Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 22

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fujimaru 0.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pati cabana (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Appears to be copyrighted, see ru:Файл:Shonen Ninja Kaze no Fujimaru.jpg Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value and copyright issues. Salavat (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:FujianPeople'sGovernmentFlag.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AjaxSmack (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

superseded by File:Flag of Fujian People's Government.svg Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to the SVG version. Salavat (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to the SVG version. —  AjaxSmack  19:43, 24 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fullfat.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muhd Alif (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

superseded by File:Fullfat.png Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to the PNG version. Salavat (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fullexternal.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benderson2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

image of non-useful material. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fullpipe.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tuckjow (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Superior, real-life images are available and used to depict this object. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:FurnyHalloween.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SamFlans (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

probable copyvio, album cover for a non-notable band. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with copyright issues. Salavat (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:FurtherReading.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ryn78 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned, too low in quality to be of realistic use. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Future single.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rm w a vu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I created the file and can't even remember why. Perhaps because it was like 10 years ago? Also it's pretty terrible looking regardless. --rm 'w avu 22:56, 22 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuzzzy-screenshot1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hypox0 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

website screenshot, possible copyvio. also not a notable website Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with copyright issues. Salavat (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuzzzy logo1.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hypox0 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

non-notable website, no foreseeable encyclopedic use Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Top 5 at 2009 bay league finals cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pcohen8 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file of no use to project only (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2017 (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.

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. Insufficient source information for the underlying image to determine whether it was originally released under a free license. ℯxplicit 00:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SavannahSquares.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PurpleChez (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

no foreseeable use, original map copyright status unknown Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that @PurpleChez: has commented on the talk page. Pinting them here as the place to comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus...here's what I posted at the other spot....

Hi! Got notice that this file is "listed for discussion," where it is tagged as having "no foreseeable use." For reasons I still don't understand the firewall on my work computer blocks images in wikipedia, so I can't tell for sure which of these images it might be, but many years ago I created several schematics that are still utilized in the Squares of Savannah article. I'll follow up at home when I can see more, but please let me know what I can do to clarify this. Thanks!!!PurpleChez (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This image can always be re-uploaded at a later date with the proper licensing info. For now though since we don't know where it came from, we cant just assume it is free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't see why this cant be re-uploaded at a later date. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2017 (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.

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 2018 January 18. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ganjamarsh.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.

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: keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:One Piece, Volume 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnmaFinotera (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The articles List of One Piece chapters (1–186), List of One Piece manga volumes and List of best-selling comics do not need any covers as they could simply refer to the One Piece article which contains a cover. The situation is a bit similar to WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Original uploader not noticed since the talk page is fully protected. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the motivation makes sense, would you mind explaining it further? Linking to an other article which has an image is not helpful to the articles in question. Why would a reader have to click on another article to have to see an image related to the one they are already reading?

In these cases having an image is greatly beneficial it increases understanding of the subject and in identifying it. Tons of comic related articles have several fair use images of covers to identify volumes of a title because it is very helpful, I see no reason to why this would be different, the image does in no way hinder the sales of the product and is encyclopedic as far as I can see. The image used in the main One Piece article is not relevant to the the lists except in the one which that specific volume appears.

Whether any article at all "needs" an image is pretty debatable. Most article have images because it's encyclopedic and helpful or because the image is free and why not in that case.★Trekker (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One use of non-free book cover per article sounds reasonable. One Piece is now a massive franchise so it would be unreasonable to expect the reader to click on the main article to find out more about the particular series they're currently reading about. Deryck C. 11:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see an issue with one non-free book cover per page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFLISTS. A seemingly random cover used for decoration, and is not vital to the understanding of the articles. The omission of this image would not be detrimental to that understanding, therefore violating WP:NFCC#8. ℯxplicit 00:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is it random? It is the first volume of the series, so it would be appropriate for the lists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Picture is useful in identifying what the manga volumes of the series is like. Many FL's like The Simpsons (season 7) have non-free images of covers for their appropriate seasons. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A false equivalency. File:The Simpsons - The Complete 7th Season.jpg is the DVD cover of season 7 of The Simpsons, which is being used in the article about season 7 of The Simpsons. A more apt comparison would be List of The Simpsons episodes, which does not and should not contain any non-free image per the WP:NFCC policy. File:One Piece, Volume 1.jpg should only be used in the article about the first volume of One Piece. In this case, we simply don't have one. List of One Piece chapters (1–186) is not an article about the first volume of One Piece, it covers the initial 20. List of One Piece manga volumes is not an article about the first volume of One Piece, it covers all of its manga volumes. List of best-selling comic series is definitely not an article about the first volume of One Piece.

