Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 April 26

< April 25	April 27 >

April 26[edit]

File:Garry walia.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts to promote Gary Walia. Article title is protected from creation, therefore this file will probably never be used again. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to Commons(?)~~ - Commons doesn't have a legitimate page about sockpuppetry. Rather commons:COM:Sockpuppetry is redirected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. ~~I'm sure the image may have potential, though~~ it's not currently used in one article. ~~Nonetheless, if verified as free, I think it's suitable in Commons as~~ sockpuppetry is not a sole reason to delete this image. Also, Commons doesn't have its own COI page, in contrast to Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if his article is protected from creation and he himself is blocked, what use will the image have? Exemplo347 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a deletion discussion at Commons would find it within scope. You can't anticipate what possible use an image may have, what somebody may someday find to do with it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak delete - I wished the photo had some value, but I'm now convinced that it doesn't. Even when Commons is a repository, education value has been held so high to make this image not worth keeping. George Ho (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is out of scope here, and it would out of scope on Commons, too. ℯ xplicit 00:36, 18 May 2017 (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:Hannibal key art.jpg, File:Hannibal Season 2 promtional poster.jpg and File:Hannibal season 3 promotional poster.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: Deleted -FASTILY 00:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fail WP:NFCC No. 8; they are used for purely decorative purposes in the article, without any sourced commentary specific to those images explaining how they help enhance the reader's understanding of the subject Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2017 (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:Der Landser by Franz Kurowski.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: relisted on 2017 June 29. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Der Landser by Franz Kurowski.jpg (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:Tearsofgriefbayonne.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: remove from Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 01:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Used in both "To the Struggle Against World Terrorism" and "Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks". Marchjuly's original rationale, which is not valid for speedy deletion:

Non-free use in Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks fails WP:NFLISTS because the same image can be seen in the stand-alone aritcle To the Struggle Against World Terrorism. As explained in item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, a link to the stand-alone article is preferred in cases like this.

However, the sculpture is illustrated in the image, and the use in "To the Struggle Against World Terrorism" has potential validity. George Ho (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason I added the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template was because I believe the use in the list article does not comply with WP:NFCCP. I was not suggesting that the file be deleted; I was only suggesting remove from the "Memorials and services for the September 11 attack. I thought this was clear from what I posted in the template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean in the last sentence, but "Files for deletion" became "Files for discussion" when FFD merged with now-"historical" WP:NFCR. Also, the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} is less useful as a template to keep a file; rather it's more of a redundant "delete" template to me. --George Ho (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2017 (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:Sabrina Spellman.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: relisted on 2017 June 29. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabrina Spellman.jpg (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:Emiratespalace.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 F9 by Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previously available online. link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and relicense as non-free - The United Arab Emirates does not allow Freedom of Panorama on architecture. The image is non-free and taken from website, but it still has some potential. Somehow, some or many uploaders either are confused with the Upload Wizard tools or misused them. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user may be more that just confused, as they have been warned on their talkpage previously. Also how do we go about the relicense? Do we just edit from the page and fill in a fair use rationale, or do we have to reupload the image? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, editing the page would take an overhaul or something, but better to edit the page than re-upload it. You can change to {{non-free architectural work}} or {{non-free fair use}}. --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. The image does not meet WP:FREER for non-free usage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2017 (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:Logo of Sangeet Shikhharthee Sammilan'.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 ⚡ 02:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:19, 26 April 2017 (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:Raag Manjori'.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 ⚡ 02:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:22, 26 April 2017 (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:ABC Spark Logo.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: Files moved to Commons Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC Spark article doesn't use this logo anymore. The article now uses the teal logo instead, which is located at File:Logo for ABC Spark.svg, so I don't see why this file should still exist, and as such, I think it should be deleted. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 23:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Commons. As a logo consisting solely of text in a common face and geometric shapes, it is ineligible for copyright in the US and thus a free image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have changed the licensing on both versions to {{PD-logo}}; since the images no longer violate any policy in such a way as to warrant deletion, I request that this be speedy-closed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: That's not why I want the PNG image to be deleted. I want it to be deleted because it's redundant since it's been replaced with the teal version of the logo in the ABC Spark article, not because it violated any rules. I just don't think having a duplicate of the teal logo (just with different colors) is a good idea. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KamranMackey: It has historical value then. We don't delete free images merely for non-use. IF we move it to Commons, this won't be an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Just moved the files to Commons. The files here do need to be deleted however. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 17:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done And with that we can close this (I will do this myself; it's not a conflict since the files now come under CSD F1). Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the PNG version (too many colors) as unfree. Nonetheless, move the SVG (plain green) version to Commons. --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of colors makes no difference to its copyright status in the US. Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2017 (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.