Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 January 19

< January 18	January 20 >

January 19[edit]

File:Asd utb.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. Whpq (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs evidence that the band has released the image to the public domain. Likely doesn't qualify for fair use because the article already has some free images. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2023 (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:Cardi B - Gangsta Bitch Music, Vol. 2.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: keep. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Album covers are not fair use for an encyclopedia article about said album. They are copyrighted art. Has this changed recently? Has Congress passed a law or two that has gone unnoticed?

I am an old-timer. Please advise. HiDrNick! 03:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an album cover used on an article about the album is acceptable use as long as it is the primary image at the top of the article or in the infobox. Salavat (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an album cover used for identification purposes in the infobox of the album article is acceptable fair use of the album cover. Aspects (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2023 (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:LucileRandon2019.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#1/WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth -FASTILY 02:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require a non-free up-to-date image of her, when multiple free images of her in earlier life exist. Fails WP:NFCC#1 as there are other free photos of her, and WP:NFCC#8 as the image doesn't significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of supercentenarians that have non-free images. Examples: Jeanne Calment, Kane Tanaka, Sarah Knauss, and Marie-Louise Meilleur. I don't see how Randon should be an exception since none of those people are still living. Interstellarity (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. Also, I don't believe that most of them would meet WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8 either, for exactly the same reasons (apart from Marie-Louise Meilleur, which has no free images it seems). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is essential for readers to see a depiction of a supercentenarian when they are in their later years as well as in their earlier years. I believe this image meets criteria 1 because when it comes to finding images of Randon in her later years, there doesn't seem to be a free image that can be used to reasonably depict Randon. With regards to criteria 8, depicting a person from all walks of life, except for when they are living, increases understanding and would be detrimental if this image was not there. Interstellarity (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is known for being old, not for what she looks like as an old person. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2023 (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:Hydra 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. Whpq (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work per admission on the uploader's talk page. Could possibly be below the ToO as text, but also possibly out of scope since the article on this nightclub was deleted 8 years ago. Felix QW (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no use for it on English Wikipedia. If it's useful and freely licenced, then it should be on Commons, otherwise Wikimedia sites doesn't need it at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2023 (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:ICFTU logo.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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been disagreement in the past on whether this logo of an international organisation headquartered in Brussels meets the threshold of originality, so I prefer to put it out there at FFD. To me it seems like a case of PD-Textlogo. Felix QW (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense - the squiggle is not complex. -- Whpq (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2023 (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.