Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 March 29

< March 28	March 30 >

March 29[edit]

Copy edit files[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) 08:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic use. Use diffs or permalinks to show this if necessary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:04, 30 March 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:Angie Kassabie, Nutritionist.pdf[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article disguised as an image. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, better as an article if notable enough. -John M Wolfson (talk) 01:07, 4 April 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:CesafiLogo.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: relicense as non-free. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flame logo is not a simple shape Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense Above WP:TOO, but definitely passes WP:NFCC. funplussmart (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense as fair-use -John M Wolfson (talk) 01:08, 4 April 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:San Diego Strike Force Helmet 2019.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image which is not needed per WP:NFCC#3a. There is already a non-free file of the logo (File:San Diego Strike Force.png) being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox; so, there's no need for two non-free files which are providing essentially the same information. If the color of the helmet is worth mentioning in the article, it can be sufficiently done so using text per WP:FREER. Note similar FFD discussions at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 March 21#File:Rio Grande Valley Dorados Helmet 2019.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 March 21#File:Austin Wild Helmet 2018.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 15#Chicago Slaughter files. The problem isn't that the helmet is not the helmet being used by the team; it's that there's no need for two non-free files which basically show the same logo to be used for identification purposes in the main infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 29 March 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:Katy Perry - Firework.ogg[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8; no descernible enhancement of article context and just seems to be something inserted as an ear treat for fans. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:20, 29 March 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:Ireland Baldwin in Grudge Match.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. This non-free image is being used in the Ireland Baldwin article with a claimed purpose of "Demonstrates Baldwin's first appearance on a feature film that commenced her acting career. utilised as a visual aid to demonstrate Baldwin's inital acting technique", but is in fact being used decoratively. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Obvious NFCC#1 violation with a spurious use rationale. The claim that the image serves "to demonstrate Baldwin's inital acting technique" is so preposterous that it calls the uploader's competence, if not good faith, into question. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:36, 30 March 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:Ireland Baldwin with Nancy Odell, Barkhad Abdi and Faysal Ahmed.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. This non-free image is being used in the Ireland Baldwin article with a claimed purpose of "To demonstrate Baldwin's media coverage alongside Entertainment Tonight. It also illustrates how the video was formatted and utilises pictures taken by Baldwin.", but lacks any sort of significant sourced commentary about the image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nonfree image of living person. "To demonstrate" is never an acceptable use rationale, since referencing the source is sufficient to "demonstrate" whatever claim is made. That is what references are for. Also fails NFCC#8 on its face, since the "demonstrated" claim is more than adequately conveyed by text alone. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:13, 30 March 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:Alec Balwin phone call to daughter Ireland.ogg[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. Non-free audio file being used in Ireland Baldwin article. This non-free voice clip is not needed to understand that Alec Baldwin left an angry voice mail. The article covers this in a single sentence. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that hearing the audio helps give understanding to how scandalous it was when it happened. Keep Abzeronow (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYLINK, WP:ELNEVER and WP:YOUTUBE. The actual audio recording may be possible to justify per WP:NFCC#8, but the YouTube channel which is cited as the source of file seems to not be the original copyright holder of the file itself which means a link to it shouldn't be being added to Wikipedia. Whether the text of what was actually said in the recording is sufficient per WP:FREER can be debated, but if the audio is needed then it should come from as official a source as possible. Even then, it's unlikely that WP:NFCC#3 or even WP:NFC#Audio clips would permit the entire audio track to be uploaded and used. Generally, only short extracts of audio content tend to be allowed, not the entire track. Anyway, I've WP:HIDDEN the file because I believe the COPYLINK concerns take precedence over even WP:NFCCP; so, I think that's what needs to be resolved first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The source for the file has been changed from YouTube to TMZ. Still TMZ is certainly not the original source of the audio since it was leaked to them. WP:NFCC#4 requires that non-free content be published by the original copyright holder as explained in WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion; so, unless it can be shown that the creator of the audio (i.e. Alec Baldwin who left the message) first published somewhere and then TMZ released the audio on their website, this file still is a copyright violation and the audio file, even an excerpt, cannot be kept as non-free content. TMZ might've argued that they were using the file as fair use or maybe they just didn't care; Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive than fair use which means this file can't be kept per relevant Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyright violation (and do not link to the Youtube/TMZ copy either). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "rationale" is just hand-waving nonsense. The statement itself is conveyed by text alone, and the file does not in any way "demonstrate" the other points is is claimed to support. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:33, 30 March 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:Namco Bandai Games Logo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant logo which is largely the same as File:Bandai Namco Entertainment logo.svg, violating WP:NFCC#3a. Wcam (talk) 14:08, 29 March 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:Bandai Namco Studios logo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant logo which is largely the same as File:Bandai Namco Entertainment logo.svg, violating WP:NFCC#3a. Wcam (talk) 14:08, 29 March 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:Win98Plus.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already have File:Win95Plus.jpg in Microsoft Plus!. Surely we don't need this? Fails NFCC#8. Adam9007 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 19:53, 30 March 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:Flag of Fort Worth.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I declined speedy deletion of this, as it now has a fair-use rationale. However, it's by no means clear that this actually is the flag of the city of Fort Worth; it is apparently derived roughly from the logo shown on this page from 2004. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. I tagged this file for speedy deletion because it was originally licensed as {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}; the licensing, however, was subsequently changed to non-free by the uploader after file was tagged. As I tried to explain at File talk:Flag of Fort Worth.png#Contested deletion, converting the license to non-free might have resolved the WP:F9 issue, but it created a whole new set of issues related to WP:NFCCP. If this is not really or no longer the city's flag, then it's encyclopedic value is questionable; however, even if it was or is still the city's flag, then there's really no justification for what is essentially the same file as File:Logo of Fort Worth.png. Two files are not needed to show the same logo in the main infobox for primary identification purposes and former logos, etc. are only really allowed when they themselves are the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Moreover, once the file's licensing was converted to non-free, it usage in 2011 Fort Worth mayoral election, 2015 Fort Worth mayoral election, Flags of cities of the United States, List of urban parks by size, and Template:Infobox settlement/testcases doesn't comply with WP:NFTABLE, WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9 and WP:NFCC#10c; so, the file cannot and shouldn't be used in those articles, even if it's non-free use in Fort Worth, Texas could be justified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 29 March 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:BBWMIS1-cast.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation for so many reasons. Clearly a professional photo, has Presscott McDonald in the EXIF, which is nothing like the user name of Rivera.m.e (talk · contribs), user's talk page is covered with warnings about images of this same show ... and this is image #28 on https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2015/01/79981/best-of-vh1 where it is labeled "Courtesy of VH1". GRuban (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This might even be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F9 or at the very least per WP:F11. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Image is blatantly a violation and is utilised on the cover of season 1 of the aforementioned program and yielded over 200 mathces on a tineye reverse image search.

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.