local" requests perhaps for the reasons given by Godsy above. Even so, it would be helpful if the uploader can clarify the particular reason(s) why they want a local copy of this to be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Policy is unclear on what to do in cases like this.

WP:F8 says that files like this can't be speedily deleted under criterion F8. However, no one is proposing speedy deletion of this file, so the CSD policy doesn't apply.

The general WP:DP doesn't specifically address files like this, but indicates that any file may be deleted at FFD provided that there is a consensus to delete it.

The WP:OWN policy tells that no one owns a page on Wikipedia, i.e. the uploader alone can't decide that the file can't be deleted. The section on user pages indicates that a user doesn't own his own user page, but then indicates that the user has a lot of power over his user page, indicating some kind of partial ownership. The file's only use is on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, where users are presented in a way somewhat similar to user pages.

WP:NOTHOST indicates that we don't host stuff for the sole purpose of hosting them. The section indicates that unused files are to be deleted, but isn't clear on what to do if hosting a file is unnecessary because the file also is on Commons.

Someone mentioned that the file is in use on a different project. From what I can see, the file is only used on testwiki:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host breakroom. I'm guessing that this is a test page where someone imported a Wikipedia page for the purpose of testing something and that any other random image could achieve the same testing purpose, so the file's use on that page doesn't really indicate any cross-wiki value. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2018 (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) 07:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Shadows the identical file on Commons that is within Commons c:COM:SCOPE. Should be deleted to reduce maintenance burden. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Many files that are kept locally "shadow [an] identical file on Commons that is within Commons c:COM:SCOPE." It is unlikely that maintenance will ever be necessary. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:27, 9 September 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:Pokemon Go.png

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: kept - I think most of the people who usually close IFDs participated in this discussion (myself included), but since the Commons logo is not authentic, I don't think anyone has had any objections to keeping this one. If someone objects, feel free to let me know and I will re-post it on the current day. --B (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, File:Pokémon GO logo.svg —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 17:42, 25 August 2018 (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) 06:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I am fairly sure that the Commons file is incorrectly licensed. I'll bring it to deletion requests... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken to Commons's DR last year; the result was "kept". George Ho (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Commons file is slightly different in that the non-free "Go" element is more detailed with stars, etc. in addtion to the Pokeball. Whether this is a significant enough difference to justify keeping the non-free file per WP:NFCC#1 is probably what needs to be discussed; otherwise, assuming the Commons file is not deleted, there's no need for a non-free file of the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the file on Commons (without the stars etc) also an official version? Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The US and Japan offcial websites seem to use the non-free being discused here and not the Commons one; moreover, the "own work" claim for Commons file seems (at least to me) to be questionable since it's obviously something based on the original official logo and I don't think creating a vector version of an existing logo is the same as creating the logo from scratch. There are a number of poke ball files in c:Category:Poké Balls, but whether these really are all "own work" or "PD" again might require further discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Commons one does not appear to be a real official logo - just someone's effort to make a PD-ineligible image that looks similar to the logo. The Commons one shouldn't be used in any articles. --B (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per B — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also per B. Salavat (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2018 (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) 07:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Commons file is inauthentic and thus not a free equivalent. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:49, 8 September 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:Sun & Moon, Pauline Smith, 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: relisted again --B (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

