Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 26

< October 25	October 27 >

October 26[edit]

File:Mayor Aslam Butt.jpeg[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 ⚡ 01:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim that the uploader is the copyright holder. The image is also sourced to Facebook. Stefan2 (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fairly clear copyright violation -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has commented on the file talk page and on his own talk page. I informed him about OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 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:Harrypotter5-roomofrequirement.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. Users may want to consider a crop that focuses on the characters' faces. ✗plicit 07:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image does not add useful/interesting/meaningful content to the article where it is used. By necessity, it is a small, low-resolution image, but this means that the faces of the fifteen human subjects can barely be made out beyond their relative height and hair and skin colour. An image of the same size that consisted of a 5x3 collage of just their faces might be both fair use-compliant and add something worthwhile to the article, but I don't think this does. Not sure if I need to notify the uploader, who vanished eight years ago (I rather think such notifications might be counter-productive, for reasons I think I probably shouldn't say. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just an argument for using a somewhat higher res version? Per WP:IMAGERES: There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. From a minimal usage point of view, I think that would still be preferable to using 15 different (small) non-free images. Colin M (talk) 09:03, 1 November 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:Davante “Shawt” Peters Dallas City Council campaign logo.jpeg[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 ⚡ 01:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complex logo, no OTRS permission for over seven months. Logo is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:13, 31 October 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:Buffalo Wild Wings (logo, vertical).svg[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: Resolved -FASTILY 23:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the stylized bison is above the threshold of originality. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See USA examples at c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Threshold_of_originality. I feel comfortable that it would not qualify for copyright protection. Regardless, if consensus is that this is above the threshold, I would be fine adding a FUR to it. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to non-free - In looking over the examples of both logos that are under the threshold and over the threshold, the most comparable would be the Twitter bird logo which is a stylized outline of a bird and is considered eligible for copyright protection. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commented Converted to non-free per additional evidence of copyright registration presented on Commons. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:10, 27 October 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:Expedition Robinson.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: Resolved -FASTILY 23:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider this a simple logo due to the background photo. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to update the file's licensing for the title card, apologies. QuestFour (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have added a fair use following the change of licensing to non-free title-card. Should meet requirements now. Salavat (talk) 06:17, 31 October 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:NXT Takeover 36.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 ⚡ 01:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly above the threshold of originality due to the 3D effects. Logo is currently not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, questionable licensing and no obvious reason why the file is useful if converted to non-free. NXT TakeOver 36 already has a different poster. Salavat (talk) 06:18, 31 October 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.

Embraer concept art[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 December 8. FASTILY 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embraer turboprop concept.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Embraer 2021 turboprop concept.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Embraer Short Take Off Utility Transport (STOUT) concept.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:The official promotional poster for the second season of 1MagicTV's The River.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 ⚡ 01:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a simple logo by any means. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, questionable licensing and no obvious reason why the file is useful if converted to non-free. Salavat (talk) 06:19, 31 October 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:Oliver Ortega pitching for the Angels.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the image is in public domain. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant copyright violation -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 26 October 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:Hannah and Emil Witton, 1962.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 ⚡ 01:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could tell, this picture was taken in Australia. Standard copyright term in Australia is life + 70 years, not 50 years after publication. Author is listed as an unknown photographer, so the uploader cannot be the copyright holder. Image is not currently used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader identifies as a Ron Witton on his user and talk pages. This suggests he is related to the subjects in the photo. However, the fact that the photographer is unknown is an issue that needs to be addressed. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. There also doesn't appear to be an article for either Hannah or Emil. Salavat (talk) 06:21, 31 October 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.

Charlie Aust[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 File:Charlie Aust on Parade, 1980 (cropped).jpg to non-free, delete File:Charlie Aust on Parade, 1980.jpg -FASTILY 23:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image and its cropped deriative image are identified as public domainin Zimbabwe as 50 years past publication. However, this photo was taken October 31, 1980 so 50 years has not yet passed. Charlie Aust is deceased and my search for a freely licensed image turns up nohing. I recommend File:Charlie Aust on Parade, 1980.jpg be deleted and File:Charlie Aust on Parade, 1980 (cropped).jpg be converted to non-free use. Whpq (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal by Whpq. Relicense File:Charlie Aust on Parade, 1980 (cropped).jpg, add a fairuse, and remove from Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop/Archive/Jul 2021. Then delete File:Charlie Aust on Parade, 1980.jpg for questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:24, 31 October 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:Old Devonshire House Music programme from 1938png.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 ⚡ 01:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use the image on Wikipedia is not the same as releasing it into public domain. Image is not actually used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the chief librarian is unlikely to be the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:24, 31 October 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:United Baseball League original 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid public domain reason. Copyright persists even if the organization ceases operations. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:52, 26 October 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.