Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 January 15

< January 14	January 16 >

January 15

File:Mindful chef horizontal logo.svg

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) 19:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, broken SVG file. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should work fine when you open the SVG file itself, I don't know why the image renders like that and why it hasn't corrected itself. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 09:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objections on withdrawing this if the file can be fixed. Just a note that this file was never used on the article itself. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:38, 18 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:Banksy Torquay robot.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom FOP does not extend to 2D graphic works like murals and graffiti by known artists. This is not eligible for {{FoP-USonly}} as the artwork is not a physical building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See comment below.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - authorship is only speculation -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 24 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:Banksy Torquay robot crop.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom FOP does not extend to 2D graphic works like murals and graffiti by known artists. This is not eligible for {{FoP-USonly}} as the artwork is not a physical building. Invalid {{Ir-FOP}} tag as it is not a building as per U.S. law; and not free in its country of physical location. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this news story. It may be by Banksy, but as usual there is no direct confirmation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - authorship is only speculation -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 24 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:Funicular1953.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. Whpq (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although the location of first publication is unknown, it would still be copyrighted in Russia and Ukraine in 1996 as a post-1946 photograph. This means that it is still copyrighted in the US per URAA restoration. Felix QW (talk) 11:52, 15 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:2C2P Pte Ltd.Corporate Logo.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. Whpq (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file - company logo. Cannot be transferred to commons. Topic seemingly not notable enough for an article (startup as per description, 2C2P is a redirect) Lewis Cawte (Talk) 12:14, 15 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:Freeform Fox Family Channel logo.svg

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 ⚡ 09:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been disagreement in the past about whether this logo is above the threshold of originality (cf. its history). If it is considered non-free, the guidance for former logos would suggest not keeping it. Felix QW (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as pd-simple. It's text and simple swirls -- Whpq (talk) 22:12, 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:Georgepeta village, Sri rama pattabishekam.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. Whpq (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although the uploader claims this photo to be their own work, they also state "georgepeta" as a source and Facebook as prior publication. Since they already have some copyright warnings on their userpage, I prefer to open this up to discussion. Felix QW (talk) 15:05, 15 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:GlasNaroden.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. Whpq (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted at Commons as a copyright violation. Non-free use at its current articles is debatable. Felix QW (talk) 15:42, 15 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:Gomberg Gecko.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. Whpq (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This file, uploaded for use on David Gomberg, should really have WP:VRT authentication (despite the user name, DavidGomberg has not even declared a conflict of interest regarding his edits at David Gomberg). Felix QW (talk) 16:14, 15 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:Gorica Stadium.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Slovenia, and even the US freedom of panorama does not cover 2D works. However, Commons is inconsistent in applying this to graffiti, so I am putting it up for discussion here too. Note that the file is currently orphaned. Felix QW (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:48, 16 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:Grand Picture House Tottenham.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. Whpq (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image can be found at [1], and the date of 1923 given there seems very reasonable given the films advertised. However, it is not a formal image and we have no indication of author or publication history to definitively confirm its copyright status in either the UK or the US. Felix QW (talk) 16:57, 15 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:ABCTV2001.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. Whpq (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Affected:

Likely above the threshold of originality even in the U.S. due to the 3D effects. Logos appear to be used decoratively as there is no commentary about them in the article. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:24, 15 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:Cast 01.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 ⚡ 03:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free cast photo does not have a clear stated purpose. Presumably to illustrate the main cast. To that end, it fails WP:NFCC#1 as most of the cast have free images available in c:Category:The Andy Griffith Show. The sole exception is Aunt Bee, who does have her own article wity a non-free image so usage here fails WP:NFCC#3a Whpq (talk) 21:27, 15 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:Guan Pinghu.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 ⚡ 09:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dating of the image is unclear. If it is from after 1945, it would have been hit by the URAA restorations and would still be copyrighted in the US. Could also be eligible for non-free use in Guan Pinghu. Felix QW (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no evidence of permission, and we have no publication information. This is not eligible for conversion to non-free use as we have no evidence of previous publication by the copyright holder so WP:NFCC#4 is a problem. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 24 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:MrHaney.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is used "[t]o identify in the infobox the actor playing his most recognizable role". Looking at identification, c:File:Pat Buttram Billboard 2.jpg, while not a great quality image, is sufficient for identification of the actor. As for the Mr. Haney role, there is no significant sourced commentary about the image or the character. Fails WP:NFCC#1, and WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq. Furthermore, a free equivalent image of Buttram as "Mr. Haney" was found and uploaded to Commons as File:Pat Buttram infobox crop.jpg so a non-free is now longer needed for WP:FREER even for use outside of the main infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 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:Chester Conklin Her Majesty, Love publicity photo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single publicity still does not "identify the range of parts played by this actor" as claimed in the stated purpose. The image is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a chance that the publicity photo was circulated without a copyright notice, which would suffice to render it in the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a good possibility that is the case but I was unable to find any evidence. There is a copy for sale on ebay but it only shows the front of the photo. -- Whpq (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While a single non-collage photo cannot - obviously - show the range of parts played by the actor, in combination with the other character image in the article (from 1919) it does exactly that. Further, it is not accurate that the image violates NFCC#8, since by showing an image of Conklin which differs drastically from the "Walrus" image in the article, it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the [subject], and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.] NFCC#8 does not require words in the article to make the point that the two images do by there very exhibition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination if this cannot otherwise be converted to PD. It possibly could be argued that NFCC#8 was being met if their was some kind of sourced critical commentary about Conklin's appearance in the film Her Majesty, Love, but the film is mentioned once by name in the file's caption and once in the article's filmography section; so, I disagree that omitting it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding in any way. The point behind NFCC#8 is, at least in my opinion, is to ensure there's actually a strong contextual connection between what's written in the article and the non-free content being used. In other words, omitting the image from the article somehow makes what's written in the article more difficult to understand. I don't see that being the case here, and pretty much arguing WP:THOUSANDWORDS could be done for any image since you pretty much take two images (non-free or free) from different points in any individual's career or like and there's a good chance they'd probably look different. What's needed in my opinion per WP:NFCC is that there's some strong contextual reason for seeing the two image and this is almost always established by tying the image directly into sourced critical commentary about the individuals appearance. Conklin appeared in lots of films throughout his career. Why is this particular non-free image from this particular film preferred to a non-free image from any one of the other ones? If another non-free image from another film could be used to illustrate the filmography section just as easily as this one, then most likely no non-free image is necessary at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -FASTILY 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as non-compliant with NFCC. In 2027, ninety-five years after the photo's publication, the image should be undeleted as PD and then exported to Wikimedia Commons. George Ho (talk) 22:34, 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:I Hate Boys (Christina Aguilera song - sample).ogg

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 ⚡ 03:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The song sample is not used to demonstrate critical commentary of the song structure within the target article and therefore fails WP:NFCC >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:59, 15 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.