Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 March 13

< March 12	March 14 >

March 13

File:1FCFeuchtold.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that historical logo. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:1FCFeuchtold.png, but was closed as "no consensus". This file actually looks like two images combined together to form a single file and the previous deletion indicated that it might be possible for at least both if not at least one of the images to be WP:PD. Pinging Masem and Stefan2 for opinions since they were the other participants in the 2015 NFCR discussion, and Tristessa de St Ange, the adminsitrator who closed the discussion as a courtesy.. If there's no way to convert the entire file or at least part of it to PD, it should be deleted per JJMC89 post above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:45, 13 March 2020 (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:3 Wuppertal.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that historical logo. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JJMC89. This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:3 Wuppertal.png and File:Elberfeld historical.png, but was closed as "no consensus", even though the only comments seemed to be that its use didn't statisfy WP:NFCCP. Pinging Masem for opinions since he was the other participant in the 2015 NFCR discussion and Tristessa de St Ange, the adminsitrator who closed the discussion as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This file was also previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 May 11#Image:3 Wuppertal.png. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:47, 13 March 2020 (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:Elberfeld historical.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of sourced critical commentary about that historical logo. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JJMC89. This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 71#File:3 Wuppertal.png and File:Elberfeld historical.png, but was closed as "no consensus", even though the only comments seemed to be that its use didn't statisfy WP:NFCCP. Pinging Masem for opinions since he was the other participant in the 2015 NFCR discussion and Tristessa de St Ange, the adminsitrator who closed the discussion as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Only as a comment here that these would be US-PDonly but not under German threshold of originality (eg they likely copyrightable in Germany). They may be able to be kept? --Masem (t) 06:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If either image can be converted to PD as its own file, then keeping it or them as separate files seems fine. I’m not sure, however, whether the combination of the two together as single file would be something that’s eligible for its own copyright, but there’s really not a lot (if any) creativity involved in placing two logos side by side, at least not in the US. Not sure about Germany though. One thing about this file is that it was also previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 May 11#Image:Elberfeld historical.png and the consensus was “keep”. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:46, 13 March 2020 (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:Rajiv Ranjan at Capgemini Bangalore Mar 2018.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo used only in what appears to be a hopeless draft of a personal social media profile. Likely autobiographical, making this an image of the uploader not by the uploader. GMG ^talk 14:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image is required to complete my article, in other words personal social media profile can be said, fair enough. I am soon launching my own portal on internet which is not in the scope of wikipedia now. Also I have seen many other images of other people profile have been uploaded here. So I would request, please allow permit to publish this image for my article which will be submitted for review upon completion, currently I am working on it in draft mode. Thank you.--Sat-cusat (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2020 (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:Smrkovsky.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyvio. It's unclear what is meant by "official photo of J.S. for distribution"; GFDL license did not exist in 1968. Publication cannot have placed the photograph in the public domain in either Czechia (which has a 70 year term) or US. b uidhe 22:51, 13 March 2020 (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.