Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 1

< September 30	October 2 >

October 1

File:1951 AAGPBL season.JPEG et al

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 00:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:1950 AAGPBL season.JPEG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:1949 Rockford Peaches AAGPBL Champion Team.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:1952 AAGPBL season.JPEG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:1948 AAGPBL season.JPEG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:1947 AAGPBL season.JPEG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:1946 AAGPBL season.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:1945 AAGPBL season.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:1943 Racine Belles.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Photos of the championship-winning teams being used decoratively in 1951 All-American Girls Professional Baseball League season, and other season articles. The photos themselves are not discussed at all in text and the winning teams are barely even mentioned in the text. B (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is completely warranted to have a picture of the championship team in an article about a season. It is hardly just decoration. Now it could definitely could use some more discussion of the winning team etc on the page. But I don't see anything that requires deletion of the pictures. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Unwarranted. We don't need to see these faces to understand that names listed played on that team. The names are quite enough. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as curmudgeon used, these all faIL nfcc point 8

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:Gostha Pal India post stamp.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps are not necessarily under a Creative Commons licenses. Are postage stamps exempt items in India? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00 I think it comes under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4, i undo the prevous license to Attribution-shareAlike 4, its follows simple terms, that one must give full credit to the creator, that is India Post, which means the govt. of India is owner, and anything owned by govt. is of public. Now you can provide license as suitable to this, but the copy of the stamp or the photograph is absolutely free to use atleast India. Thank you- Dey subrata (talk)
Comment This can be moved on Commons with the c:Template:GODL-India license. All works by the government of India are now OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That includes agencies like India Post? If so I am minded to suggest the file is relicensed appropriately.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ShakespeareFan00 If the licensing is ok, then you ahve not removed the discussion tag from the photograph page and add whatever else needed to be added there.--Dey subrata

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

License c:Template:GODL-India and move to Commons per Yann. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, India Post a government agency, so it is covered under GODL. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert licensing to “GODL-India” per above as long as it can clearly be established that this was created by an employee of the Indian Government since this isn’t old enough to be PD per c:COM:STAMPS#India. So, it would be helpful to know more about the origin of the stamp’s imagery because some governments have been known to use the works of others for stamps, etc. File also should be moved to Commons if the consensus is to keep. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 1 October 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:Sabah National People's Unity Organisation flag.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: Convert to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not necessarily a simple logo ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to non-free. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:14, 1 October 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:People's Alternative Party 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: Convert to non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of originality concern, Bird element top is not simple. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-license as non-free logo and add a fair use. Salavat (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to non-free. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to non-free. as a copyrighted art work logo.--DBig Xrayᗙ 20:57, 1 October 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:Picture of poster.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 ⚡ 02:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derivate - Not a self-made poster. Deadstar (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fair use file with a lack of critical commentary for its use in Drumconrath. Salavat (talk) 23:53, 3 October 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:SwanSongbation.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 ⚡ 02:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo whose primary subject is the 2D artwork shown. Photo is otherwise unused, so I can't apply NFCC. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:54, 3 October 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:Fishermanswharfmpegman.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 ⚡ 02:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of 2D art (the sign), is this sign original enough to exceed threshold of originality? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyrighted non free logo. the Article already has an image located at commons c:File:Fishermans Wharf Sign, SF, CA, jjron 25.03.2012.jpg which makes the above image redundant.--DBig Xrayᗙ 20:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:54, 3 October 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:Two Stroke Engine Animation.webm

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 ⚡ 02:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed speedy for licensing. This is not clear though, and needs proper discussion.

There is a link to a source, and an incorrect link to a licence. The source page gives a "free licence", but is it acceptable to WP? Can WP meet these attribution requirements? I don't think we can just discount them, as has been done so far.

"You are free to use this animation on your website, presentations or other electronic media, but please add a link and accredit it to:

savree.com/en/product/two-stroke-engine/

Do not use no-follow links. "

Nor is it a CC-by, as claimed here.

As a content issue, this isn't a very representative or informative video of the subject. It adds almost nothing to our project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gate Valve Opening and Closing.webm too. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are several deficiencies in this release compared to actual free (significantly missing "modify", "redistribute/sell", and use in non-electronic media). DMacks (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficiently free for Wikipedia. The terms specified in the source do not address derivative works. --Whpq (talk) 19:46, 2 October 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.