Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 April 14

< April 13	April 15 >

April 14[edit]

File:Irem Corporation 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: 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 ⚡ 23:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file may actually be free: File:Irem Corporation logo.svg was orginally uploaded with fair use rational however, the logo doesn't meet COM:TOO JAPAN or COM:TOO US and cannot be moved to Commons due to having suppressed revisions --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 10:27, 14 April 2021 (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:NewPortcullis.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: Author requested deletion. Also noting for the record that the image in its current state is a textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 -FASTILY 22:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI, also WP:F7. But still exists with a free image of CoA (File:Crowned Portcullis.svg). Frontman830 (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as free. If the portcullis image is in the public domain, then the text alone can't meet the C:COM:TOO. Also mark it as {{do not move to commons}} per C:COM:TOO United Kingdom. - Eureka Lott 22:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no way for this logo to be moved to Commons and it's still protected in Crown copyright. --Frontman830 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2021 (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:Ubique Barracks.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any OGL license at the URL. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 13:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The OGL licensing information states that some elements of the government manage their own copyright and lists the Ministry of Defence as one such group. This is an image from reserve unit and the website states an explicit copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2021 (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:Pexels-photo-3367459.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was published after 4 July 2018 on Pexels, thus it is not a CC0 license, and the Pexels license does not meet our definition of free content. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 19:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pexel changed their licensing after 4 July 2018 and a check of the upload date on the source is December 11, 2019. -- Whpq (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2021 (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:Gjergj Arianiti.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This file is from Picasa according to the metadata and the author is labeled as "unknown", so this is obviously not the uploader's own work. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 19:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio from here. -- Whpq (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2021 (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:Bosco Verticale towers in Milan, Italy 02.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr washing, these images look computer generated, so FOP doesn't apply, and the copyright presumably belongs to the architects and not this Flickr account, if you look on Tineye, you will see that these were indexed before 2014. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 21:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyright violation. The same image appears on the site of a company involved in the construction of the buildings. This archive of the site with the image is from 14 March 2014 which predates the upload to flickr which was 21 August 2014. -- Whpq (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2021 (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:Ray Abeyta, Hold Fast (2004), oil painting on canvas.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: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 22:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no commentary whatsoever about this painting in the article apart from the caption which simply states the painting, the rationale on the file page does not explain how this meets WP:NFCC#8. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 21:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dylsss, Thank you for the message regarding this file. The sub-section "Literary references" in the section "Themes" is entirely about this painting, and it is described in detail, however I failed to mention the title of the painting in the article. I have since resolved this. Thank you again for the heads-up. Netherzone (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, while the sentence is quite brief, I do think that it is useful for helping the reader understand that section, though I am not sure if that understanding is significant. But it isn't as clear cut so I am going to withdraw my nomination. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 22:09, 14 April 2021 (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:Heart attack.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Flickr washing, it is marked with © MedicineNet.com 2004 and it was published on Flickr in 2007. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 23:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Copyright violation. The Flcikr stream from which this is taken has other examples of dubiously licensed images. -- Whpq (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2021 (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.