Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 26

< July 25	July 27 >

July 26[edit]

File:Championisland.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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. ✗plicit 00:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content is placed as free when it is copyrighted. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and re-licensed the file and added a fairuse. Everything should be sorted now. Salavat (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce in size and tag as fair use. This doesn't need an XfD discussion as presumably one can do it themselves and replace the original file._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - license has already been changed. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:00, 28 July 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:Saraikistan National Party Flag.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Saraikistan National Party appears to only be a facebook group and with there being two images of this flag (rotated), it appears that someone was just making a flag they liked the appearance of and should be deleted as it has no use. Terasail ^[✉️] 00:34, 26 July 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:Dragonheart-logo-yellow.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: relisted on 2021 August 3. ✗plicit 00:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dragonheart-logo-yellow.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:Les Chants Magnétiques English Album artwork.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This nonfree album cover is an English version which is identical to the French version. Fails WP:NFCC#3a Whpq (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NFCC#3a. One image is enough to identify the album, as the only change is in the language of the album title. Richard3120 (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: i'm just trying to contribute here. -SomeWhatLife — Note to closing admin: SomeWhatLife (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this FfD.
- @SomeWhatLife: I know – the issue is that US copyright law has strict guidelines on what can be used under non-free content, and all ten criteria of WP:NFCCP must be met, otherwise its use on Wikipedia is illegal. Richard3120 (talk) 15:50, 26 July 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:Aegis Defence Services logo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superseded by File:Aegis Defence Services logo.png. — Pbrks (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat (talk) 15:16, 27 July 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:Kanye West - Donda With Child.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: keep. Consensus is evidently in support of keeping this file, despite good arguments from the opposition. It may be a good idea to revisit this file after (if??) the album gets released. Anarchyte (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Older version of the album cover that has been replaced by the current cover art. The version that is currently used suffices. Therefor, purpose per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is no longer given. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is fine for old artworks to be kept when they have appropriate usage in any article; take the Yandhi one for example. --K. Peake 06:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The above comment it is fine for old artworks to be kept when they have appropriate usage in any article is a very broad over simplification things because non-free use is not automatic in any sense of the word as explained in the very first sentence of WP:NFCCP and also as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. Moreover, the "example" cited for File:Yandhi Cover Art (Free_License).jpg isn't a valid example at all because the Yandhi cover is a freely licensed image that is not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and thus not subject to the same restrictions as the file being discussed here. The "problem" here is that neither of the two non-free album covers being used in Donda (album) is currently being used for primary identification purposes; so, it's not clear which of the two should be kept. In addition, there's currently no real sourced critical commentary about either cover per WP:NFC#CS; so, it seems quite hard to justify the non-free use of them both. According to the article, File:Kanye West is using an adaptation of a red Louise Bourgeois drawing from her series Les têtes bleues et les femmes rouges for the cover of DONDA.jpeg (that file name probably should be shortened by the way) seems to be the cover that was ultimately chosen by West instead of this file which he originally tweated out; so, if that's branding actually being used for the album, then that's the cover that should be used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox. Then, the question is whether the non-free use of a second album cover can be justified per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-3. I could see using both if there's was some controversy that led to the changing of the cover or if the change was something critically discussed in reliable sources, but simply the fact the cover art was changed before the album was released is not in and of itself enough to justify the non-free use of a second album cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible to use this artwork in prose under the Career section on West's page? I know the limit of one fair-use image per article applies, and I wonder if this would contradict any of the copyright guidelines. Just thinking out loud here. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no limit of one fair-use image per article, but in order to justify any such a use it would have to clearly meet WP:NFCCP, particularly WP:NFCC#8 (as explained in WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-3). Non-free album covers aren't generally just considered OK to add to the bodies of articles just show what they look like; there has to be pretty significant contextual reason for doing so and usually this is only the case when the cover art itself is subject to sourced critical commentary somewhere in the article, and not simply just to illustrate content about the album. Let's say, for example, that West designed this cover himself or there was some sort of controversy associated with its design and as a result both he and the cover was critically discussed in reliable sources; it might then possible to justify the non-free use of the cover in some way, but most likely this would be better done in the article about the album. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question I can't tell with certainty who made this artwork or what year it was made. The description says it is by Kanye West, but when I looked at the source tweet that Kanye West posted, the image just sits there on twitter without any credits at all. Without clarifying artist and date of creation, it makes little sense to maintain it here. If nobody can supply that information, then Delete.Valueyou (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The image in question clearly has played an important role in the marketing for the album in 2020 (before missing the initial release date). The tweet from which this album cover comes from has approximately 265,100 likes, which shows it clearly played a significant role in the marketing for such album, and the average tweet Kanye West makes on Twitter only gets between 50,000 and 100,000 likes as an approximate average. There is several articles created about this specific image clearly displaying that it did play a significant role in the marketing for Donda as well. Valueyou does however raise a good point in which we don't know who created the album artwork, but we can presume that Kanye West is still a credible source for this being the initial album artwork for Donda therefore I don't see why this file should be deleted. It may be possibly useful for a history section on the article in a future date and we should not delete it due to not having a perfect usage at the present moment, especially as the album hasn't released yet. -- BruhtatoChips 06:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel it's appropriately used, and we could switch the current one based on the Louise Bourgeoise artwork to the top of the infobox, and the original multicolor one to the bottom with a caption indicating its original intent. See the infobox for Tinashe's Aquarius album as an example. The history and context is important. -- Trqalobaid (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (talk) 22:51, 9 August 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:African School of Economics Logo.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 ⚡ 02:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No source, jpg logo full of artifacts, unused. — Pbrks (talk) 23:02, 26 July 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:Saifee Burhani Upliftment Project Depiction.webp[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: no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for dated deletion by @Whpq under speedy deletion criterion F7 as replaceable with the reason "Phase 1 of the development is completed and India has freedom of panorama for architectural works so a free image of the development can be made". The original deletion nomination was contested by @Murtaza.aliakbar, hence this referral to FfD. FASTILY 08:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murtaza.aliakbar's dispute reason was Phase I is just two twin towers of 13 planned. Right now, if you were to picture the entire SBUP project, all you'd find is two towers amid a lot of rubble. Fastily, Whpq, looks like rubble to me indeed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 26 July 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:Queen Elizabeth wedding dress.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: no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This file is available that depict a wedding dress (File:Elizabeth and Philip's wedding portrait (cropped).jpg) on WIkimedia Commons.

