Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 15

< June 14	June 16 >

June 15

File:Helmut Ruhemann.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: Converted to non-free -FASTILY 23:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helmut Ruhemann.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as fair use. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as fair use. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has since been retagged to fair use, which it likely meets as the subject is deceased. Hog Farm _Talk 15:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks User:Alexis Jazz. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2021 (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:Dougherty. Jpeg.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 ⚡ 01:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file that primarily shows the logo of Dougherty Comprehensive High School on the building of said school. As there is no FoP in the US, this file shouldn't be moved to Commons. For reference, it was taken with a Nikon Coolpix L20, same as File:Dougherty Comprehensive High School in 2009.jpg. I do believe the photo is own work, the issue is FoP for the logo. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2021 (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:Mathewson statue.png.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 ⚡ 01:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of a statue of Christy Mathewson. It's located in the US and there is no FoP in the US, so it shouldn't be moved to Commons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the following reasons:
1. As pointed out by the nominator, there’s no
  non-free content
  just because of the statue itself.
2. A photo of a 3D work of art is generally considered to be a
  WP:VRT
  . There’s no EXIF data or anything else which verifies that the copyright holder of the photo and the uploader are the same person; so, at the very least the uploader would need to verify this by emailing a consent email to VRT just for the photo.
3. Even if the copyright status of the photo could sorted out, the file would still be non-free because of the statue which means each use of the file would need to meet all ten of the
  WP:NFCC#8
  in my opinion and thus neither is policy compliant. Perhaps that could be remedied in one of the articles (most likely the one about Mathewson himself), but there’s no real need to use the image twice.
Just a suggestion for future reference is that it might have better if this FFD had been combined with the one immediately below since it's essentially about the same image uploaded by the same person. I basically copied and pasted my !vote from the one below because it seems just as applicable to this file. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, I'm not sure if combining would confuse the bot that usually closes these, so I just kept them apart. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: At this point, I think you're probably correct. My comment was intended more as a reference for future FFDs since multiple nominations are allowed and might be a way to avoid redundancy when essentially the same issue and same file is being discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2021 (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:Mathewson statue.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 ⚡ 01:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same photo of a statue of Christy Mathewson, used on his article and Factoryville, Pennsylvania. It's located in the US and there is no FoP in the US, so it shouldn't be moved to Commons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the following reasons:
1. As pointed out by the nominator, there’s no
  non-free content
  just because of the statue itself.
2. A photo of a 3D work of art is generally considered to be a
  WP:VRT
  . There’s no EXIF data or anything else which verifies that the copyright holder of the photo and the uploader are the same person; so, at the very least the uploader would need to verify this by emailing a consent email to VRT just for the photo.
3. Even if the copyright status of the photo could sorted out, the file would still be non-free because of the statue which means each use of the file would need to meet all ten of the
  WP:NFCC#8
  in my opinion and thus neither is policy compliant. Perhaps that could be remedied in one of the articles (most likely the one about Mathewson himself), but there’s no real need to use the image twice.
— Marchjuly (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2021 (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:Warkworth Castle MAP.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 ⚡ 01:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be an uncredited scan of a book, possibly a guidebook from the castle itself. The exact same map appears in somebody's collection of photos from the castle site at https://cdn.seearoundbritain.com/images/37132/p1160251.jpg, including a key which was omitted here.

talk) 11:00, 15 June 2021 (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:Zhurong rover and lander on Mars.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 ⚡ 01:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failing

WP:NFCC#1 as free equivalent images are available (e.g. File:Zhurong payload.jpg, File:Mars Global Remote Sensing Orbiter and Small Rover at IAC Bremen 2018 02.jpg) that could serve the same encyclopedic purpose of identifying the appearance of the Zhurong rover in the main infobox. Wcam (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2021 (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:Koo's transformation from old to 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect rationale - "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question" is what

WP:NFCCP, and if it does then it needs a substantial correct fair use rationale. I'm nominating for discussion, not deletion, because I'm not experienced enough to know what the right outcome is. — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - The image is not being used to serve as the primary means of identification as claimed. This illustrates the logo change but there is no significant sourced commentary about the logo change beyond stating the logo changed. As currently used, fails
WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails NFCC #8 as currently used, as there is not significant sources commentary about the logo change, just a statement that one occurred. Hog Farm _Talk 21:08, 15 June 2021 (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:Screenshot of official account of koo app.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 ⚡ 01:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stated purpose of this non-free images is "To show the official account of koo app" but there is no significant sourced commentary in the article that requires this image to be present to enhance understanding. The lack of this image in no way impairs a reader's understanding of the article. Fails

WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete fails NFCC#8 as per above. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 15 June 2021 (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:UFHealth 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; 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 ⚡ 01:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Most likely does not satisfy commons:COM:TOO, as a bicolor logo with blocky font. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P,TO 19104, @Clindberg: looks like a clear case of {{PD-textlogo}} to me? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that is PD-textlogo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@P,TO 19104: - Did you get your nomination backwards? Did you mean to say it does satisfy COM:TOO? Because the logo is currently licensed as non-free and if you believe the logo is too complex for copyright, then there is no reason to nominate the file. In any case, Relicense as a PD text logo and export to Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does not meet the TOO and is PD. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 12:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @P,TO 19104: Oops. Sorry. I should have had my coffee first. I have everything in my brains backwards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense to pd-logo and copy to Commons. Salavat (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2021 (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:Panorama of South Utopia Planitia, Mars, taken by Zhurong rover.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 ⚡ 01:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failing

WP:NFG) and is not accompanied by any sourced commentary about the image. The image is used in multiple articles without providing "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". Wcam (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Fails
WP:NFCC#8 as decorative use for all instances mentioned in the nomination. I've removed the image from the articles with no rationale for use. -- Whpq (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Added description of this panoramic image in the correspondent article so that it no longer serves solely "decorative" purpose. -- KevWang (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a description doesn't really raise it to the point that
WP:NFCC#8 is met. -- Whpq (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2021 (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:Ccfc.jpeg.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 ⚡ 01:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded one month before https://www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/495619479/ was uploaded. As the photo is from 1967, the photographer realistically is at least 70 years old, but Stuart looks younger than that. The Flickr photo page states "Please note this is an actual photograph print from my collection and not taken from elsewhere." which combined with his about page suggests to me that this is a photo from someone else that he has a physical copy of which he scanned. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2021 (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:Chelmsford City Football Ground, 1967.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 ⚡ 01:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See above. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2021 (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.