should be non-free reduced; claim that "People click through to view the image. They don't just view it in the article" by uploader is nonsense FASTILY 05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily see my comment on Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair above. These images are not decoration. They serve an encyclopedic function in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the file size, the use of the painting as the infobox image seems to violate NFCC#8, since it obviously doesn’t visually identify the artist and there’s no critical commentary. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to identify the artist. The image show a piece of her work discussed in the article. I grant you the critical commentary is not extensive but it is there. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your response indicates you either don't understand WP:NFCC#3b or have never bothered to read it. -FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Ytoyoda. Enough with the aspersions please Fastily. I have already replied re 3b (minimalism). It does need to be at the minimum size, but not at such low resolution that it ceases to fulfill its encyclopedic function. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact encyclopedic purpose that it requires to be available at a larger resolution than the thumbnail that appears in the infobox? If a higher resolution is necessary to view certain details, then why not crop to show the relevant details? And then if there’s an encyclopedic purpose to the image, what the hell is it doing in the infobox where it’s easentially decorative and fails NFCC#8? Ytoyoda (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2018 (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) 14:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep, but only if more of the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is provided. However, if the file is kept, it should be reduced per WP:NFCC#3b.
I don't think the file should be being used in the main infobox. That image should be for the purpose of primarily identifying the subject of the article. The picture of the work would make sense in the main infobox of an article about the painting itself, but not in one about the artist. This doesn't mean that a non-free image pof the work cannot be used in the artist's article, it just means it should be moved to the body of the article near the content discussing it.
The work is just mentioned once by name in the caption, which isn't really the type of contextual connection for non-free use NFCC#8 is looking for in my opinion. The connection should really between article content and non-free image, not the image and its caption. So, it would be better to add the relevant sourced critical commentary content about the work itself or commentary on how this work is considered to be particularly representative of the artist's style to the article body and then move the image near that content in support. Otherwise, I don't think it quite meets NFCC#8. In addition, the source cited (at least the part I can access) makes no mention of the painting itself, so basically the caption appears to be WP:OR or WP:SYN. NFCC#8 doesn't mean (again in my opinion) to simply write a description of the what the work looks like; it means to show that the work itself was the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources. If you could basically pick another work by the same artist's and support it with the pretty much the same caption or commentary, then there's no real justification for using any non-free examples of the artist's work. So, if the rest of the source goes into discussion of this particular work, then content summarizing that commentary that goes beyond a simple discription is what should be added to the article.
As for NFCC#3b, I'm not an admin so I cannot see the previous versions of the file; however, the resolution really should only be what is necessary for the article and not what is desired for the file's page. Mention was made above of File:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.jpg, but that was reduced by Ritchie333 per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 23#File:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.jpg and I think something similar should be done here. The source for the file should be more than sufficient for readers looking for a higher resolution of the work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image should not be used in the infobox since it is not an image of the article subject. Since the article doesn't contain any sourced critical commentary on the work, WP:NFCC#8 is not satisfied. If the image is kept, it needs to be reduced to < 100,000 px per WP:NFCC#3b. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not OR, the critical commentary was in The Times where they discussed the objects in the work and interpreted them as a critical commentary on western military activity in the Middle East commenting on the "deconstructed" U.S. flag, the Arabic newspaper, and the Sun and Moon which related to their discussion of her "obsession" with astrology also mention later in our article. I moved it all to the body. My point about the size it merely that particularly with artworks, people don't only view the thumbnail they also click through to see the file so it needs to be of reasonable resolution when they do or the encyclopedic function is not served. It's already quite small at 332 × 500 but that has nothing to do with whether the image should be deleted. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce according to our guidelines and keep - there is nothing that you have to see to understand the topic that you can't see in the inline version. Yes, to fully appreciate a work of art, it's nice to have a life-sized version of it, but we're not in the business of hosting high-resolution images of non-free works. If you want to study a high-resolution version of a copyrighted work of art, you go elsewhere to do that. No non-free image should be any larger than its size in the article. Wikipedia articles can be printed, or displayed in other formats where there isn't a "click-through" image description page and so if an image description page is required for the reader's understanding, then something about that process is wrong. --B (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2018 (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) 07:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce. The image should be kept, as it's no longer in the infobox but accompanies sourced critical text in the relevant section. The text – "In 2013 she produced Sun and Moon as a commentary on military action in the Middle East which featured a Sun and Moon, a carousel horse, and a tank against a split background with an Arabic language newspaper in the top half and a deconstructed American flag below" – really needs this image to be seen to be intelligible in any meaningful way. But the default thumbnail size (220px) that it's currently rendered in the article is sufficient for this purpose. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:47, 8 September 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:Wildgonebad.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic: Photo of the uploader (the page deleted), who is not an encyclopedically notable person, the file can not be reasonably used on any page. Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete no encyclopaedic or educational value whatsoever. Completely out of project scope. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let him get his own web site. --Calton | Talk 09:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:30, 15 September 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:Panicinthestreets 1.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: old revision deleted - no evidence it is PD --B (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a file split request here but I am not certain that the older file is free. And if it isn't it should be deleted per WP:CSD#F5 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 8 September 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:OpenBroadcaster Logo and Text.jpg,200px.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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a file split request here but I don't see any worth in having either logo, seeing as both are unused. I also wonder if either version is really simple enough to not be copyrighted, especially the older one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, Both are not used and outdated. Please delete both as I am unable. Giving me an administrator permissions issue. Thanks. Rob RadioRobYukon (talk) 23:54, 13 September 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:OMA airport logo2.png

