Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 20

< June 19	June 21 >

June 20

File:City hall model.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 2019 June 30. MBisanz ^talk 20:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:City hall model.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:Convair Fish .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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader claims US government authorship, without providing evidence. Wikiacc (¶) 00:35, 20 June 2019 (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:Criser High School (1959-1966).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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged US federal government, without any claim of federal government authorship Wikiacc (¶) 00:41, 20 June 2019 (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:CT Veteran Wartime Service Medal.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged PD-USGov, but given source is a State of Connecticut website. Wikiacc (¶) 00:51, 20 June 2019 (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:DEGLOPPERFATHER.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged PD-USGov, but no evidence of authorship by the US federal government. Wikiacc (¶) 01:14, 20 June 2019 (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:DEGLOPPERPAINTING.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged PD-USGov, but copyright belongs either to the artist or to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, a private organization Wikiacc (¶) 01:15, 20 June 2019 (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:Demographics Logo.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: relisted on 2019 June 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Demographics Logo.png (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:ElectionDistricts ISLAND OF HAWAII.pdf

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged PD-USGov, but given source is the State of Hawaii, and text in the image credits the Office of Elections of the State of Hawaii. Wikiacc (¶) 01:37, 20 June 2019 (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:Thanksgiving Orphans food fight.gif

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 2019 June 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thanksgiving Orphans food fight.gif (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:Shaadicom.gif

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 ⚡ 03:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly simple logo but claimed to be not copyable to commons because not free enough, but not in use here on en.wp because the company doesn't use this logo. Current logo is on commons as (commons:File:Shaadilogo.gif, so if we do have reason to keep the one here, need to rename it to unmask commons (or rename commons' version). DMacks (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The one on Commons was uploaded by User:Peopleactive on 9 December 2015, the only contribution that user made on Commons, with a cc4.0 claim. It should probably be deleted. User:Peopleactive did make a number of edits on Wikipedia between 2013 and 2015, mostly to Shaadi.com, so may have been associated with that company. The website shaadi.com uses a variant of the Commons logo. Perhaps after this one and the Commons one have been deleted, we could upload the current logo to Wikipedia on a fair use claim. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their website does appear to be to use exactly the commons one ([1]). I wonder if it is about TOO for commons? Regardless, I agree with keeping only the current one, and locally if not on commons. DMacks (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2019 (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:Lighter than light.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused, blurry, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 05:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2019 (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:Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury & wife.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused, dubious self-work claim (derivative of non-free content?) FASTILY 05:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: the question is, should I maintain WP:CIVIL to the same degree you have maintained WP:AGF? "Dubious" indeed. The image is a) now used, and b) from the 15th century: PD-scan applies. ——SerialNumber54129 14:26, 21 June 2019 (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:Lighthouse in dark.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused, dark/blurry, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 05:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, illustrates a ighthouse in the dark. Durr. ——SerialNumber54129 14:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a hosting space for unused images, particularly those of low-photographic quality. -FASTILY 22:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality? It's an exceptionally high-quality image of a lighthouse in the dark; some would argue that that's the best time to see them. In any case, I refer you to Anthony Sher's Richard III. ——SerialNumber54129 11:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of quality or whether it's being used, Fastily's right about Wikipedia not being the right place to host this. The file is freely licensed so there's doesn't seem to be any reason not to move it to Commons if you want it kept. Commons is better suited for hosting images like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. If someone think it has educational value, it can be transferred to Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:14, 23 June 2019 (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:Astana collage.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused, not eligible for commons, no obvious use FASTILY 05:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2019 (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:Farhan Pearl 2016.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promotional/professional image of some sort, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 05:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2019 (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:Abish Pearl.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promotional/professional image of some sort, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2019 (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:"Mushrooms and The Testing of Colors" (Artwork) David S. Soriano (Artist).pdf

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 07:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted, the image is essentially being hosted here Wikipedia with no other use. The uploader has huge number of similar images of his artwork being hosted here. Is there a way to bulk nominate them? Can an admin just do an WP:IAR and delete tham as obvious being in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST? -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whpq: Multiple files can be nominated at FFD in a single discussion using {{ffd2a}} as explained in the instructions at the top of WP:FFD; each file, however, does seem to need to be added and logged individually. I don't think IAR would be applied in this way; it might, however, be acceptable to WP:PROD the other files, or tag them per speedy deletion per WP:CSD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2019 (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:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg

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: Add to Brazil national football team and maintain in Brazilian Football Confederation. MBisanz ^talk 20:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This a file is currently used as the logo of the Brazilian Football Confederation in Brazilian Football Confederation. A previous discussion regarding this file decided that it should only be used in the confederation's article, per WP:NFC#UUI #17. However, that discussion failed to notice that the crest presented in this file is not the general logo of the CFB. This particular variant of this logo is the men's national team's specific variant identified by the presence of five stars commemorating the men's team's five World Cup wins. The logo of the CFB is only the shield, as can be seen on their site. The starless logo is also used as the crest of the women's team. Other teams (e.g. Beach Soccer, Futsal,...) use different logo's or even different logo's altogether. Therefore WP:NFC#UUI 17 doesn't even come into question, as this is the men's teams branding. Thus, I suggest that this file is removed from the CFB article, renamed to something like "File:Brazil national football team crest.svg" and added to the Brazil national football team article instead with the Fair Use Rationale being updated. A similar file containing only the shield could be uploaded to be included in the CFB article if desired.T v x1 12:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support suggestion and rationale by nom. Giant Snowman 10:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add to Brazil national football team and remove from Brazilian Football Confederation per nominator. The stars didn't specifically come up in the pervious FFD and I agree that they seems to be more of a primary identifier for the men's team itself than confederation. So, it seems reasonable per the NFCC for this logo to be used in the men's team though I think the star argument would only make sense if non-free use is limited to only the main men's team (i.e. the one that won the five World Cups) and not any of the other individual Brazilian national teams. Even though using the file in other articles is not being suggested above, it might be worth clarifying in any close for the future reference of others. A file name change as suggested above might also help avoid any confusion, particularly if a starless version of the badge is uploaded for non-free use in the article about the confederation; the name change would seem to be justifiable per WP:FNC#6 or WP:FNC#7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add to Brazil national football team and maintain in Brazilian Football Confederation. For branding purposes, I've noticed that confederations in CONMEBOL have adopted the men's logo with stars as the confederation-wide logo (see the main confederation websites for Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay and they all display stars above the crest). In UEFA-Men's World Cup winners France, Italy follow this practice, whereas England, Germany and Spain do not. I think this is the case for Brazil as well. --Chlorineer (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is anyone going to assess this? It seems uncontroversial enough.T v x1 14:37, 29 June 2019 (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.

Files from AndrewBasumatary

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 -FASTILY 01:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has a long string of copyright violations. No good reason to believe these are own work as claimed. Whpq (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the two remaining files. The photo of Boro and her mother is sourced to Facebook and I couldn't see a free license for it. Facebook's standard licensing is not compatible with WP:COPY which means either the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder needs to be verified by WP:OTRS or the file is a copyvio which should be deleted per WP:F9. The other file of Boro and her friend has no EXIF data or source to indicate it was "own work". It might be own work if the uploader is the friend given that it looks like he is taking a selfie of the two together, but perhaps OTRS verification is needed in that case; however, even if copyright ownership can be verified, there's doesn't seem to be any real encyclopedic value in re-adding the photo to Jamuna Boro and there's no reason to host an unused photo locally on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2019 (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.