Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 25

< March 24	March 26 >

March 25

Cover art in "I Put a Spell on You"

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 by Dianna. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free cover art for the Sonique and Creedence Clearwater Revial cover versions of the song

WP:NFC#cite note-2. Each version is only mentioned briefly as part of a list of cover versions in I Put a Spell on You#Covers and samples and understanding what little is written does not require that the reader actually see the cover art. I don't feel that the fact there are infoboxes for the songs is sufficient justification for their non-free use, unless these files were being used in stand-alone articles about each version. So, I suggest delete for each file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 25 March 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:SoftServe logo new.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This obvious textlogo is shadowing a higher quality version on Commons and should probably be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:39, 25 March 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:Shimla2.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image with no foreseeable use, especially given the scarcity of information about what it is. It is also shadowing a Commons file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:04, 25 March 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:Shariarshafiq.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. Insufficient publication information to confirm that the copyright has expired, so nominator's proposal was followed through. — ξ ^xplicit 02:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the license on

WP:NFCC#1 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Should be PD-Iran given date of death. I assume URAA doesn't come into play given that the US has no copyright relations with Iran in the first place. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:54, 27 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:Santa Maria delle Grazie Milano.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 ⚡ 04:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

There exists an almost identical file on Commons as commons:File:Santa Maria delle Grazie Milano.jpg. Are both files wanted? The colour correction appears to be the only difference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes we need the original file as it is the source.
© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:12, 2 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:Sample.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 by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another placeholder file name which we somehow missed, should probably be deleted and salted like the other ones in the Template:Protected generic file name discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:34, 25 March 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:Rai radio1.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This logo is being used not in the infobox as the page claims, but as a gallery of old logos which have been routinely deleted for violating

WP:NFCC#8. Unless that butterfly-like figure is somehow not original enough to be copyrightable, this file should be deleted. Likewise, the current file is shadowing a Commons file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:52, 25 March 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:SantiagoSatellite.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 KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file contains two different versions, the older one which exists on Commons as File:SantiagoSatellite.jpg and a newer one. The older version should be deleted and then the remaining local file moved to Commons/renamed so that it no longer shadows the Commons image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I split the newer file, which is now available at File:SantiagoSatellite2006.jpg, and deleted the older one under F8. Katie^talk 21:42, 4 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:Sat.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: Move File is now at File:Man and Red Bus.jpg ★ Bigr Tex 23:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A mostly unused file with a vague name that is shadowing Commons, no foreseeable use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move. A user is using this as an image (presumably of themselves) in their user space (actually on User talk but it's harmless) . Moving the file, changing that link, then deleting the redirect will avoid the shadowing of commons while allowing the user to keep using this picture. --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:37, 13 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:SbX.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file was tagged by the uploader as "keep local" because of possible copyright issues but the almost identical Commons version was discussed here and judged not to be copyrightable. With that in mind, is the local copy still needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 25 March 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:Seen.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of an unidentified mushroom, probably no foreseeable use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:32, 25 March 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:Seriescellelectrolyzerdesign.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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An almost identical but larger image of the same thing exists on Commons under the same name commons:File:Seriescellelectrolyzerdesign.png and seems like it's more reliably licensed as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:35, 25 March 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:Kiana.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I transferred the Flickr file directly to Commons at File:Kiana, South Australia.jpg, which is slightly different from this file, since this file seems to have some blur in the foreground for some reason. Since the original version of the file is sharper, I've replaced the usage in the article, so this file is now obsolete. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also corrected the license for this version of the file, since the source specifies cc-by-sa-2.0, not cc-by-3.0. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:48, 25 March 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.