Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 July 27

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27

File:WWE current 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 ⚡ 13:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality Imperial meter (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But easier to see - doesn't matter the "quality" if you can't see it. White letters against a white background is hard to see. Black background makes it easier to see. If we can get the "Higher quality logo" on a black background, great. But no matter the quality, white on white doesn't work. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: Such an image already exists and is in use: File:WWE current logo.png on WWE. Buffs (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although he has a valid point, this file is low quality and has to be removed but the SVG file exists. -Imperial meter (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your "delete" is redundant as you're the nominator. Buffs (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image is surpassed by the File:WWE_Black_HQ_logo.png. There is simply no need for File:WWE current logo.png as a higher res image has replaced it. Buffs (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm the one who uploaded the Black HQ logo, the one we're discussing here is now no longer needed, so if you want to delete it, knock yourself out. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:57, 27 July 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.

"Fargo" images

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. ✗plicit 12:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These non-free images are being used in the infoboxes for episodes of Fargo. The non-free usage rationales do not state a purpose; they just describe the scene. The images's use is decorative, and the removal of the image would not detract from a reader's understanding of the article. Fails

A person in Georgia (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete all. The non-free usage rationale is a lazy boilerplate with the same vague purpose of "Key moment in the episode" for each image with no explanation as to what the key moment is. For all but
WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Whpq. Buffs (talk) 17:40, 27 July 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:May1.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 ⚡ 13:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful own work per uploader's talk page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, unencyclopedic, probable copyvio. Buffs (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:17, 30 July 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:Mbb0708.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 ⚡ 13:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful own work per uploader's talk page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, unencyclopedic, probable copyvio. Buffs (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:17, 30 July 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:MBBR231.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 ⚡ 13:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small, low res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, unencyclopedic, probable copyvio. Buffs (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:17, 30 July 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:MDCUltimate Trio Silver.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 2022 August 3. ✗plicit 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:MDCUltimate Trio Silver.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:MDC Comfort Trio.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 2022 August 3. ✗plicit 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:MDC Comfort Trio.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:Megaworld Lifestyle Malls 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The leaves are probably above the originality threshold of the Philippines. As such this should be considered as a fair use file. Unused. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete unused (purported) logo without evidence that it is the actual logo. Buffs (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:20, 30 July 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:Melina-Paez-June-2016-sm.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 ⚡ 13:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded for Melina Paez. No other use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep I think there are some applications for it. Even though she doesn't need an article about it, there's no reason to delete it. It may become useful someday and could be uploaded/transferred to commons. Buffs (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the photo is a portfolio type image typically taken for actors by a professional photographer. The user name implies that the uploader is the subject of the photo so the copyright claim would need confirmation. -- Whpq (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:21, 30 July 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:Mendon-Honeoye Falls-Lima Sentinel.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 ⚡ 13:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems complicated enough to not be considered as a {{PD-textlogo}}. i.e. Non-free. Unused. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, it's definitely in the {{PD-textlogo}} realm, however I don't see it being used. Additionally, it very much seems to match the official office sign of the publication, but I don't see this as an official logo. Fan art? Practice? Sample for a client? Not sure where it would be used as it isn't an actual entity as far as I can tell. If it is, this doesn't appear to be their wordmark/logo. Buffs (talk) 18:05, 27 July 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:Toriqul Islam Tusher.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

G11 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Uploaded for Toriqul Islam Tusher. No other use. Spam. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:10, 27 July 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:DAR COOCHE HAYE ESHGH.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 ⚡ 14:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small, low res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly from the movie in question. Given that there is no commentary on the image/contents, it fails NFCC. Buffs (talk) 18:07, 27 July 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:PhillyBonkers' Logo.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 ⚡ 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be an official Sponge Bob drawing but still I doubt that this is okay to be licensed as GFDL. MGA73 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fan art which makes it a derivative work. I see no encyclopedic applications of this image and NFC cannot be used on user pages. Buffs (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mislabelled non-free file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:22, 30 July 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:Osabel in July 2022.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 ⚡ 01:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is asserting copyright on this image which is a graduation photo. These types of photos are normally handled by professional photo studios and the copyright would remain with them.

VRT verification of copyright would be needed. Whpq (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete unless VRT confirms ownership. Free images could be made. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 27 July 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.