Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 March 25

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 2019 April 1. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imane twitch cropped 3.jpeg (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: relisted on 2019 April 1. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Federico cropped 3.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. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windows NT 3.1 Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IMicrosoft75 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't think this meets Microsoft's permission criteria, or our non-free content criteria. Adam9007 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No actual reason provided for deletion. funplussmart (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To quote the non-free use rationale on the file description page: "Use of the logo in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy, logo guidelines, and fair use under United States copyright law as described above." --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Also, I don't think it meets threshold of originality, like File:Windows Logo 1995.svg on Commons, the Windows 95 logo which is similar in appearance to the Windows NT 3.1 logo. And the text on it is not copyrightable. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 20:03, 30 March 2019 (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: speedy keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lady Gaga - Applause (Music Sample).ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HĐ (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#8. This provides no discernible enhancement of the article's content and seems to have only been inserted as an ear treat for fans. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Hi SNUGGUMS, I'm in the process of updating the rationale. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What's in there when I took to FFD most definitely doesn't cut it. I might say differently following your update. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You can take a look now @SNUGGUMS: and maybe we can close it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better now and I withdraw this nomination, though I'm sure you didn't mean to mention "Million Reasons" when updating the file page :P. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:48, 27 March 2019 (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: Converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} -FASTILY 01:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicio.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I think this file is in the public domain as it is below WP:TOO. funplussmart (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion why not upload it to Commons using that rationale. If it survives, you can be pretty sure it is PD (I agree it seems to be below the threshold). --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2019 (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. Procedural close, already deleted by Fastily (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:WS Sprouse Color Scan SIZED.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Albabe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Already non-free media in the article--this isn't adding anything educational. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem very necessary in the article and not adding any educational value --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Educational Value?" It's a Color Guide as opposed to a finished-separated version in a Comic. I think that's "Educational."

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 00:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Albabe: What I was meaning is that the addition of the image is not necessary for visual identification, therefore I don't think that non-free poster color guide is necessary. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 19:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We should be trying to minimise the use of non-free images in our articles. Both this image and the infobox image are non-free, and both carry "Purpose of use: To Illustrate Comic Character WildStar. I think that's more than the spirit of our Wikipedia:Non-free content #Number of items guideline allows. --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hawaii Rep. Chris Lee.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Herblouise945 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by Walk Like an Egyptian with the reason "useless and is only being used in a user's sandbox; can use File:Chris Lee Hawaii.jpg instead" FASTILY 07:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2019 (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: Relicense to non-free -FASTILY 01:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:"BTC Logo".jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by John Chibona (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Licensed as "own work", however it is a logo from a company 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 22:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relicense to fair use Obviously not own work, also can be judged to be above the threshold of originality. funplussmart (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bishzilla Lucia Looking Right.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bishonen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Orphaned and no encyclopedic value 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 22:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer orphaned! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I created and uploaded the image, and I admit it's not of much encyclopedic value. If it had been. I would have put it on Commons. But having no encyclopedic value isn't the same as being useless in a community like this. I created it for use in seasonal greetings card to fellow Wikipedians — you know, for bonding — specifically around the time of Saint Lucy's Day, a very important holiday in my country (something, in the nordic tradition, of our Rio carnival). The top image at the article Saint Lucy's Day, with its conflagration of Lucias, illustrates my point. Compare Bishzilla as Lucia in the image we're discussing. Do you see her crown of candles, symbolising her Lucia dignity? We are many who send holiday greeting to friends and others on Wikipedia on the occasion of important holidays. Sometimes we use shopbought cards, sometimes objects we've added value and personality too by crocheting them ourselves, or by gluing together rolls of toilet paper, or boobytrapping an innocent-looking box. It's true that Bishzilla Lucia doesn't see very much use; I can't swear I even remember to break her out on every Saint Lucy's Day. But sometimes I do, and I flatter myself that people may be pleased to receive something different and handmade. Check out the collage on Floquenstein's monster's page.[1] I think you'll agree it's very artistic. Plus, it's not Wikipedia's mission to suppress already marginalised religious rites from around the world, thereby leaving a free field to the international conglomerate religions. For these reasons, I'm requesting the image be kept. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Lots of images are never used in articles and building the community is very important. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You know, I've been unable to find a single instance of one of the hundreds of images in Wikipedia:Barnstars in article space. Presumably, if the rationale of "not used in the main space" and "no encyclopedic value" were valid reasons, we'd have deleted the entire Wikilove programme a long time ago. Ask yourselves why not. The answer turns out to be that images used to illustrate friendly comments given by one editor to another also have value, albeit non-encyclopedic. It also turns out that some images are used intermittently: seasonally perhaps, or for special occasions, or simply not very often. So testing whether an image is in use today is no guide to whether it may be in use tomorrow, or the day after.
  What we have to weigh up is whether freeing up the 21 kB of server space used to store the image is a bigger gain to the encyclopedia than the value of the comradeship engendered by being able to use the image on a greetings card given by one editor to another – even if that happens rarely. My opinion is that it's not. YMMV --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. BTW, are we really now going to discuss this file and then some other time take the time to discuss File:Bishzilla Lucia.gif, which is the exact same image except looking left? It's the original of the looking right image, as I state on the looking right image page.[2] (And ShakespeareFan00 kindly fixed my information to be in the proper place). Wouldn't two different discussions be a poor use of the time and energy of the people commenting at this board? How about it, Atomicdragon136? Is there any reason the other file can't be folded into this discussion, so that both are either deleted or kept? Because surely their fates, and the arguments for/against them, should be the same. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• I didn't know that it was the same as File:Bishzilla Lucia.gif but facing the other direction as I didn't see it. And I didn't realize that it was previously useful. So I think we should keep it for now. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 19:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per per vague hand wave towards invalidity and guideine violation ("no encyclopedic value" is certainly an WP:AADD). ——SerialNumber54129 10:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per multiple respected editors above, and Bishonen and SN 54129. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:48, 30 March 2019 (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.