Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 12

August 12[edit]

File:Funny Face drink mix 1969.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 ⚡ 08:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Cyclamate contains no sourced commentary on the purpose of the use, which does not require an image in the first place, and Funny Face (drink mix) already uses a different image focusing on racial stereotypes. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:29, 12 August 2023 (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:Crop5.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 ⚡ 08:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this up for discussion rather than PROD in the hopes this gets more attention – a source has been specified, but it is a permanently dead link (archive.org only has this dead archive link, and I was unable to find anything else relevant). No way to tell that it was released under the given license, but maybe someone will be able to successfully find the source in some corner of the internet? House Blaster^talk 03:42, 12 August 2023 (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:SchwarzeSonneArtifacts.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 ⚡ 08:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the file description page, this is a non-free image, used as free. — Ирука¹³ 04:12, 12 August 2023 (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:Pietro Maletti.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: Convert to fair use -FASTILY 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is not "simple" in terms of Italian law: it is not a simple "life photo"; this is definitely a portrait shooting and the photographer’s intention can be seen both in the turn of the head and in the look, and, probably, the dress uniform was specially selected. The photo did not enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the author, as the author is unknown. — Ирука¹³ 06:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to fair use. There seems to be no freely licensed image available of this non-living subject. ✗plicit 06:53, 19 August 2023 (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:Worker House (national trade union center) (Iran) logo.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: Procedural close, not a matter for FfD; you don't need permission to transfer eligible (and/or mistagged) files to Commons. -FASTILY 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Worker House (national trade union center) (Iran) logo.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Want to export to commons it is derived from Emblem of Islamic Republic Baratiiman (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination was malformed, having an unnecessary level-2 header atop the usual level-4 header. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:49, 12 August 2023 (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:Giovanni Dolfin.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 ⚡ 10:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We know that the photo was taken in the 40s. But we don't know if it was published before 1989. {{PD-Italy}} has no confirmation. — Ирука¹³ 12:36, 12 August 2023 (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:United Pasokmomogun Kadazan Organisation (UPKO).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: Convert to fair use -FASTILY 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a ~~free~~ simple logo. — Ирука¹³ 14:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2023 (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:FC Barcelona (crest).svg[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: Convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}} -FASTILY 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Below c:COM:TOO US and relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}}? Jonteemil (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Incorrect process for this, this isn't needed at FfD. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I'm not nominating the file for deletion. It's the opposite, I'm nominating the file to be relicensed from a non-free license to a free license. So your keep vote makes no sense unless you mean "keep as non-free" but I don't think you do. Jonteemil (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2023 (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:AnnaGyurics.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If evaluate this photo not by {{PD-Austria}}, but by c:Template:PD-Austria, then this is not a simple photo. This means that the period should be counted from the date of death of the author. And the author is unknown. The file should be relicensed as {{PD-old-assumed}}. — Ирука¹³ 02:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 12 August 2023 (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:1917 Wayfaring Stranger.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 ⚡ 08:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale states "Main infobox", however it is used in a secondary infobox in the article of the soundtrack's film, and thus is not primary identification. Per WP:NFCCP, number 8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." No caption is available, and it is unlikely any critical commentary can be made. Gerald WL 08:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:FILMSCORE. The use of non-free album covers in "Soundtrack" types of subsections of articles about films has long been considered unacceptable and WP:DECORATIVE at both the WikiProject and community level except in cases where the cover art itself is subject of sourced critical commentary. Moreover, in such cases, where such commentary can be found, there's also generally enough signficant coverage about the album itself for a stand-alone article to be created per WP:NALBUM where the cover art can be used for primary identification purposes. Most of the time when that is not the case, however, deletion is fairly non-contentious and clear cut enough for a prod and there's nothing really to discuss at FFD. In this case, there actually already does exist 1917 (soundtrack) and the file being discussed here is actually not a the cover art for that soundtrack, but the cover art of a cover version of the song The Wayfaring Stranger (song) that was used in the film. It might be possible to keep this if more sourced critical commenatry about this version was added to the article about the song, but it doesn't belong in the article about the film. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2023 (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:WPHL-TV logo.svg[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 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, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Want to export to Commons but can't under normal means Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2023 (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:Clip breeding-foaling-A Celebration of Horses.webmhd.webm[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: No consensus -FASTILY 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet WP:NFCC#8. The video sample is not the subject of commentary within the article and does not provide significant improvement to the article. :3 F4U (they /it) 22:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have already been through this back in 2019. The video is long standing and does the opposite of what you claim. The stallion is legendary, he is no longer living, and there is no other footage of him available anywhere. Be happy that we have this footage, and close this request to delete. Atsme 💬 📧 13:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - just added some material that references the subject in the video, which is also contains the full narrative by William Shatner about his breeding program with the late champion Sultan's Great Day, a sire of champions. Atsme 💬 📧 14:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator bases the argument for deletion on NFCC#8, which is always a subjective judgement, and which has previously been evaluated for the use of this file at this page, in an earlier FFD discussion: [1]. I gave a detailed explanation there of why I thought it should be kept, including why I thought it passes #8, and the consensus then was keep. I'm not seeing anything that has changed since then, that would now justify deletion, so I continue to think it should be kept, for the reasons that I explained in detail in the previous FFD. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish While the video features video of Sultan's Great Day, it does not provide anything specific that makes the video relevant to the article.
1. The narrative in the video only discusses horse breeding in general sense.
2. The article also barely discusses Sultan's Great Day wrt horse breeding, the closest it gets to doing so is this sentence: Sultan's Great Day became a breeding stallion at age 4 under the management and supervision of Donna Moore. Among Donna's top breeding selections were daughters of New Yorker, a widely recognized sire of champion Saddlebreds.
3. Even if Sultan's Great Day and breeding was discussed at length, the video would still not meet WP:NFCC#3 because (1) the audio should be cut and (2) the video should be cut to only show the relevant scenes (eg. the breeding scene and the birthing scene)
4. It also would not meet WP:NFCC#1 as it would be replaceable with textual coverage.
~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination statement only cited #8, so you are now introducing new issues that you had not raised initially.
According to Atsme, who is a subject matter expert, the video discusses horse breeding in the specific sense of Shatner describing his breeding program, which was based upon breeding offspring of Sultan's Great Day. So it is not a video about horse breeding in some general sense, unrelated to the page subject.

