Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 14

< February 13	February 15 >

February 14[edit]

File:Waterside and Giffordgate2.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 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution and unused file. Also, cannot find such file on the Flickr user's photostream, though a few glance on his pictures implies majority of his uploads are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA (noncommercial licensing from CC). Cannot be transferred to Commons because of this doubt on licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:04, 14 February 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:Barcelona McDonald's.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: speedy keep. Criteria 1: withdrawn nomination with no deletion support. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot verify Flickr licensing, as https://www.flickr.com/photos/aleutia/96091269/in/set-72057594059925665/ only ends up to the signup page (perhaps the image was made private). Even Archive.org results only yield "signup" indications. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy withdraw: It appears Aleutia is the username also of the Flickr user, and hence I assume that the uploader is also the Flickr uploader (though for some reason he made his Flickr photo private...). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:42, 14 February 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:ShanghaipudongMartin.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 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing verification failed: only existing Archive.org shot (https://www.flickr.com/photos/martinstelbrink/285731498/) still yields the file as licensed "All Rights Reserved" (thereby not freely-licensed). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:04, 14 February 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:Panmure Railway Station (2005).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 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

License verification failed. The only available Archive.org shot, https://web.archive.org/web/20121109090502/https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamespole/80131745/, only reveals the file as "all rights reserved" (thereby not freely-licensed). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:04, 14 February 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:SM Mall of Asia October 2016.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 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File no longer available at Flickr. The URL given "https://www.flickr.com/photos/verzo/30676814850/" doesn't provide results at Archive.org. License verification became impossible and difficult. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:11, 17 February 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:SM Seaside City Cebu March 2017.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 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File no longer available at Flickr as of today. https://www.flickr.com/photos/43772948@N06/39880104505/ link didn't provide results at Archive.org. Licensing verification thus became impossible and/or difficult. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:11, 17 February 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.

Antun Motika paintings[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 -FASTILY 01:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple non-free files of works created by Antun Motika being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner which fails WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in Antun Motika#Gallery. While uploading one or two examples of an artist's work could possibly be justified per WP:NFCC, it would be expected that these paintings would complement sourced critical commentary about themselves somewhere in the article. A non-free image gallery of painting with no sourced critical commentary clearly fails both NFCC#8 and NFG, and there's no way to really justify such non-free use. One of the files (File:Antun Motika painting1.jpg) was also uploaded to Commons as File:Antun Motika Painting.jpg, which is being used in Antun Motika#Biography; so, if the Commons licensing is correct, then there's no need for a non-free version to be uploaded to Wikipedia per WP:FREER. Even if the Commons file needs to be deleted, and the non-free is kept; there was no way to justify it being used twice in the same article (the non-free one was being used in the image gallery before I removed it). Perhaps one or two of these non-free images could be incorporated into the body of the article, but there's really no way to justify seven non-free ones, especially since two examples of the artist's work were uploaded to Commons (the aforementioned File:Antun Motika Painting.jpg and File:Antun Motika.jpg), though their licensing is also questionable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's curious how you repeat same things several times! Our purpose there is presenting Antun Motika, Croatian painter; I'd say the use of those pictures is justified. The pictures are not specifically mentioned in the article (paintings are not even named, what is more. He didn't name paintings, it seems), but his style, his technique is. His influences are. All those paintings' pictures reflect Motika's style and (different) artistic tendencies described in the article. Creating a single article for each one? Well, there would be a real problem of notability there, since the paintings have no name, and no available sources and critical commentary describing each. They are a tangible example of the artist's style(s), which is described in the article. Maybe their number should be reduced, but two or three pictures, such as in Andy Warhol, are well justified. As for the pictures on Commons, Henry Moore, for example, has paintings on Commons just because they were completed before 1971, same as Motika. Georgia O'Keeffe has a whole gallery in her article, present on commons too. Those articles pertain to this discussion because Wikipedia is a whole. --Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The usage in image galleries is a clear fail of WP:NFCC#8. Usage of an image in the article accompanied by significant sourced text about style and technique and how the non-free image is illustrative of that could be justified, but that is not what has been done. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Their present use is what was specified when the pictures were uploaded. Anyway, if that's what we agree upon, we can change the text and the use of the pictures in the article (I will do it). Still, can someone explain why massive use is tolerated in, e.g., Georgia O'Keeffe?--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:OTHERFILE for some reasons why the way a file is being used in another article is generally not considered a valid justification for non-free use. Sometimes files are not licensed exactly the same way or are not being used exactly the same way; other times, the file being used in the other article, shouldn’t be being used in such a way. Anyway, all of the files used in Georgia O’Keefe#Paintings are licensed as public domain and were uploaded to Commons; so, they are not subject to Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy like the ones being discussed here are. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inappropriate use in gallery. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Marchjuly and all the others; I edited the article. Now the only pictures in the gallery are the two paintings on commons. As for the fair-use ones, I included three pictures (two of them are in a multiple-image frame) in the article, to describe Motika's style. As far as I'm concerned, all other pictures may be deleted, except those left. If the solution is accepted, but someone thinks other paintings are more fit or deserving than those chosen, I'm willing to discuss it.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- While the changes you made are certainly better than the previous non-free image gallery, there are still some issues related to non-free use. If the files that were uploaded to Commons are correctly licensed (which is something I doubt and which is why they were nominated for deletion over at Commons), then those seem to be perfectly acceptable as examples of Motika's work and particular style; so, there's really no need for any non-free files to be used, unless the paintings themselves are specifically the subject of sourced critical commentary. In other words, there needs to be (in my opinion) sourced critical commentary which mentions each of the three paintings you moved to the body of the article by "name" (if they don't have formal names, then directly discusses them and refers to them in some other way) for their non-free use to be justified. If the paintings are just to show examples of Motika's work, then that can be done by the files uploaded to Commons (again assuming they can be kept by Commons). Another issue is that if the files uploaded to Commons can be kept by Commons for some reason (maybe they're in the public domain), then it's quite possible that some other paintings by Motika could also be uploaded to Commons for the same reasons; this, in turn, would also make any non-free files also replaceable non-free use as explained in WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The uploader of these files Wiki.Jaap.07 was globally blocked for WP:CHECK reasons the other day; so, it's unlikely they will be commenting any further in this discussion. The block, however, unrelated to these specific files; so, if others want to continue discussing them, they free to do so. Before Wiki.Jaap.07 was blocked, they removed File:Antun Motika painting 3.jpg, File:Antun Motika painting 5.jpg, File:Antun Motika painting2.jpg and File:Painting by Motika.jpg from the article; so, these four files and File:Antun Motika painting1.jpg are orphaned non-free use and have been tagged as such for speedy deletion by a bot per WP:F5 and will be deleted in a few days if they're not added to an article as required by WP:NFCC#7. The remaining three files are still being used in the article, but are no longer being used in the "Gallery" section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 17 February 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:Colin Smart lifting the Welsh Rugby Cup.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 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image has a stated purpose "To illustrate a pivotal moment in the life of the subject of the article." but the image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary and the stated purpose essentially declares the usage as decorative. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A professional athlete holding a trophy over their head after winning some competition is actually quite a common occurrence at a sporting event such as this; so, unless there’s something about the photo itself (perhaps something controversial?) that was reported on by reliable sources at the time or over the years, there’s really no justification for this file’s non-free use per WP:NFC#CS and WP:FREER. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 14 February 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.