Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 30

< September 29	October 1 >

September 30

File:Harry Glanville. Australian rugby league administrator.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 ⚡ 16:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stated to be "My private photo of Harry Glanville. North Sydney rugby league administrator 1956". The image is a scan or a photo taken of a image printed in a newspaper. Claim of the being the copyright holder is not credible. Whpq (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2020 (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:Harry Bath. World Cup winning rugby league coach, 1970.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 ⚡ 16:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader states "My private photo of Harry Bath. 1970". This image apears to have bene a published one. See [My private photo of Harry Bath. 1970 this] where it looks like it has been taken from some sort of publication. Clain to being the copyrihght holder is dubious. Whpq (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2020 (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:Kevin Humphreys. 1973.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 ⚡ 16:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader states "My private photo of Kevin Humphreys. 1973" but this is a scan or a photo taken of a newspaper image. Claim of being the copyright holder is dubious. Whpq (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2020 (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:Bill Buckley. 1967.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 ⚡ 16:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader states "My private photo of Bill Buckley. 1967" but this is a photo or a scan of a photo published in some printed media. Claim of being the copyright holder is dubious. Whpq (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2020 (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:Frank Facer. St.George Dragons CEO.1971.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 ⚡ 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader states "My private photo of Frank Facer.1971". This is a photo or scan of a photo in some publication like a newspaper. Claim of being the copyright holder is dubious. Whpq (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the uploader can verify their copyright authorship per c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. Poor quality of image does make it look like a scan of something from a print publication. Even a scan of a photo would probably be of much better quality that this. So, either the uploader took the photo and it was subsequently published somewhere, or they didn't take the photo and simply got it from somewhere else. It's old enough so that there would be no Exif data that you'd typically expect to have for a photo taken these days, but the quality is just too poor take the uploader at their word; plus there a quite of few file related notifications on the uploader's user talk page of other images with questionable licensing. I don't see how this would be kept on Commons per c:COM:PCP, which is where it should've been uploaded in the first place; so, I don't see how it can be kept here on Wikipedia. I also don't see how it can be converted to non-free without knowing more about the image's provenance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2020 (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:William Hollebone. Australian criminal.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 G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader states "My private photo of William Hollebone". This is a photo or scan of a photo in some publication like a newspaper. Claim of being the copyright holder is dubious. Whpq (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2020 (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:Warren Ryan 1972 rugby league.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 ⚡ 16:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader states "My private photo of Warren Ryan. 1972". This is a photo or scan of a photo in some publication like a yearbook or magazine. Claim of being the copyright holder is dubious. Whpq (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2020 (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:Bandera Juan Fernandez.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera Juan Fernandez.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:14, 30 September 2020 (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:Willingdon island.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Willingdon island.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:18, 30 September 2020 (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:Leeenfield-mk1-no.5-3.webp

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leeenfield-mk1-no.5-3.webp. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:19, 30 September 2020 (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:ATK Mohun Bagan FC logo.svg

