Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 July 9

< July 8	July 10 >

July 9[edit]

File:Egirlspinkchampagnecdanddvd.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 ⚡ 05:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is already one non-free cover art present. A second is not required as its inclusion does not add to the subject matter. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur w/ nom. Buffs (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2022 (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:VIRUS movie poster-- "It's The Seed Of Life".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 ⚡ 02:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused film poster. Uploader says they took the photo, which suggests they are not the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Article for the film was deleted. Salavat (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete as long as the associated article remains deleted. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete as Mellohi said. For nominator, "Uploader says they took the photo" is very likely an artifact of the upload process for new people. Either they think "meh...I'll just pick something that works" or "I don't know...I'll pick that one". It's mostly ignorance, not malevolence. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2022 (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:Kagamine-Len (for userboxes).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 ⚡ 02:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyright violation. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, according to the MikuMikuDance article the software is only freeware so the image is likely non-free. Salavat (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up...keep for now Just because you use software to create an animation doesn't mean it isn't your creation. This looks like animation software where people upload their images/3D models to animate them. As such, this indeed could be the user's creation. "Likely copyright violation" needs evidence to back it up, not merely an accusation. Buffs (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one of the stock character models provided by the software. The file descrption stated it is a "pose of Kagamine Len via Miku Miku Dance" and as noted in the MikuMikuDance article Kagamine Len is one of the provided model. Whpq (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2022 (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:Kenosha.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. Freely licensed alternatives exist. ✗plicit 00:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the photo, Rebecca Strand, wasn't a National Park Service employee. The photo comes from the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the lighthouse. According to the text of the nomination, the three authors (including Strand) are affiliated with "Maritime Society/Loyola University", not the NPS. The photo was published a month too late to potentially fall under PD-US-1989, so unfortunately it's still under copyright. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/relabel with FUR This is a historical photograph and certainly meets the criteria for inclusion under NFCC (can't show now what it looked like then). Buffs (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2022 (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.