Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 1

< May 31	June 2 >

June 1

File:Malcolm X mugshot 1944.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: relisted on 2018 June 9. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malcolm X mugshot 1944.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:1980unidad.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 ⚡ 10:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how omission would be detrimental to understanding the article topic (WP:NFCC#8). File:Pcperu logo.png is also used on Peruvian Communist Party for identification. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems reasonable that an article on a political party should be illustrated by its campaign materials. Particularly when, as here and as discussed in the article, the party campaigned under a different name to its formal name, and this is shown by the poster image. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable is not the requirement; omission would be detrimental to understanding the article topic is. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: image not necessary to understand anything said in the article. Campaigning by a different name is best "show" by citing a reliable source that says so, like any other claim made on WP. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:35, 7 June 2018 (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:Garuda volvo.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 ⚡ 10:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This file doesn't seem to serve any purpose on Wiki, as it isn't being used on any article. The uploader hasn't been active since 2014. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So unused files now have to be deleted, rather than moved to Commons? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not because it's unused, but because it had already been published here, without any indication of being freely licensed, before it was uploaded here. It has a destructive watermark, which can also be cause for deletion. ~~In this case, it could just be cropped out,~~ but the copyright issue is rather straightforward. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rhododendrites. The page linked has a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, which is incompatible with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. clpo13_(talk) 22:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is now turning into a separate discussion. See also the images (same uploader) File:Garuda isuzu.jpg (up for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 29#File:Garuda_isuzu.jpg) and File:Deluxe bus.jpg (tagged for a move to Commons) – it would have been easier if all three had been identified together.

The question is, are these the uploader's work? If they are, then per AGF, we accept the free licence they've been granted here. It doesn't matter if they're watermarked. It doesn't matter if they're published elsewhere under a different or non-free licence. If these are not held to be the uploader's work (i.e. they're able to grant a licence) then they all go - but that's a different reason from what has been given so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they are the uploader's work, they would need to go through WP:OTRS to make explicit their understanding of the different license, or to change the license on their website. AGF has limits wrt copyright. Watermarking does matter (WP:WATERMARK), but here, indeed, it would be so easy to crop out that I wouldn't support deletion just on that ground (though it shouldn't be used in any articles until it's cropped). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. After looking at the other one and coming back to this, I see that this one has that second big watermark right in the middle, too. Completely destructive and unsalvagable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhododendrites, see also c:Commons:Watermarks#Legal issues with the removal of watermarks: removing the watermark which has been placed on the front window of the bus could have legal implications. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the other one here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If they are the uploader's work, they would need to go through WP:OTRS to make explicit their understanding of the different license"

No, they wouldn't. We allow AGF on uploaders. If you're going to call an uploader a liar, then you have to demonstrate some good reason why. OTRS is not there as an opportunity for IDONTLIKEIT deletions to find a convenient policy to hide behind. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, see WP:IOWN. The file was uploaded to Wikipedia in 2014, but as stated above, it appeared on a blog in 2012, so the uploader should prove that he is the copyright holder in one way or another. Also note that the uploader got some files deleted per WP:F9 in 2014 (see talk page notifications). Besides, the watermarks make the files useless. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2018 (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:VALVE CAP-Royal Enfield Motorcycle 1961.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 and transfer to Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not being used on any article here. Perhaps it is best used in Wikimedia, since the motorcycle is the uploader's own as mentioned in the FUR. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Commons. Freely licensed and within c:COM:SCOPE. Wish it wasn't watermarked, though. clpo13_(talk) 22:43, 1 June 2018 (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:Uppu maravi for pouring salt water.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 and transfer to Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not being used on any article here. Perhaps it is best used in Wikimedia, since the object is the uploader's own as mentioned in the FUR. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Commons. Freely licensed and within c:COM:SCOPE. clpo13_(talk) 22:45, 1 June 2018 (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:SHAKE ABSORBER-Royal Enfield Motorcycle 1961.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 and transfer to Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not being used on any article here. Perhaps it is best used in Wikimedia, since the object is the uploader's own as mentioned in the FUR. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Commons. Freely licensed and within c:COM:SCOPE. clpo13_(talk) 22:43, 1 June 2018 (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:SIDE STAND-Royal Enfield Motorcycle 1961.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 and transfer to Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not being used on any article here. Perhaps it is best used in Wikimedia, since the object is the uploader's own as mentioned in the FUR. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Commons. Freely licensed and definitely within c:COM:SCOPE. clpo13_(talk) 22:44, 1 June 2018 (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:RIGHT HANDLE - Royal Enfield Motorcycle 1961.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 and transfer to Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not being used on any article here. Perhaps it is best used in Wikimedia, since the object is the uploader's own as mentioned in the FUR. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Commons. Freely licensed and within c:COM:SCOPE. clpo13_(talk) 22:44, 1 June 2018 (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:The Life of Pablo cover art.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, an almost similar artwork is present in the main infobox. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:55, 1 June 2018 (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:My Muhammad.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: speedy delete per G10. clpo13_(talk) 04:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly intended to prove a point and use Wikipedia for political advocacy. (See current thread at ANI). Wikipedia is not a webhost, this is not used on any article and has no legitimate use in any article. Use in userspace would also be problematic. Just so no one thinks I/m picking on him by saying this is political advocacy, the upload rationale was I drew Muhammad with the programm paint. This is the result. I decided to upload it, to send a message to the islamic terrorists. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and has no place for this.TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP.- Mr X 🖋 19:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this should be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G10 once the ANI discussion concludes.- Mr X 🖋 20:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G10. If it takes a week or more for the ANI to close, delete. Nanophosis (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G10, it is thoroughly inappropriate for Wikipedia and I can't believe it's still here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per prior. There is no reason this should be here. Reb1981 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2018 (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:Anders Osborne-Press Photo-Taken by Brandt Vicknair.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 F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid WP:NFCC#1 rationale. Subject is still alive and free images (such as File:JF100425 DSB Acura Voice of the Wetlands All Stars Anders Osborne 1.jpg) exist. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#F7. clpo13_(talk) 22:38, 1 June 2018 (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:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment(The defense of Negroponte Castle) -during Battle of Marasesti -1917;personal album of Aristide Razu,Commander of the 5th Romanian Infantry Division , with this Regiment 1917.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: relisted on 2018 June 9. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment(The defense of Negroponte Castle) -during Battle of Marasesti -1917;personal album of Aristide Razu,Commander of the 5th Romanian Infantry Division , with this Regiment 1917.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment (The Attack-1917) during Marasesti Battle ,personal album of Aristide Razu.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.