  As noted by the nominator in his comparison to the second example of WP:NFC#UUI, a non-free cover of an album can not be used in discographies, which are also list articles. Not even of the first album (note the equivalency here between first album cover and first volume cover). ℯxplicit 03:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it isn't the first volume. However, it establishes what the manga covers typically look like in terms of the logo lettering and the style and that becomes consistent for the series, making it identifiable. This isn't an album cover as album covers are almost all unique. This would be more like For Dummies series where a representative volume is shown. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Dummies is a standard article, while the ones aforementioned are list articles. They are treated differently under policy (see WP:NFC#Multimedia). It is worth noting that One Piece also contains a manga cover that represents the logo lettering and the style you speak of (and therefore perfectly fails the example as listed at point six of WP:NFC#UUI). If the cover of volume one is preferred than the one of volume 61 currently used in the main article, then that can be changed, but there is seriously an incredibly lousy argument to include any cover in the list articles. There appears to be this perception that the list articles are entitled to a non-free image. They are not. ℯxplicit 02:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per others. – 1989 19:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on List of One Piece manga volumes and List of One Piece chapters (1–186), but remove from List of best-selling comics. For the articles specifically about One Piece, I think the volume cover would be very helpful for someone unfamiliar with the series to identify which series is being discussed. I don't agree with the notion that someone should have to go to another article to figure out what these articles are about. The use of the images on those pages seems to comply with all the criteria of WP:NFCC. However, for the List of best-selling comics, the image only helps with identifying one of the many series talked about, and thus is less useful to a reader (probably failing WP:NFCC#8). Furthermore, it appears there are many cover images in the Classics Illustrated article that are described as being in the public domain. One of those images could instead be used in List of best-selling comics to give an example of one of the best-selling series, so the current non-free image would probably also fail WP:NFCC#1. Calathan (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Please close - This discussion has been open for over 2 months now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2017 (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.

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 2018 January 18. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Franklin Enders nobel.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.

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: keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plain White T's in 2005.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Strangerer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 23:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: Actually, a picture of a very notable band can probably be transferred to Commons. This image is valuable because it shows the band before they became famous; such images are much rarer than "post-famous" photos. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. However, I'm still seeing source/permission issues with the image. The original source link is dead, so we can't verify that the copyright holder actually agreed to release the file into the PD. -FASTILY 17:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So the photo was taken by Ich in 2005 and uploaded here by Strangerer in 2008. Unless Ich can confirm the copyright status, I can’t see how this file can be kept, let alone transferred to Commons. The archived links are useful for noting they were available in 2007, but don’t include copyright information. Green Giant (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I took these photos a zillion years ago at the old location of "Championship" (now The Champ, apparently) in Lemoyne, PA. I forgot the photos still existed on Wikipedia. I'm pretty it's actually not the Plain White T's - I think it was the opening band and my recordkeeping was sloppy when I uploaded the links. The original full resolution files I have on a hard drive in a basement six timezones away from here. Please feel free to delete or move to a better generic name like "emo band performance" or whatever. I hereby release all four linked files into the public domain. Again, I am pretty sure this was the opening band, and nobody listens to emo music anymore, besides, so I'm indifferent to the outcome. Thanks for bringing up the memory though.-Ich (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2017 (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.

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, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:1965 War the Australian Newspaper.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HIAS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The uploader falsely claims that the source is "PAF Museum, Karachi", even when the image is rather obviously taken from a Pakistani blog.[1]

File:Captured Indian Centurion tank in 1965 War near Chawinda, Sep 1965.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HIAS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).[2] should also be deleted for the same reason. Even the text in the description is copied verbatim from that blog.