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. Deletion arguments were based in policy, keep arguments were not. Ə XPLICIT 10:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The image is not used as the primary means of visual identification of the article subject (File:Mohun Bagan A.C. logo.svg is used for that purpose.), contrary to the non-free use rationale, and the logo isn't even mentioned in the article, let alone the subject of sourced critical commentary, — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article Mohun Bagan A.C. in which the file has been used has been under constant threat of vandalism by some rival East Bengal FC fans. Making an inference from one particular version of the page may not be helpful. Also the file stands for the current logo of the football activities of Mohun Bagan, currently known as ATK Mohun Bagan FC so it is very significant one and should be used in the article concerning the football division of Mohun Bagan. I believe, this addresses the concern. So, the file should be kept as it does not violate any standing policy of wikipedia. Aarul Chandekar (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but also per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3a: The article Mohun Bagan A.C. in which the file has been used has been under constant threat of vandalism by some rival East Bengal FC fans might be a problem that can be addressed through WP:PP, but it has nothing to do with whether the file's non-free use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In addition to the non-free concerns raised by the nominator, this file also has problems meeting WP:NFC#Number of items since it's basically the same file as File:Mohun Bagan A.C. logo.svg and there's no need for two practically identical files to be used in the same article for essentially the same purpose. The only real differences between the two files is the text contained in the logos, and this is something that can be sufficiently explained to the reader using simple text per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I talked about the constant vandalism because in a certain version of the page the nominator might have noticed the file placed at wrong or unrelated fashion which has made the nominator believe that the file is not used as a mode of primary means of visual identification. Leaving that aside the file has significant importance and adequate reason without legal issues to stay on wikimedia obviously. Aarul Chandekar (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an athletic club. It has multiple sport entities, all its sport deptts. play under MB Ath.Club but its main deptt., football has its separate entity and a separate company formed for it. The club has its own logo that "Mohun Bagan AC logo.svg". But as the football entity governed under different body it has separate logo ATK Mohun Bagan FC logo. So it will be highly confusing for any reader who is not familar with the club to indentify these entities and thus the images are used as the primary means of visual identification of the individual subjects. Currently, there is a long dicussion going on about splitting or creating new articles regarding the club and its football entity ATK MB. So it will be unnecessary for these logos to be deleted as will be needed when separate article will be there for MB AC and ATK MB FC. Drat8sub (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The only real difference between the two files is the coloring and the text, which are two elements that are generally not considered to be copyrightable (at least not in the US); so, from a non-free content use purpose, this file and the one being used in the main infobox are bascially the same and thus seeing both images doesn't provide any additional information that seeing only the main infobox image with a text description of the other logo provided for the other image per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:FREER. If a stand-alone article is created for the football team, then maybe the use of this file could be justified there, but that would still need to be further assessed.
  In addition to the file being discussed above, the same NFCC#1 and NFCC#3a problems also applies to File:MohunBaganFootballClubPvtLtd Logo.png; that file as well as the others used in the image gallery, however, should probably be assessed in a separate FFD discussion since there are also WP:NFG and WP:NFC#cite_note-4 issues that need to be discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Marchjuly. I have great respect for you always for what you do for this community, but I must say in this special case many people have no idea what this means. That one text is a huge difference. People who is familiar with the club, will find it highly confusing. War can start in community over it, such is the level of emotion attached with the club image. If you have enough time, then try to go through this merge discussion, move discussion 1, move discussion 2 or general discussion, because if I start to make you understand here, it will be a long story, which I don't think I should do here. In simple word, Athletic club has 130 years history and glory, it has its own logo and the team used to play as athletic club till 1998, then with sponsorship, company changes and logo changes as well and the latest change happened with a merger of another club with it and a company formed in which club does not have direct control like before, for which that text ATK added and many more things and issues are there, discussing here is not feasible. With those discussion linked above, I hope you will get a rough idea. Thank you.Drat8sub (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: For admin or whoever going to close, check FA articles like Arsenal F.C.#Crest, Aston Villa F.C.#Colours and badge, FC Barcelona#Kits and crest, Newcastle United F.C.#Colours and badge etc...I mean it's a common thing to add different logos in Football club article since the football entities changes for various reason most importatntly for sponsor or other financial activities. Above that here both the logos represent different subject, one the athletic club and the other the football team representing athletic club. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those are freely licensed. For the others, see WP:OTHERIMAGE. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This logo is not being used to identify the subject of the article and its use fails WP:NFCC#8 as asserted by the nominator. Given the logos are substantially the same I concur with Marchjuly's analysis of additional factors that play into deleting this logo. -- Whpq (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Substancially the same does not mean it's same. for example Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr., from name it is substantially same but they are totally different person. Clearly mentioned several times, this logo is of the football team which is governed by different body and owner company is different, consisting of members of athletic club and the investors. The logo i.e, placed in the infobox is of the Athletic club. Both are representing different body/org. Hence, it's very important for the page to give an idea to the reader which body is represented by which logo. And, since the article is about an athletic club which is predominantly about football, it should have the football identity mentioned in it. Drat8sub (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just want to say that the team which going to play from 2020-21 season of Indian Super League is not Mohun Bagan AC, it is ATK Mohun Bagan .. the logo and name will be in use by both ISL and AFC will be ATK Mohun Bagan's .. the one which proposed for deletion .. ISL is not only watched by people from Kolkata ..but also people out of India too.. for them It will be confusing to see another logo and name ..better you keep the logo.. because the ISL official site clearly shows the name and logo of ATK mohun Bagan .. and also the football team has different management which include Sanjeev Goenka, Utsav Parekh etc .. it is not right to not include their names .. so it will be better to create different page for football team if Mohun Bagan AC. This us my humble opinion .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:24D2:B5CB:A0EC:F7F1:D47B:3028 (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Because Atkmb logo represents footballing activities of AtkMB after the merger between Atk football club and Mohun Bagan AC.I think it's better to have separate a page for Atkmb.WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2020 (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:AndrewGabarinoInfobox.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 ⚡ 02:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of being the copyright holder is not credible. This is a crop of an official photo. See NY state assembly bio. The site does not have a copyright statement, but I am also unable to find any information that would indicate these works are public domains. See also Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States#New York. Whpq (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2020 (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:People Power Monument (EDSA-White Plains, Quezon City; 2014-12-03).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 -FASTILY 06:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:EDSAMonumentjf2030_04.JPG and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:People_Power_Monument_Looking_to_Ortigas.jpg. no freedom of pano in the phils - creator is eduardo castrillo who died in 2016. Not a building that will make it acceptable on wiki acc. To https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Are_philippine_bldg_and_sculpture_0hotos_acceptable_on_wikipedia? Mrcl lxmna (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2020 (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:People Power Monument (EDSA-White Plains, Quezon City)(2015-01-03).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 ⚡ 02:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:EDSAMonumentjf2030_04.JPG and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:People_Power_Monument_Looking_to_Ortigas.jpg. no freedom of pano in the phils - creator is eduardo castrillo who died in 2016. Not a building that will make it acceptable on wiki acc. To https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Are_philippine_bldg_and_sculpture_0hotos_acceptable_on_wikipedia? Mrcl lxmna (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2020 (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.