Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 11

< May 10	May 12 >

May 11

File:JenniferCihiWiki.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 per nom and WP:CSD#F4. clpo13_(talk) 22:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 08:24, 11 May 2018 (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:JenniferSmileWiki.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 per nom and WP:CSD#F4. clpo13_(talk) 22:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 08:25, 11 May 2018 (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:JilletteJohnson2012.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 ⚡ 02:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 10:31, 11 May 2018 (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:JillsHeadshot-printable8x10.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 ⚡ 02:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 10:34, 11 May 2018 (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:JJBellGravestoneStMacharsCathedralDundee.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: keep. The JPG indeed shows compression artifacts. czar 19:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, redundant to File:JJ Bell Gravestone St Machars Cathedral.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 10:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to JPG file. Salavat (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and transfer to Commons. The PNG is much higher quality than the JPG. clpo13_(talk) 22:12, 18 May 2018 (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:Pope John Paul II and FK Sarajevo.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 ⚡ 02:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image in use at History of FK Sarajevo. The stated purpose of "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article" makes no sense as this is not a biographical article and the image is not being used for visual identification. The fact that the Pope visited is adequately described in text (fails WP:NFCC#1) and there is no real sourced discussion about the image (Fails WP:NFCC#8). Whpq (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2018 (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:IndyCar Series 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: remove from 2016 IndyCar Series and 2017 IndyCar Series. ℯ xplicit 00:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in 2016 IndyCar Series, 2017 IndyCar Series and IndyCar Series. While non-free logos for events, etc. is generally allowed for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of the primary article about the event, the use of the logo in individual season articles is not allowed per item 14 of WP:NFC#UUI. In such cases, a logo specific to individual season may be used, but the default is not to use the primary logo in cases where these season specific logos don't exist. Suggest keep for "IndyCar Series" and remove from the two season articles where the file is currently being and any additional season articles it may subsequently be added to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for IndyCar Series. I have removed the this logo from the 2016 and 2017 seasons' pages in the past (also today), but people just keep adding it. If that logo would be season-specific then it would acceptable, but not now. The same problem could be seen in older IndyCar Series seasons' pages with which I dealt by removing the older logos, but as of now I do not know (and to be honest – have no interest) if they were reinstated by rogue IPs or users. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the file can be added to 2016 IndyCar Series as per this discussion of the 2014-2015 logo which permits it to be added to the 2014 season article. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I’m afraid not. Even if the logo was adopted during the year 2016, it still doesn’t contain anything specifically connecting it to the 2016 series. It still is the logo of the the entire championship not a specific edition of it.T v x1 21:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then The old logo should be removed from the 2014 season, right? As that was the precedent I based that off of. It makes absolutely zero sense to allow it for 2014 but not 2016. Zilch. Zip. None whatsoever. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all non-free use is the same per WP:OTHERIMAGE, so a logo, etc. being used in a one particular way in one article does not mean that a similar non-free use should be allowed in another article. At the same time, one type of non-free use is not being allowed does not necesarily mean that all similar types of non-free use should also not be allowed per WP:DELETEALL. There's a difference between the 2014 and 2016 articles that might be relevant. The sponsor changed from Izod to Verizon in 2014 and there is citation supported content mentioning this change in 2014 IndyCar Series#Series changes; there does not, however, appear to be any such content mentioning a logo/sposor/branding change in the 2016 article. I believe this might be what Masem was referring to in Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:Verizon IndyCar Series.jpg when he posted We do allow the use of the logo for a series that changes over time to be used - in addition to the main page of the series if it is the current logo - on the first year that logo was adopted, on the presumption this can be noted in the text. It can be debated as to whether use of the 2014 logo is actually compliant and a consensus can change over time, so maybe it should indeed be removed; however, I do see that as an important difference between the two articles, at least as currently written. Now, if you are able to find any sourced commentary for the 2016 logo change and can add that to the 2016 article, then maybe it's non-free use can be better justified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the logo should be removed from the 2014 article as well. The logo is not a specific logo for the 2014 championship.T v x1 11:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for IndyCar Series.T v x1 21:17, 12 May 2018 (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:Lead - Upturn (Jacket A).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 ⚡ 02:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Wikipedia:Non-free_content#3a Minimum number of Items. These alternative covers add very little to the article. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're listed to show readers which edition is which, so when they are attempting to purchase a various edition, they do not order the wrong one by mistake. This allows it to be used under fair use by Wikipedia.Xenobia4 (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a buyer’s guide. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is a place of information. Giving incorrect or incomplete information goes against everything Wikipedia stands for.Xenobia4 (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a single version of cover art for a song is neither incorrect nor incomplete, and WP:NOT speaks specifically to Wikipedia not being an exhaustive collection of information—articles are not meant to be complete or comprehensive. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2018 (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:Lead - Upturn (Jacket C).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 ⚡ 02:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Wikipedia:Non-free_content#3a Minimum number of Items. These alternative covers add very little to the article. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're listed to show readers which edition is which, so when they are attempting to purchase a various edition, they do not order the wrong one by mistake. This allows it to be used under fair use by Wikipedia.Xenobia4 (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2018 (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:Lead - Upturn (Jacket B).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 ⚡ 02:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Wikipedia:Non-free_content#3a Minimum number of Items. These alternative covers add very little to the article. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're listed to show readers which edition is which, so when they are attempting to purchase a various edition, they do not order the wrong one by mistake. This allows it to be used under fair use by Wikipedia.Xenobia4 (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2018 (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:CiscoFieldLogo.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 ⚡ 02:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - no longer the identifying logo for the article subject, and there's no commentary about the logo itself that requires the viewer to see it. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2018 (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:Julia Montes Doble Kara Presscon 2015.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 ⚡ 02:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently deleted on commons c:File:Julia Montes Doble Kara Grand Presscon 2015.png - see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Freyjadour. These were all screen shots taken from YouTube and uploaded to Flickr with an invalid license. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - claim of own work is not credible given the Commons discussion where the uploader claimed to be present at the press conference and took the photo with their cell phone but this is clearly cropped from a youtube video. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2018 (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.