The adult male horse in the video is Sultan's Great Day. So the page subject is on-screen for much of the video's mere 43 seconds. And you mischaraterize the contents of the page where the file is used. There is an entire section of the page, about the breeding, at Sultan's Great Day#Breeding and offspring. That's hardly a single sentence.

Perhaps one could create a cut version of the video without reducing its encyclopedic value, although it is already only 43 seconds and of limited resolution. If you cut out the brief passage with Shatner on the screen, that leaves the breeding and birthing scenes, but loses much of the context of what the text at that section of the page discusses. And that's not a valid reason for deletion.

As for replacing it with text, see WP:ANYIMAGE.
At this point, I think you are running out of NFCCs that would justify deletion. And since there was a previous FFD for this file that resulted in "keep", you haven't shown that anything has changed since then. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2023 (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:Dream icon.svg[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: No consensus, defaulting to status quo (non-free) -FASTILY 01:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Below c:COM:TOO US and relicense to {{PD-textlogo}}? Jonteemil (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think a logo like this is probably above the threshold of originality required for US copyright, despite its crude & rudimentary nature. It does not consist of "simple shapes", but hand-drawn lines, and therefore does not materially differ from something like a cartoon, which is eligible for copyright. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are more complex logos listed that US courts have deemed below TOO, for example File:Nikken logo and wordmark.svg. Jonteemil (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the rejection was based on the fact that it closely resembled generic iconographic depictions of humans, such as those used on the signs of toilets or fire exits. I don't think that applies in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Despite being a logo, it only consists of simple text in a common font on a green background. While the character could possibly be trademarked, it doesn’t seem like it would be enough to make this image above the threshold of originality. The above linked images from Hemiaucheina support this claim. 2603:8000:CD02:FC64:CF3:EDD:F651:7009 (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2023 (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:1917 Schofield Run scene.webm[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: Procedural close, wrong venue. For future reference, please use {{Non-free reduce|type=video}}. -FASTILY 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fail to see how a 1920x784 resolution sample is minimal; bringing this here so that hopefully someone can downsize it. :3 F4U (they /it) 23:02, 12 August 2023 (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.