Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 December 10

< December 9	December 11 >

December 10[edit]

File:Everybodymusicvideo.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: keep. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the illustration of Madonna's race contrasting people's (mis)perception about her. However, I have wondered whether it's really needed. Madonna has been well known for years. Also, there are free images of Madonna in Commons. Whether the screenshot adds much to such understanding is not the main issue. Actually, whether deleting the screenshot affects such understanding is the more important matter. IMO, even without the screenshot, most readers can already grasp (by reading the whole CC-licensed article) how Madonna had been perceived previously before appearing in the "Everybody" music video and how she has been perceived since then. George Ho (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there is enough critical commentary to justify its inclusion in the article. Aspects (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Madonna's appearance in the music video (particularly wrt her race) is the subject of sourced commentary. The same purpose cannot be achieved by any old free image of Madonna. Colin M (talk) 00:03, 19 December 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:Photograph-Atty-Irene-Alogoc.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic Eduardo Untalan (talk) 05:23, 10 December 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:Sue DYWM.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 ⚡ 12:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Identifies Susan Ann Sulley, female band member of the Human League, in the "Don't You Want Me" music video. However, it illustrates neither the significance of the music video nor how the critical commentary adequately supports and associates with it. It may fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 06:02, 10 December 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:Claudibockting.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image is stated to be "cc-by-4.0" and refers to this source. The source states "Portrait by Marieke Lorijn, 2021, usable for media reports and similar under the CC 4.0 license (please credit photographer)." This licensing refers to a CC license without specific detail as to whine one. Assuming that it was meant to be CC-BY, the note implies additional restrictions ("usable for media reports and similar"). What if the use is not a media report or similar? Finally, this image is the work of Marieke Lorijn, and not a selfie by the subject. WP:VRT confirmation of license would be needed as the photographer is nornally the copyright holder and not the subject. Whpq (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, I mailed the domain owner (which is presumably Claudi) this:
Op claudibockting.com/media/ staat een foto voor de pers met "CC 4.0 license". Wikipedia gebruikt deze foto momenteel, maar er is nu een discussie op Wikipedia over de licentie van de foto. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2021_December_10) Creative Commons is een paraplu van verschillende licenties. Acceptabel voor Wikipedia zijn CC BY 4.0 (BY=attributie) en CC BY-SA 4.0. (SA=gelijk delen, afgeleide werken moeten dezelfde licentie dragen) Er kan met Creative Commons ook geen beperking zijn op het type gebruik, als bijvoorbeeld iemand de foto zou willen gebruiken om lippenstift te illustreren dan kan dat niet verboden zijn. Verder kan de foto alleen gelicenseerd worden door de rechthebbende (meestal de fotograaf). Lang verhaal kort: als de regel aangepast zou kunnen worden naar "Portrait by Marieke Lorijn, 2021, licensed by Lorijn under the CC BY 4.0 license (please credit photographer)." dan kan Wikipedia de foto blijven gebruiken. Als u zich toch niet comfortabel voelt met een CC BY 4.0 of CC BY-SA 4.0 licentie of de fotograaf hier niet mee kan instemmen dan is dat spijtig maar uiteraard respecteren we dat, dan zullen we de foto niet meer gebruiken op Wikipedia. Als u nog vragen heeft zal ik proberen die te beantwoorden. Bij voorbaat dank.
Can we wait for a response? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If VRT confirmation of license shows up, then the image can always be undeleted or simply downloaded from the site again. -- Whpq (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, answer from Bockting's assistent: Since I am uncertain about the legal situation of the picture originally uploaded to claudibockting.com, I have replaced it with a picture which can definitely be license under CC BY-SA. Could you please upload this one to Wikipedia instead? I uploaded the new photo to File:Claudi Bockting by Trudy Kroese.jpg. The statement on the website (which now applies to the new photo) was changed to "Portrait by Trudy Kroese. Licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license (please credit photographer)". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:04, 17 December 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:Gert van Rooyen victims.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 ⚡ 12:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No verifiable source: "South African Police & various newspapers ". I'm not contacting South African Police and "various newspapers" is too vague for me to even try and verify. I'm also not certain that the use on Gert van Rooyen#Possible victims satisfies WP:NFCC#8. The victims themselves aren't described, just their disappearance. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:57, 10 December 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:Abby Lee Miller.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. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Non-free content: 'Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people.' Celia Homeford (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a fair use screenshot of a living person that goes against WP:NFC#UUI because it could be replaced by a free image that could have tagged with the [[Template:Di-replaceable non-free use]] instead of coming here. Aspects (talk) 23:17, 14 December 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:Efesos - Temple of Hadrian.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 ⚡ 12:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality; most likely will not be useful. It is out of copyright in Italy and the US, so it can go to Commons, but I do not believe it is terribly useful compared to other images within commons:Category:Temple of Hadrianus (Ephesus) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:48, 10 December 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:Lee Hyori 10 Minutes.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 ⚡ 12:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure whether the song "10 Minutes" has had a physical or digital single release. The supposed cover art is used for Lee Hyori's debut album Stylish...E, especially without a jacket (Naver (1), Naver (2) (it contains collapsed gallery of other images of the album)). I tried Google Images and YesAsia to search for the supposed single without avail. Well, other similar images are used for a single and an album, like Good Times (Chic song)/Risqué (album) and American Pie (song)/American Pie (Don McLean album), but other images of those existing releases confirm usage of similar artwork. However, in this case, this cover art's compliance with WP:NFCC#4 and/or other criteria is put into question. George Ho (talk) 21:58, 10 December 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:Open W531.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depicted screen is copyrighted and not likely considered to be de minimis. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC) Stike my comment now that the copyrighted part has been removed. Can be copied to Commons if useful now. Doesn't appear to be a an Samsung W531 article to add the image to though. Salavat (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find a Samsung SCH-W531 [pl] on the Polish Wikipedia. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ixfd64, Salavat, keep current version as I blurred the Happy Tree Friends. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:15, 11 December 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.