Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 15

< April 14	April 16 >

April 15

"Time on Earth" cover art

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 first file. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art being used in Time on Earth. File:CrowdedHouse-TimeOnEarth.jpg is listed as the main cover in the infobox while File:Time on Earth alternate.jpeg is listed as an alternative version. Each file has a non-free use rationale, but I'm not sure if the usage of the alternative version is really needed per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. There are only minor differences between the two covers and these are discussed in Time on Earth#Cover art. I think the sentence "In November 2007, a special edition of Time on Earth was released featuring a colour altered cover. The cover's main background area, which was previously a sandy-wheat colour, was converted into an aqua-teal colour, while the tree in the image had a bird in a nest added to it" more than adequately explains the differences between the two, so that removing the image would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding. So, I suggest keep for "File:CrowdedHouse-TimeOnEarth.jpg" and delete for "File:Time on Earth alternate.jpeg". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2016 (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:Richard sculpture.JPG

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible derivative of non-free content (statute) FASTILY 04:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently a statute in Quebec; Canada has freedom of panorama. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2016 (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:Polka dots.png

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused locally, superior version available at File:Polka dots.svg FASTILY 04:52, 15 April 2016 (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:Stadion Pod Goricom, Montenegro.jpg

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 ⚡ 03:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 04:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Seems potentially encyclopedic if obnoxious text cropped out, but I can't read what it says. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2016 (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:Satyabhamane96.jpg

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails ~~WP:NFCC#10c~~ WP:NFCC#3a - unnecessary poster for a dubbed version (redundant to File:Avvai Shanmugi.jpg). —Vensatry _(Talk) 05:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The poster fails WP:NFCC#3a since there is already a film poster used in the infobox to identify the film. The posters also fails WP:NFCC#8 since it is used in the plot where there is no commentary about the poster thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the topic and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the topic. Aspects (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2016 (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:Close up of a mural in London under the Royal Oak Tube Station.jpg

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of non-free mural. There is no FOP in the UK for 2D works FASTILY 07:49, 15 April 2016 (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:Trainset.ogv

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 ⚡ 03:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible derivative of non-free content (see c:COM:TOYS) FASTILY 08:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can assure you this is definitely free content, it is my son's trainset in action, filmed in his bedroom by myself -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

I misunderstood the issue, apologies -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2016 (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:JohnBowenCEG.jpeg

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No EXIF, low res, most likely flickr washing FASTILY 08:33, 15 April 2016 (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:JellyAliex.jpg

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a derivative of non-free content (see c:COM:TOYS) FASTILY 09:02, 15 April 2016 (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:2002 Football League First Division play-off Final medal.jpg

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2002 Football League First Division play-off Final medal.jpg. Medal must be on permanent display for FOP to apply FASTILY 09:06, 15 April 2016 (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:Chvrches - Gun promo single cover.jpeg

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 blatantly. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:23, 15 April 2016 (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:Out of the Woods promotional.png

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 F5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 blatantly. The actual article already has an infobox image for identification as well as commercial use. Adding another image which does not have any critical/third party notability adhered in the article is redundant and violation. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:24, 15 April 2016 (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:McKenzie River Chamber of Commerce Sign.JPG

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:McKenzie River Chamber of Commerce Sign.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:18, 15 April 2016 (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:Azealia Banks - Ice Princess Trap Remix Cover.jpg

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 F5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First time ever making an FfD listing so apologies if the reasoning is inappropriate to list here, but this is an unofficial cover to an unofficial remix to the song that the image keeps on being attempted to be added to. Azealia911 _talk 20:31, 15 April 2016 (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:Headshot of Vanessa Ferlito.pdf

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: Speedy deleted as duplicate Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image being used to illustrate living person; claims to have permission from the copyright holder, but no permission is listed or provided anywhere only (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same image has been uploaded as File:Body photograph of Vanessa Ferlito.pdf, and tagged with an OTRS ticket number. This file can be deleted as an unused duplicate. -- Whpq (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2016 (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:Gold Apollo Two Way Pager.png

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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement on screen, enough free alternatives. Laber□^T 23:19, 15 April 2016 (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:L Ron Hubbard R2-45 Racket Exposed ads.png

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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons.

WP:NFCCP #8 is in question here as the addition of a newspaper clipping probably does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic.
I think that this particular clipping does significantly enhance the understanding of the topic, because it shows the content in its original presentation, as an official-looking notice in a special-interest magazine with the organisation's founder's signature at the bottom. --Slashme (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More convincingly, the image seems to be a clear cut example of WP:NFC#UUI #15. Therefore, it fails the non-free content guideline. Majora (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the talk page when inclusion was discussed, this image was obtained from someone's blog in Germany. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is whether the image is being used to quote more text than would be acceptable under a reasonable understanding of fair-use. This is not what's going on here. The actual text is quite short, and the image is being used to provide context. It wasn't originally published in a for-profit publication, and we're not infringing anyone's ability to make money off the text (which is normally the problem when a newspaper article is hosted in picture form on Wikipedia, short-circuiting the publisher's archive policy). --Slashme (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that it was from a free publication, it nonetheless is under copyright and clearly does fail WP:NFCCP #8. The substantive contents of the image are discussed and described in the last paragraph of the article (and were already so when the image was first added), so it can't reasonably be claimed to add substance to the article. Its use here seems to effectively be for corroboration, but Wikipedia's copyright policy doesn't allow for that. Don't forget that Wikipedia has a more restrictive view of copyrights than classic fair use would allow for. As such I think it has to be deleted and I think it was a mistake on the part of the uploader to try to add it. Prioryman (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for a point of clarity, NFCCP #8 is a rather subjective criterion and I understand that people are going to read that differently. That is why I put the phrase, "more convincingly," in the second part of my rationale. The image is a clear cut example of an unacceptable fair use claim for images. Therefore, it fails our fair use criteria and should be deleted. NFC#UUI has no ambiguity, has no subjectivity, and the image is a clear violation of that. --Majora (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with that. Prioryman (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2016 (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.