The user has a history of uploading copyright violations on both the English Wikipedia and Commons. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 13:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You haven't explained what leads you to believe the images are lifted from the blog. It could also be vice versa. Also, the resolution of both pics appears to be different. Mar4d (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was posted on that website years before the uploading user ripped them off here. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the resolution does not matter at all, because vector graphics are scalable, they can be scaled at any size without losing quality. A quick glance at the upload log of HIAS,[3] shows that he uploaded File:Pakistani Forces captured Kishangarh Fort in 1965 War.png and File:Captured Indian Centurion tank in 1965 War near Chawinda, Sep 1965.png on the same day, both of which he took from here. Given this user's history of uploading copyvios both here and on Commons, it's safe to say that he intentionally uploaded these files with false source and authorship claims in order to make them look fine. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 09:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)edited by —MBL ^Talk 07:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep MBlaze, I don't understand your argument here. It's common for Blogs to use material like this. What are you even suggesting? --Xinjao (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjao the image was copied from a blog which is protected with copyrights. And since the image itself comes from an unreliable source it has no place in encyclopedia. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete ripped off from an unreliable blog and provided a fake source "PAF Museum", which is not even possible because the image clearly matches with what the uploading user copied from the blog.. same content same position and so on. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Both the images are copyright violations, and I can't see how they can be used in a "fair use" way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since finding pictures of that time and especially times of war are extremely difficult and rare, it seems to satisfy fair use, at least for now until some unpublished free use source turns up in the future.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear copyright violation from a source known for nothing but hoax. WP:ILIKEIT is always a bad reason to vote keep. Capitals00 (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing to meet WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 for the newspaper clipping and WP:NFCC#8 for the captured tank image. The newspaper image is non-free and being used with a rationale of "It will explain the Position of Pakistani Forces." The image includes copyrighted elements with nothing to do with the 1965 war so WP:NFCC#3 is an issue. More serious is that the image in now way supports the stated purpose as it provides no insight to any reader as to the positioning of Pakistani forces. The tank image is used with a rationale of "It will show the image of captured tank which alternative cannot show." but there is no discussion aboi=ut a captured tank or why it is an important element of the battle. It;s use is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: The Australian clipping is useful in the sense that it describes a foreign newspaper's reporting of a major battle from the 1965 war. So I disagree with your assertion that it is not relevant to the context (WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8). The tank image is also entirely in context of the Chawinda battle. I don't see how this requirement is any different from File:Pattonb.jpg, File:Basantar2.jpg and File:Longewala Tank.jpg, all of which are being used similarly. Mar4d (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those files are not ripped off from unreliable source and fall under fair use unlike these 2. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:::"Copyright BHARAT RAKSHAK. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of BHARAT RAKSHAK is prohibited." The 3 images are in clear violation of stated copyright. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)blocked sock of Liborbital[reply]

@Mar4d: The stated purpose with which to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for the newspaper clipping is to explain Pakistani force positions. It does no such thing. Your assertion that it is useful to show foreign coverage is not what is stated in the FUR. And ieven if it were, there is nothing in the article that addresses foreign news coverage so it too would faill point 8. As for the tank image, it may be a photo of a cpatured tank from the battle, but there is no soruced commentary about the image with which to satisfy point 8. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This file was also nominated before, but it seems to have been brought up and reverted based on WP:AN [4]. Would appreciate if this could be looked into. Mar4d (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So deletion tag is not nomination. On WP:AN there was no decision but we agreed that HIAS(uploading user) had not provided source. He never completed those terms of providing sources or permission and just edit warred over deletion tag. Proves that he ripped off images in bad faith and was never able to convince otherwise. And one more of his concerning image[5] has been deleted already but these 2 are left. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Blatant copyvio. The reliability of the source blog is also very questionable and makes the images a candidate for possible hoax. Razer(talk) 08:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Both the images contain no meta data to suggest that they are copyrighted nor does the blog makes any such claim. The blog itself lists Wikipedia among others as it reference. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC) blocked for socking[reply]

• Delete - Readers should be trusted to understand what the free content describes about the topic of the article, the Battle of Chawinda, which happened during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. I don't understand the relisting of this nomination. The newspaper clip of an article is unnecessary, and even neither correcting the file description nor omitting this image would change readers' understanding about the battle itself. --George Ho (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It does not qualify for the Wikipedia Fair Use policy because it does not add any contextual significance to the article. It does not increase a readers understanding of the article nor will its omission affect the article in any way. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2017 (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.

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: keep. Delete second image. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Album Edyta Gorniakpolish cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jonny84 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

In violation of WP:NFCCP#3a: a similar album cover image is being used in article Edyta Górniak (album). Wcam (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this Polish image but delete File:Album Edyta Gorniak international cover.jpg - The singer was Polish, so the Polish edition can be used. The European/international release has the similar artwork but different font. I believe that the Polish one enhances readers' understanding more than the international one, though the international artwork was prominently used globally. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Delete File:Album Edyta Gorniak international cover.jpg. --Wcam (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The international was the original edition, while the polish was a reedition. So we should only keep the original international cover from the first edition. --Jonny84 (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction(?), Jonny84: The international edition was released one year after the Polish release. See their back covers. --George Ho (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The album was released in Japan and Taiwan earlier. And I meant the polish reedition, which had more songs than the standard international version. Because the standard version was the same international and in Poland, except the font. But in my opinion the international cover is more interesting (for the english language Wikipedia) than a local cover for one state. --Jonny84 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the special edition (Edycja Specjalna), Jonny84? The "Edycja Specjalna" has additional words/subtitle on the front cover, while the standard Polish one didn't. --George Ho (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Devudu (Audio).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by B.Bhargava Teja (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Audio covers in film articles violate WP:NFCC. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meizu logo2.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RaphaelQS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Could be uploaded to Commons under {{PD-textlogo}}, it isn't a work of calligraphy so it should be OK to fall under TOO for China. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense to pd-logo and transfer to Commons. Salavat (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2017 (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.

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⚡ 04:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:American Labor Party for Jill Stein 2016.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Braddrake9 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

possible derivative of non-free content (badge) FASTILY 20:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned file with no obvious value and potential licensing issues. Salavat (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2017 (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.