Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 April 7

< April 6	April 8 >

April 7

File:The Best of Ronnie Dove.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: relicensed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect licensing: the copyright holder doesn't just release their rights like that. If this is public domain, we need proper licensing to establish this. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly mis-licensed. I have changed the licensing to non-free album cover and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2019 (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:Tor com 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: relicensed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect licensing: the copyright holder doesn't just release their rights like that. If this is public domain, we need proper licensing to establish this. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just merely followed the licensing tag on this Wikipedia file from which I based the SVG version of the logo. If that was incorrect, kindly advise me on which proper license tag I should use. Thanks. --Moonrivers (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense Also meets
WP:TOO --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 18:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Clearly mis-licensed. I have changed the licensing to non-free logo and added a fair use. Salavat (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2019 (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:Khia Love Locs Deluxe.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) 21:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate album cover which is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. A single album cover is sufficient for visual identification. Fails

WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2019 (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:Logo smaller gif2.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious non-free use rationale. This image of an outdated logo is unnecessary as we have the current logo (

WP:NFCCP criteria 3a (minimal number of items) and 8 (contextual significance). Verbcatcher (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2019 (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:GE9X cutaway.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: relisted on 2019 April 18. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:GE9X cutaway.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Boeing 777X launch.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 ⚡ 05:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this non-free photo (used on

WP:FU

: "no free equivalent", and "contextual significance".

(this image formerly displayed two airplanes and was used as lead. now that we have a free lead image, it is used to illustrate different configurations of the 777X)

The only useful visual information here is that the -8 airplane is shorter than the -9. A sentence is enough to convey this information. If not, a simple diagram could be created. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As you note, it is a different configurations, not illustrated in the main pic anymore. It will not have a free equivalent until the -8 variant is rolled out. The visual difference, being shorter, is the main difference between variants. There are others like the exit door config. This is a useful usage of a promo picture. A diagram would be a nice supplement.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this supports criteria #1 (a free equivalent could definitely be created for the same purpose) and #8 (removing the photo would not be detrimental to the readers’ understanding of the topic). We can add an external link to the non-free photo montage instead of embedding a thumbnail. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator's analysis is on target. We do not need an image of every design variation to convey the essential information. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is subjective, like my opinion, telling what level of detail we want in our encyclopedia. What could be objective?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFCC Ronhjones ^(Talk) 14:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I guess I'll comment since I originally uploaded this. I don't really recall the circumstances at the time. So, if we have a "free equivalent", where is it? Can someone post a link to it? Or are "free equivalents" actually a bit harder to come by than you imply? Boeing released the photo "for editorial use by news media". I'd like to view Wikipedia as a form of news media, since we're basically on every noteworthy breaking news story that reliable sources report about, from the get-go. I would be really surprised to learn that Boeing objected to this use of their photo, but if they did ask us to delete it, then sure we should delete it pronto upon their request. We should have deleted the "monkey selfie" upon request of the photographer, and I call bullcrap on the claim that the monkey was the responsible photographer. We caused real harm to the guy who was trying to make a living selling photos like that. I can't understand why we took such a soft line there, yet take such a hard line on photos released for promotional purposes. A rationale of "excessive promotion" would make more sense to me. On the other hand if the purpose is for model comparision, I find the photo lacking for that purpose. A better photo would line the different models up so as to show more explicitly how much longer or shorter this one was. Even the original version, before the other plane was cropped out, didn't really do a good job of comparing sizes. wbm1058 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An article on an airplane (or other product) does not need to have an image for every variant. With respect the the comment from the original uploader asking "if we have a "free equivalent", where is it?", per
WP:FREER, the replacement need not be another image, text is acceptable to convey the equivalent information. In this case, text stating the length difference is perfectly adequate replacement. -- Whpq (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2019 (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:Facebook Censorship Cropped.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 ⚡ 05:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this is actually free. No copyrightable, original, significant elements visible, so this should be PD due to not meeting any criteria for originality. In which case we can restore the larger version and move the file to Commons, right? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense It doesn't appear to have enough to meet threshold of originality. URLs are almost never copyrightable, and all of the text are simple sentences and definitely doesn't meet threshold of originality. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 19:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense {{PD-ineligible}} and move to Commons. c:Commons:Screenshots#To create a free screenshot seems to allow cases like this as sub-TOO. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 9 April 2019 (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:Fortifications of Charleroi.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) 21:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_plan_of_Charleroi_1693.jpg Yann (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is also a Commons version c:File:A plan of Charleroi 1693.jpg Abzeronow (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2019 (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:Suman sen 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) 21:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image is claimed to be CC-BY-SA 4.0 but the facebook source only states "free license" without any details as to what free license the image is released under. Furthermore, the image is credited to Sovan Sengupta, so the licensing needs to come from the photographer and not the subject of the photo. Whpq (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2019 (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:20070325 DuSable Museum New Construction.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) 21:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a derivative work, and can't be fair use, as it is not used. Yann (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No FoP in the US for 2D art. Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it's with fair use, its still orphaned (not used), and had to be lower quality, the image inside the sign itself is already small, we can't make it even smaller and still useful.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 20:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2019 (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:HHR and WNP Initials.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL-presumed[1] is not a valid license. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:37, 7 April 2019 (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.