Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 April 21

< April 20	April 22 >

April 21[edit]

File:Devious.JPG[edit]

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 ⚡ 15:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selfie of Darryl Jones. No permisson. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:05, 21 April 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:Roelf Vos store.png[edit]

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 ⚡ 15:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image is of a supermarket and not the person, so it is not usable "as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question". There is no significant sourced commentary about the image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 03:18, 21 April 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:Sophisticatedgoat.gif[edit]

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: Not actionable/not a matter for enwp. If there is a concern with the image's suitability for Commons, then please nominate it for DR over there. -FASTILY 05:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File uploaded under a public domain license however the original source image is on Commons under GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc 3.0. The Commons file does state any reproduction must be appear with the GFDL license, however does the "cc-by-nc" part of that Commons file license make this local copy incompatible under Wikipedia's licensing given the position on cc-by-nc? Salavat (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I understand correctly, since the source file is being kept at Commons, then it must be there under a broad license, without restrictions that might apply to files kept locally here. According to the license at Commons, for non-commercial use, as applies here, "you are free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this work provided that correct attribution is provided." GFDL only applies to commercial use. As such, I don't think a derivative work here, with the attribution that has been given, violates anything under our local image use policy. Also, the derivative file is at Commons as well as being kept here, and being PD there justifies it being PD here. One could argue that maybe the PD license at Commons is invalid there, but that would have to be determined at Commons, not in the discussion here. If, hypothetically, it were to be deleted at Commons, then it could still, at a minimum, be kept here as non-free content with Template:Non-free with NC in place of the PD license on the file page. On the other hand, one can argue that the modifications made in the derivative image rise to the level of threshold of originality, which would make the PD license valid (see WP:Image use policy#Public domain and compare L.H.O.O.Q.). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that the nominator made this edit to the file page at Commons: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Another note: I did some checking about the source file at Commons, and per this policy at Commons: [2], the GFDL license there is no longer valid at Commons, and per this policy at Commons: [3], neither is the CC-by-NC license. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've thought this over, and this is what I think it means. Both the source file and the derivative file probably need to be deleted at Commons – but that's a decision to be made at Commons and not in the discussion here. Our WP:Image use policy permits some kinds of files to be kept locally that would not be allowed at Commons. The editor who created the source file released it as CC-by-NC for non-commercial use. The editor who created the derivative file made the derivation under that non-commercial license. This is where it gets complicated. If the modifications made for the derivative file are deemed trivial, then it cannot be freely licensed here either, because WP:Image use policy#Free licenses does not allow CC-by-NC as a free license. Therefore the derivative file would be governed by WP:Non-free content here (and could only be used in mainspace, for example). On the other hand, if the modifications are deemed to meet the threshold of originality, then the file can, indeed, be licensed into the PD. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 29 April 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:Default Sheet LMC2008.jpg[edit]

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, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and low-quality screenshot of non-free software. Data could be presented as a wiki table if necessary. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:28, 22 April 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:Airport-in-iasi-romania-1-.jpg[edit]

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, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scaled-down duplicate of File:Aeroportul int iasi.jpg on Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 00:28, 22 April 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:About Me Go-Tsumaroki.png[edit]

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, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting license, description says the image is "only to be used by me, specifically in my user-page." Image is not actually used on the uploader's user page or anywhere else. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:29, 22 April 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:Dancing with Dandelions.png[edit]

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 G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as there is freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:09, 21 April 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:FAMET ensign.png[edit]

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. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion - orphaned raster image that was not used as a source for the corresponding vector image and thus is not needed for attribution purposes. House Blaster^talk 20:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 00:29, 22 April 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.