Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20[edit]

File:Publicity poster for Fluxus art events-concerts called GRAPEFRUIT FLUXBANQUET.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: Convert to non-free -FASTILY 22:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence provided that this image is in the public domain. Suggest relicense to non-free or delete. Wikiacc (¶) 01:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to change it to non-free publicity photo, but I do not know how to do so. Sorry. I guess this is relevant: "the use of publicity photos of people, acknowledging that quality makes the photo difficult to replace with a free alternative and therefore passes FU clause #1. This would put publicity photos at the same level as album covers, screenshots and other such minutiae and allow them to appropriately be used to illustrate the subject of the image in only the subject's article." Can you advise me how to change this or change it please? Valueyou (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valueyou: Of course. I would recommend adding {{Non-free promotional}} to the image's description page, along with a rationale using {{Non-free use rationale}}. Take a look at the templates' description pages and WP:NFC for details. Wikiacc (¶) 02:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ¶. I have done so, I hope correctly. Can you please check my work? Thanks again. Valueyou (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Valueyou: You need to fill in the actual use rationale, detailing the reasons why this image qualifies. (And you need to do this for each article the image is used in.) See WP:FUR. Wikiacc (¶) 00:07, 22 January 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:The Rancho Market in North Richmond, California.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 ⚡ 04:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Elizium23 under criterion G5 as created by blocked user SleepyHollowGuy1999 FASTILY 01:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So... this is like a corner liquor store, not mentioned in its article, non-free, no FUR... why is it here? Elizium23 (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to being orphaned, low quality, maybe non-free, and created by blocked user. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 21 January 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:Don a farrell.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 ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot trust the PD claim on this photo. This is a studio photo and we cannot just accept the exif info as proof as that is easy to fake. This user is relatively new which makes me suspicious. It has been used as a book cover, I would prefer to see proof that this is PD Gbawden (talk) 08:52, 20 January 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:Dua Lipa - Studio 2054 screenshot.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 ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image is tagged as a "screenshot from a video". However, the source given is the artist's social media. The copyright ownership lies with the artist and the record label. The article Studio 2054 already contains a non-free copyright image in the infobox. WP:NFCC#3a says not to use multiple non-free items. Images from an artist's social media are not free for public use and therefore this is an additional (and unnecessary) use of non-free images. The image is also of very high/HD quality and resolution so as also failed WP:NFCC#3b. Finally the image is not contextually important to the article - its a standard performance image. There is nothing in the picture which adds context or is specifically noteworthy that would be lost by not including the image. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned NF file (artist would own the copyright to their own social media). Fails NFCC. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 21 January 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:British Rail Class 125 cab.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 ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a watermark in the photo if you zoom in - I can’t quite tell what it says but I very much doubt the uploader took this photo themselves. SK2242 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on that, I noticed it a few days ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 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:The odd couple.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 ⚡ 00:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No usage for many years, if ever. Very unlikely to be usable anywhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as low-quality orphaned file. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 21 January 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.