This photograph by Baron looks like a press photo, and it's unacceptable per WP:NFC#UUI. Frontman830 (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wedding dress of Grace Kelly, Wedding dress of Diana Spencer, and WP:NFCI "Images that are themselves subject of commentary.".--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 26 July 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:Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh photo.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: no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This file is available that similar than Baron's portrait (File:Elizabeth and Philip's wedding portrait (cropped).jpg) on WIkimedia Commons.

It looks like a press photo, and it's also unacceptable per WP:NFC#UUI. Frontman830 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the Commons cropped photo for deletion. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: please understand these images from the Associated Press on Commons, under {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. --Frontman830 (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we discussing AP images here? Also, I don't think this photo belongs to AP, does it? George Ho (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right here, (File:Princess Elizabeth and Duke of Edinburgh wedding portrait.jpg) because I replaced this photo as an orphaned fair use, and it is already out of copyright without renewal in the US, per {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. --Frontman830 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the AP photo for deletion. George Ho (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how about this photo (file:Elizabeth and Philip leaving the royal wedding ceremony.jpg) could be worked as an alternate photo to Commons? --Frontman830 (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a non-free use image in place you've nominated for deletion. A poorer replacement isn't needed. Keep per WP:NFCI: Images with iconic status or historical importance and & Images that are themselves subject of commentary. Please note that any non-free images have no place on Commons.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bettydaisies: If it's still debatable, but I have to wait for Baron's photograph to be public domain in 2027. --Frontman830 (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 26 July 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:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.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: no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously part of mass-listing FFD discussion that was closed as "no consensus". To this date, methinks, the perpetrator image still doesn't improve understanding of the already tragic 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers. It still fails WP:NFCC#8, meaning that deleting the image still wouldn't affect what was already tragic, especially to the masses. George Ho (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of the editors who took part in the previous mass-nomination discussion, this was one of the files that probably had a rough consensus that it could have been closed as Keep. The perpetrator has enough prose with reliable sources in the shooting incident article that it could be split off into its own article thus passing WP:NFCC#8. It would have been nice having been one of the editors in the previous discussion, to have been notified of this discussion. Aspects (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 26 July 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.