Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 22

< July 21	July 23 >

July 22

File:TV5 (ABC5) 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: Remove from all pages except parent ((TV5 (Philippines)]]). This also included DXGB-TV, DYRX-TV, and DZGB-TV. ★ Bigr Tex 22:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo currently being used in 11 articles: DWET-TV, DWTE-TV, DXER-TV, DXET-TV, DXTE-TV, DYER-TV, DYET-TV, DYTE-TV, DZET-TV, TV5 (Philippines), and TV5 Network (company).

Non-free use rationales are not provided for the "DWTE", "DXET", "DXTE", "DYER", "DYET", and "DZET" articles so the file's usage in these article fails WP:NFCC#10c. File has a rationale for use in the "DXER", "DYTE" and "DWET" articles, but these are all stand-alone articles of individual affiliate stations of "TV5 (Phillipines)", so I believe they should be treated as "child entities" per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Logos specific to each of these individual stations can be used in their respective articles, but repeating the the "parent entity" logo does not meet the purpose of WP:NFCC#3 in my opinion. Suggest remove from all of the individual station articles.

Use in "TV5 (Phillipines)" seems fine, but the non-free use in "TV5 Network (company)" does not. The company article is using the freely licensed File:Pic stock-geo ph-mm-quezon city-novaliches-quirino hwy.-san bartolome-tv5 studio (2015) a0002.jpg in its infobox, and the logo can be seen fairly well in that photo. So, I don't think a non-free version which essentially shows the same logo is really needed per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#1. Suggest keep for "TV5 (Phillipines) and remove for "TV5 Newtork (company)".

For reference, file was also being used multiple times in List of digital television stations in the Philippines, but I removed it since this type of "decorative" (i.e., icon-like) in lists and tables is not really allowed per MOS:LOGO and WP:NFCCP (WP:NFLISTS/WP:NFTABLES). File also had no non-free use rationale for each of these uses, so WP:NFCC#10c was not satisfied.

Finally, all of the above is predicated upon the file being unsuitable for conversion to public domain. The file does not seem to be, in my opinion, clearly simple enough for Template:PD-logo or perhaps even Template:PD-USonly due to the shadowing of the 3D red ball and the white smear affect on the ball. So, unless there is a clear consensus otherwise, I think the file should remain non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2016 (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:W. pete henry pottsville charm.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: Keep czar 15:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible derivative of non-free content FASTILY 06:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one almost certainly is {{PD-US-no notice}}, seeing as it was published in 1928 and I don't see a copyright tag nor is it likely that such a tag would be added to this kind of work. The file tags should be changed to

{{Photo of art|{{GFDL-self|migration=relicense}}
|Revmoran|{{PD-US-no notice}}|pdsource=yes}}

if this analysis is correct, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:13, 30 July 2016 (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:Witham Hall.jpeg

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 ★ Bigr Tex 22:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader owns copy of the photo, but may not be the copyright holder. Missing clear evidence of permission. FASTILY 06:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader seems to be active so messaged them.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, Hamlet94, am the copyright holder of the photograph. [[Hamlet94 (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2016 (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:Elisha Kriis 2016 July.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: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 17#File:Elisha_Kriis_2016_July.JPG

While I couldn't locate the original, a cropped version of this image is available at Kriis' Instagram page (top left), the copyright likely belongs to Kriis, her agency or photographer. The uploaded image contains no credible information about its origin and is likely to be part of a professional photoshoot. The uploader is currently blocked on Commons for repeated copyright violations with false claims of authorship. GermanJoe (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have left some information about OTRS and the need to verify permissions via email on the uploader's talkpage. See also the uploader's new message about the file on the file's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2016 (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:Salvation rmx poster (2).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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Event poster, but there's no source/OTRS to confirm the GFDL status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2016 (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:Carrickmines Fire Scene.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of CC status at source listed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2016 (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:Aspropyrgos Refinery Fire.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 as F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC) No indication of CC status at source listed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no indication on the ORIGINAL source that it's CC. What Google Images says is irrelevant. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sturgeontransformer (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Following a revision of all images I have posted to Wikipedia, I have identified several that were erroneously identified as CC. These images have been removed from articles, and have been promptly tagged with the notification for speedy deletion.

If any remaining photos uploaded by myself are found to be incorrectly identified as CC, please feel free to let me know. This was totally my mistake, and I am committed to fixing my errors as quickly as possible--and to ensuring that it doesn't happen again. Thank you Sfan00 for your diligence in notifying me of my mistakes so speedily, and for clarifying my initial confusion. Please be assured that I have learned from this mistake, and will be much more careful in future.

Best, 00:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Sturgeontransformer (talk)

Um, Sturgeontransformer, what about this file then? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out--just marked it for deletion. I swore I had added a deletion tag to that image, as it had been identified for removal a while ago, but there you go, my bad. Please feel free to let me know if you notice anything else that's not up to code! best, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2016 (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:HKID pic-adult-front sample.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: Remove from Identity document ★ Bigr Tex 22:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in Hong Kong Identity Card and Identity document. Files has a non-free use rationale for each use, but only the use in the stand-alone article about the card itself seems to comply WP:NFCC. "Identity document" is essentially a list article which has entries for ID cards from various countries. There is no sourced commentary discussing the technical aspects of the card itself and there is even a hatnote in Identity document#Hong Kong which directs the reader to the stand-alone article. The context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking and the minimal use required by WP:NFCC#3 is also not satisfied per No. 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:NFLISTS. Suggest keep for "Hong Kong Identity Card" and remove from "Identity document". -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2016 (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:Abdul Qayyum Inamdar.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: Relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 17#File:Abdul_Qayyum_Inamdar.jpg

Upload by account blocked for spam. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2016 (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:Fenil p cyriac.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user page profile photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2016 (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:Tyrelessly 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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple text but has NFUR given. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2016 (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:Uziceloc.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Serbian locator maps, not of a standard style that I recognize. Superseded by maps like Image:Municipalities of Serbia Pirot.png. ★ Bigr Tex 20:01, 22 July 2016 (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.