Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 15

< July 14	July 16 >

July 15

File:Castle sign small.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 ⚡ 14:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This file was previously discussed in two forums: the enwiki FFD forum and the Commons DR nomination request. Both concluded differently.

But in my understanding both Irish and UK FOP provisions are similar to each other, and this is not a work of artistic craftsmanship beacuse it is not reasonable to claim that the painter was also a craftsman. Furthermore, the Irish FOP provision restricts FOP only to architecture, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship (not graphic works like paintings and murals), see c:Commons:FOP Ireland for more information.

Should this be argued to be kept here, then there is another caveat. Enwiki follows U.S. law which means it only follows US FOP, applied to all buildings from no FOP countries like Burj Khalifa (thus {{FoP-USonly}}). But this work is not a building or architecture, and thus cannot be accepted here. Unless it will be reduced to a fair use file (see Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama#Images of other works). But I doubt its current use in O'Dea Castle satisfies the criteria of fair use set at WP:NFCC. It is a wrong notion that enwiki accepts all content (even unfree) indefinitely. Enwiki does accept unfree content, but must be treated as unfree files as stated at WP:Non-free content. See also User talk:Fastily/Archive 6#Restoration of a deleted file, regarding a deleted image of a Philippine sculpture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:26, 15 July 2021 (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:Traffic in Timisoara...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 ⚡ 14:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specified source is https://www.panoramio.com/photo/5229896. Unsure if the file on Panoramio was licensed freely before it was shut down. Cannot be moved to Commons as a result. (FOP is irrelevant here as it may pass de minimis). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is messy. The original uploader of the image is User:Mariusmiti who claimed it was their own work and provided no source URL. That editor has been blocked for persistent copyright violations. However, User:Golby84 subsequently altered the file information to identify themselves as the author and point to the panoramio as a source. An archive of the source link shows this image was uploaded to Panoramio by an account with the name of Golby as copyrighted all rights reserved. The Golby84 account has made only 3 edits ever and all in one session essentially. It just basically looks like claiming proper credit for the photo. I am inclined to believe this is the copyright holder but it is unclear from these edits that Golnby84 is agreeing to release the image under a free license. I would advocate delete unless this can be cleared up. I've left a message on Golby84's talk page in case they've got it monitored but the edits date back to August 2010 so it's a slim hope. -- Whpq (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: I'm unsure if other files by User:Mariusmiti with {{FoP-unknown}} are also problematic. I actually moved one to Commons on basis it certainly passes de minimis, but I may be wrong. I can request speedy deletion of that Commons copy if Mariusmiti was indeed a bad faith uploader here during their contribution tenure here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:04, 16 July 2021 (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:Aby Film 3D Billboard.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a film poster. Not free. Sreejith K (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The uploader thought Wikipedia is lenient for derivative works that do not pass at Commons. That's a misconception, unless the file shall be made as a non-free image under fair use licensing with justifiable WP:NFUR. The uploader's licensing shall be incorporated at {{Photo of art}}. But in its current use, it fails acceptable uses at our non-free content guidelines, hence this file must be deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no freedom of panorama for 2D "graphic works" in India. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2021 (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:Adam Bruce Thomson - Scottish borders mountains.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: Procedural close, as this is now being handled via VRT (OTRS): ticket:2021071910007432 -FASTILY 05:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work. Needs permission from the author of the painting. Sreejith K (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free 2D art. Usage in Adam Bruce Thomson probably isn't justified once its switched over to non-free so deletion should follow. Salavat (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The uploader emailed me yesterday claiming to hold the copyright over the artwork. So this likely moves into a missing evidence of permission scenario. For the record I have tagged the other images on Adam Bruce Thomson for missing evidence of permission. Hopefully the uploader can provide the proof for those and it should resolve this one as well. Salavat (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Received a second email from the uploader. Apparently they are family of the artist and have now inherited all of his works, deciding to release them under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. I have replied with some information on how to provide evidence of the permission via OTRS. Salavat (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Uploader advised that he was going to send an email to OTRS to provide the evidence. Not sure how this is going/if the email was sent. Salavat (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2021 (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:Jennie Kim "How You Like That" music video hairstyle.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 ⚡ 14:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is stated to show how the subject's two-tone hair style influenced others but there is no significant sourced commentary about the hairstyle beyond some caption text. As used, it fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been on the lookout to find an appropriate source to write in the article. Also, if you type in "Blackpink Jennie hair tutorial" on YouTube, you'll find multiple tutorials and there are a few beauty blog articles. Would these fit? Beulagpinkeu (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now written on the fashion impact of the hairstyle and added appropriate references, Beulagpinkeu (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The updates are not that substantial and the sourcing is very poor. This is just a listicle, and if this is supposed to show the influence, then it does the opposite as the examples of others who have the two-toned dye are Instagram photos of people who have the two-toned dye from before Jennie sported her two-toned look in the music video. -- Whpq (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2021 (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:Aloha Stadium logo.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, likely above the threshold of originality and thus copyrighted. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom; the palm trees and the shading of them push it over the edge of TOO for me. Sennecaster (What now?) 19:10, 20 July 2021 (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:Apollo 2007 Fall Concert.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of a copyrighted poster. No evidence that uploader has received permission to publish this derivative work under a free license. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - straight up copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2021 (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:Applescal in park.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation. Description says the photo was taken by Julia de Boer, but there is no evidence that she and the uploader are the same person. Also orphaned. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of permission. -- Whpq (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2021 (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:Arcgisclusters.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArcMap is non-free software. Screenshot is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2021 (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:Anita Dongre - Profile Image.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Profile Image" in file name suggests photo was copied from social media. No evidence uploader has received permission from the copyright holder. Also orphaned. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence permission. Various news articles with various versions of this image all state this image is from Anita Dongre. -- Whpq (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2021 (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.