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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This file has a split request, but the picture logo version looks like it may be copyrightable and should be deleted if it is so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - is the current logo a real authentic logo? https://www.flyoma.com/ uses the non-free one. Unless someone can demonstrate that the text logo is a real currently-used logo, I think we need to use the non-free one. --B (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a wordmark to me, not sure what would be preferred in this case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 16 September 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:Nla.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a split request on this file but I think we need to clear up the copyright status - does the permission statement refer to the first, the second or both files? Also, both need a better description and a better name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 8 September 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:CHCTsmall.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request to split the file but I am not convinced that the older file version is uncopyrightable given the shaded background. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the old revision - the original upload comment was "I created this for use on Wikipedia." I can't find any evidence that this was ever a real logo of CHCT. Their old website - available at http://web.archive.org/web/20090413231408/http://www.chct.ca:80/about.html - has a similar, but clearly different logo. in the real logo, it said "CHCT-TV" (not "CHCT" as in our version) and the background was something more simplistic. I don't see any reason to believe that the old version of this logo at Wikipedia is even something real. --B (talk) 16:31, 8 September 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:Hamlin Fistula International (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: Old image (which I would assume was an accidental upload anyway) deleted --B (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a split request on this file but the older version was uploaded without a copyright tag and tagged for deletion thus. Should it be deleted? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 8 September 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:Wackos.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This file seven years ago was overwritten by a photo. The reuploader did not specify a license and the license that applied to the old photo is clearly inapplicable to the new one. Delete? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:40, 8 September 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:Bathtub (leg style).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: old revision removed --B (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This file has a split request but the August 2009 version should be deleted IMO. It has no specific license attached and it isn't clear whether the license of the bathtub image would apply to it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:11, 8 September 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:Washingtonia filifera landscape.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This file consists of two separate images, an older one and one that was uploaded by Staplegunther. Upload summary for the second one says "St. George, Utah landscape by David Jolley" which sounds like it was created by someone else, raising copyright concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as useless images? I think Staplegunther is David Jolley. If you look at his user page history, someone (possibly his sock) edited it to link to David Jolley's Facebook page. So I'm assuming that he is David Jolley. Either way, the one by Renatodasil is too small to be useful (320x240) and the one by Staplegunther is too blurry to be useful, so I'd say delete both. --B (talk) 00:46, 16 September 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:Televisionmvlogo.png

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Television Maldives has a new logo, is this old one really needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:04, 8 September 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:Seal of Jammu and Kashmir.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This file is currently displayed not on an article, but on another file and the graphics lab. It consists of two different images and there is apparently a question about whether it meets URAA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:33, 8 September 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:Salem House Area.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This file contains three images, the currently displaying one and two older ones:

Lukar's scan of some unknown image that is probably copyrighted and not under the same license as the current.
Zenedinho's photo which has nothing to do with this file, is small and again probably does have a different and unknown copyright status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:41, 8 September 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:Refugee-rights rally outside Bank of Queensland.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: deleted orphaned revision --B (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a split request on the second version (wiki screenshot) of this file but it seems unlikely that it would be useful anywhere. And that might be a deletion reason under WP:DEL12 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 8 September 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:Reference Collection.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This file contains actually two images, the first is some kind of userspace file that does not seem to be useful (or more pertinently, in use) for anything and thus merits deletion under WP:DEL12 and the second is a derivative work (of Peanuts) and thus almost certainly copyrighted. Advocate deletion of the whole file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 8 September 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:BJPenn2.png

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: Closing as the copyvio version has been deleted - I have also added attribution which was missing. --B (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This file contains two versions, the second of which Tabercil called a "clear copyvio". If that's so it should probably be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Don't know why I didn't delete it at that time on that basis. I've just fixed that omission. Tabercil (talk) 22:12, 8 September 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:Charles Henry de Soysa-2.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just split this file from File:Charles Henry de Soysa.jpg but the copyright license appears to be incorrect and an identical file was already deleted at File:Prince of Wales College Moratuwa.jpg.jpg Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 8 September 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:Magnolia-CMS-screenshot.png

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 ⚡ 02:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This file has two different images, both screenshots of the software in question. The source is a bare link and looking at the legal page of the source website I do not see any clear licensing statement for either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 8 September 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:Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.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: relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018_September_18#File:Abelard_Sign.JPG --B (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current file was already subject of a discussion, but the two previous files in the history ... do we have a license statement for them as well? Paging @Jeff G. and Ghoul flesh: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Ghoul flesh, Whpq, AMK152, and Madman2001: There are three photos in the history. The first (with the gray brick background) was uploaded 18:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC). The second (with the black background) was uploaded with a comment mentioning https://i.imgur.com/2bSJXli.png 11 minutes later at 18:28. The third, a crop of the second, was uploaded two minutes after that at 18:30. The OTRS ticket originated four days later, on 21 March. The ticket covers the second photo, and by extension the third. I asked if it covers the first on 30 June in response to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 March 17#File:Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.jpg and what became User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2018/July#File:Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.jpg, but I have not received a reply in the intervening two months. I concur with Stefan2 that the first now "needs to be deleted per WP:F5." — Jeff G. ツ 01:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just going to add that if the oldest version is not covered by the OTRS ticket like the others, it can't be accepted as non-free content anyway per WP:NFCC#1 and should be deleted per WP:F7. Although the end result would be the same, F5 deletions imply that the only problem with the file was WP:NFCC#7, and files deleted per F5 are sometiimes restored if a non-free use for the orphan is found later on. F7, on the other hand, tends to indicate a more serious problem than just being orphaned and thus seem to be very rarely restored after the fact. Regardless, the two versions which have been verified under OTRS probably should be moved to Commons as soon as this FFD and the local file deleted per WP:F8, unless there's a real need for {{Keep local}} to be used here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 10 September 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:Imago dei.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: deleted - I have speedied the article per A7/G11 - their website is gone and even when it existed, it barely had any content. This college doesn't seem to have ever even existed and most of the G-hits are downstream from the Wikipedia article or for an unrelated church in North Carolina. It's sad that stuff made up in ~~school~~ church one day lasts so long. --B (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 01:34, 15 September 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.