Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 11

< August 10	August 12 >

August 11

File:Yusof Ishak.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image exists of the person from 1933 (see Yusof Ishak), while not used in the infobox, fails the non-free criteria where no free alternative must exist. Seloloving (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2022 (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:Ribena 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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused logo replaced by new vector file. Cloudbound (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2022 (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:NATO map 2.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 ⚡ 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden and Finland are not currently in NATO. Therefore, this is a fictitious map. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's hardly "fictitious". It's just an illustration of what such an addition to the NATO would look like. Considering both are joining, such an illustration could be useful. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2022 (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:Born Pink Tour.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 ⚡ 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing the {{PD-textlogo}} license. The horn-like structures on either side of the image are clearly complex graphics that go beyond the threshold of originality. ✗plicit 01:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Also the
Born Pink (tour) article redirects so a relicense would be unnecessary. Salavat (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2022 (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:Mohammad Hameed Shahid.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small, low res, no metadata. Clearly edited. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2022 (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:Mohammad-Amin Riahi01.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scanned image. Source/Permission needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2022 (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:Mohammed Shahid during the Brave Combat Federation press conference.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded for Mohammed "The Hawk" Shahid. No other use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2022 (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:Suraj Krishnaditya.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unused personal file. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2022 (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:GeckoTAT.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the copyright holder of the photograph actually gave the relevant rights to the uploader. Furthermore, the Flickr copy of the photograph was uploaded with an incompatible license. Since there is no reason to have a fair-use image of a random tattoo, this image should be deleted. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:34, 11 August 2022 (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:Mr. R.T. Deshmukh.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious own work per uploader's talk page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2022 (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:Mr.R.T.Deshmukh 3.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious own work per uploader's talk page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2022 (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:Otis R. Marston by Jorgen Visbak.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 ⚡ 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The file was uploaded under a Creative Commons license by someone who is not the photographer. There is no indication that the photographer gave them the right to do so. Similarly, the photograph's source is unclear. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Susmuffin, thanks for your note. This image, taken by Jorgen Visbak, is owned and curated by Grand Canyon National Park. As such, it is in the public domain. What do I need to do to make that crystal clear? Thank you so much for your assistance in this matter. Most cordially yours, Tom RRFWTommartin (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If true, the relevant license—Template:PD-USGov-Interior-NPS—should be added. An image that was taken by someone who works for the government as part of their official duties needs to be described as such. That would clear up any issues in the future. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relabel as {{PD-USGov}}. Buffs (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Buff and Susmuffin. I appreciate your taking the time to walk me through this. Where do I go to change the template for this image? Thank you again for your patience and direction. Cordially yours, Tom RRFWTommartin (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I relabeled the usage as {{PD-USGov}} as but I don't see how to correct the File History comment: "Please cite photo as courtesy Jorgen Visbak"

Thoughts? Thanks again, Tom RRFWTommartin (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine. The file history cannot be changed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:46, 12 August 2022 (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:Dory in Lava Falls by Duwain Whitis.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: I searched the VRT database and found no emails from Duwain Whitis. If you are the copyright holder and/or have been authorized to publish this file to Wikipedia, please follow these instructions to get the file restored. Thanks, FASTILY 21:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file was uploaded under a Creative Commons license by someone who is not the photographer. There is no indication that the photographer gave them the right to do so. Similarly, the photograph's source is unclear. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Susmuffin, thanks for your note. I uploaded this file with permission from the creator of the image, Duwain Whitis. How should we proceed to clean this up? I just got off the phone with Duwain and he is going to log in and see if he can update the rights information, or replace the image. Is that the simplest way to do it? Cordially yours, Tom RRFWTommartin (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He should go through VRT to confirm that he permits the uploading of the image under the given license. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

provisionally keep until info is confirmed/denied. Buffs (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Provisionally keep Let the photographer and uploader try to work things out with the VRT, given the uploader's response here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Susmuffin, Buffs, Mellohi, and Duwain,

Did Duwain do what he needed to do here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dory_in_Lava_Falls_by_Duwain_Whitis.jpg

Thank you for looking and for helping us get it right. Cordially yours, Tom RRFWTommartin (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He needs to go through VRT. The first email in the linked list is the one that he needs to contact. This is the form that he needs to send them. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:50, 12 August 2022 (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:Nope Soundtrack.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file was uploaded for and is used on the article

MOS:FILMMUSIC ("having cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous"). May be salvageable if the film's soundtrack is notable enough to warrant its own standalone article. —Matthew - (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2022 (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:Luftylandingboogerbearbargelnawglzouss.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: The file is currently unused (see

WP:NOTFILESTORAGE) and was deleted from Commons (so transferring it there isn't an option). No prejudice to restoration if someone finds an article to link the image in. -FASTILY 21:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Low quality. Can be replaced with File:Lufthansa Airbus A340-313 D-AIGY "soccer nose" "Lunen" (24606147754).jpg. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems high enough quality to keep. I see no reason to remove it as it shows a different angle of the plane. Buffs (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The copy on Commons has been deleted. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2022 (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:Danaam.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small, low res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:30, 11 August 2022 (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:Mustafa2211.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small, low res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2022 (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:MVNadkarni.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly cropped from somewhere. Permission/Source needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2022 (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:FreeFileSync Icon.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 ⚡ 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Probably doesn't qualify for fair use because a smaller version is distributed with the source package. [1] We can assume it is also available under the GPL as there are no statements that say otherwise. It is my understanding that authors sometimes release images under a free license while applying stricter terms to higher resolution versions. Copyright law is not clear on whether this is enforceable, but our policy is not to assume a high-resolution version of an image is free unless it is below the threshold of originality or its copyright has expired. However, there's a good chance the former is true, in which case the discussion would be moot. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relabel as PD-Simple. There a dozens of VERY similar and uncopyrighted logo/arrows. I fail to see this reaching TOO. Buffs (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is below the threshold of originality and think it would be fine to transfer this to Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2022 (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:Rihanna - Talk That Talk (deluxe).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although this cover is an alternative cover art, and different to the original it is incorrectly licensed. Its a non-free cover art and its rational says "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work". This is incorrect, it is included as an alternative cover, and therefore is not the primary means of identification. Furthermore, the cover art is for a deluxe version of the album that has bonus tracks. None of these tracks were released or of significance. Furthermore, the description on the image page could easily be used in the article to describe the contents of the image. All of this equates to a failure of the principles and rules from

WP:NFCC >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2022 (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.