Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 10

December 10

File:Jhett Tolentino.jpg

I set the wrong tag. The problem is not with the licensing of the image, but with the awards. They take up too much space on the photo and can't be in {{de minimis}}. Either need to prove that they are not copyrighted or crop the photo. — Ирука¹³ 00:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crop the photo Actually I just realized it may not be their photo. The best thing to do here is to crop.This0k (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It only makes sense to crop the photo if it's the "c:COM:Own workOwn work" of the uploader; if it was taken by someone other than the uploader, it would be need to be treated as non-free content until the WP:CONSENT of the person who did take the photo can be verified in some way. The EXIF data for the file looks like it could be the original work of the uploader and a Google image search doesn't show the image being used anywhere other than Wikipedia; so, perhaps it's reasonable to assume it's the uploader's "own work". VRT verification would further to help clarify that but it's probably not necessary. However, I will note that another file of the same person uploader by this uploader as File:Jhett Tolentino Malacañang.jpg was deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 21#File:Jhett Tolentino Malacañang.jpg and there are quite a number of file licesing related notifications posted on the uploader's user talk page, which is a concern. Since the uploader hasn't edited since 2019, asking them to verify this is their own work is likely not going to get a response; so, it comes down to whether the consensus feel this is the uploader's "own work". If the consensus is that it is, the file can be cropped (perhaps via WP:GL/P) and the older version showing the awards hidden; if, on the other hand, the consensus is that it's not the uploader's own work, the file can't be kept and should be deleted per WP:F9 or WP:F11 since there's no way for it to be converted to non-free per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2025 FIFA Club World Cup.svg

It seems that this logo didn't qualify for fair-use rationale, because when we compare the 2025 CWC logo with other CWC logos, this logo is very simple and IMO, this logo isn't eligible for copyright protection in the US (the host country). Should this logo be removed from Wikipedia and move this logo to Wikimedia Commons instead? 103.111.100.82 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move to Commons Usually works such as this are not suitable for Commons. This0k (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to PD-logo: Given that the tournament associated with this logo is being hosted in the US per 2025 FIFA Club World Cup and that it seems (at least to me) to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:TOO US, this probably doesn't need to be treated as non-free and can be hosted on Commons instead. While it's true that Commons doesn't accept non-free content per c:COM:FAIR, it has no problem hosting logos considered to be too simple to eligible for copyright protection under the copyright laws of the US and of the country of first publication as explained in c:COM:CB#Trademarks. Given that the US seems to be the country of first publication here, there's also no need to treat this as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on Wikipedia and it should be fine for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transferred to Commons Assuming that there's single color (non-gradient and monochrome) versions of 2025 FIFA Club World Cup logo, this logo didn't qualify for "fair-use rationale" because it is far too simple and ineligible for copyright in the US, very different than previous CWC logos. (Remember, the US had higher threshold of originality rules than many common law countries like the UK). 2404:8000:1037:469:2919:6DDC:54F0:B88 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohamadali Khalife's Facebook profile pic in May, 2012.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo, uploader has been inactive for eleven years. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 06:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Juan rullan.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts that this photo was taken from a real person. I would like to know here how exactly and when this photo was taken. — Ирука¹³ 14:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The user that posted this is active so you are probably better off trying to start a discussion with them on the file's talk page or their talk page as they will probably just re-upload this if it gets deleted anyway. This0k (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They clearly scanned this from a newspaper or magazine. Absent proper source information that can help determine that the image is freely licensed, then this image must be assumed to be copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Best to do so and seek more suitable images instead but with more accurate details. Trying to clean up the user's mistakes is a lot of work, IMO. —George Ho (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:William Shaw (Illinois politician).jpeg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public-domain alternatives such as File:William "Bill" Shaw, circa 1983.jpg exist SecretName101 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFCC#1. The actual link to the file noted in the nomination is c:File:William "Bill" Shaw, circa 1983.jpg -- Whpq (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as replaceable non-free use. This file is currently being used and has been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5. It was being used in William Shaw (Illinois politician) until it was replaced a few days ago. Unless that replacement is contentious, there's no real reason for this file to be discussed here at FFD. @SecretName101: For future reference, non-free files eligible for speedy deletion as replaceable non-free use in accordance with WP:F7 don't really need to be discussed here at FFD, but can be tagged with {{Di-replaceable non-free use}} instead or simply removed and left to be deletion per F5. Such files only need to be discussed here if someone re-adds the file or otherwise challenges their speedy deletion, and the administrator who reviews the speedy deletion tag decides further discussion is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Sound of the Police audio sample.ogg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File's contextual significance to the whole song questionable. George Ho (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~There's no discussion needed over this. This user was taken to ANI years ago and sitebanned and I feel like at that point speedy deletion of their files would work.~~

~~Also Delete This0k (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.