Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 31

< July 30	August 1 >

July 31

File:Land of the Lost (1974) - Grumpy and a Pylon.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 ⚡ 06:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

WP:NFCC #8. While the T-Rex biting the pylon is mentioned, the description in the text is about the dinosaur getting an electric shock from biting the pylon, so an image of it staring at it isn't really relevant. Also, this image doesn't bring a whole lot that can't be effectively communicated via words. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:05, 31 July 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:Oswald Wirth Tarot Card Tower.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 ⚡ 06:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this card is not from the original tarot deck published by Oswald Wirth in 1889 (which you can see here), nor the updated designs published by Wirth in 1926 (which you can see here and here). Instead this card is from a deck created and published by U.S. Games in 1976 with new artwork based on the original Oswald Wirth deck (which you can see here, here, and here). Notice that the U.S. Games deck has woodcut style artwork, while Wirth's original artwork consists of simple line drawings. Also the background and labels on the U.S. Games cards are different. U.S. Games is very diligent about their copyrights, and as you can see here, their box says "COPYRIGHT © 1976 BY U.S. GAMES SYSTEMS INC". It could theoretically be converted to a Fair Use claim, but it wouldn't make sense to illustrate the Oswald Wirth article with artwork that isn't actually his. Instead we should use his actual card designs, which are now public domain. Kaldari (talk) 04:27, 31 July 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:Stoppie help.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 ⚡ 06:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and I can't think of a place where this would ever be used. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:38, 1 August 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:RutheFarmer.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 ⚡ 06:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a CC-0 licensed image sourced to flickr which indeed has the image licensed as CC-0, but it is unclear if the flickr account is the copyright holder. The image EXIF includes author and copyright holder information indicating Shaleena Cole of LeoSage Images as the copyright holder and not CSforALL. Whpq (talk) 17:59, 31 July 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:Ajey Nagar Channel Logo.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 ⚡ 06:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the youtube logo for one channel for a youtuber used in the bio of the youtuber. The logo is not the subject of significant sourced commentary and its use for identification is not appropriate as the is a biography and an article bout this one particular youtube channel. AS a means of identification for the person, it is replaceable by taking a freely licensed photo. Fails

WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 18:07, 31 July 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.

Images of the Poloc Cricket Club

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 -FASTILY 04:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both images were transferred to Commons and then tagged as "Now Commons" three months ago but are currently discussed at the Commons deletion discussion. Claims of copyright status are questionable and should be evaluated. George Ho (talk) 22:39, 31 July 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:Whitemosque.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whitemosque.jpg:

"Early 20th century" is the claimed date of photograph, but either no exact date of first publication is known at the moment, or the photograph was first released in 2002 or 2003, the year that would give the photo less copyright duration if unpublished until 2003. Neither this page nor that page explains much about the photo other than that the photo belongs to Ashmolean Museum of Oxford University.

Tagged as "Now Commons" since April. George Ho (talk) 23:02, 31 July 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.