Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 21

< April 20	April 22 >

April 21

File:11 iamond with holes polyiamond tiling.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 ⚡ 11:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Prod - orphaned image with no information on an encyclopedic use. When uploader rejected prod, stated in edit summary "image used in the OEIS link supplied". The file itself does not appear to be used in the link, but seems to be a duplicate image of one of the links on the OEIS listed (in the last link of the Link section "Craig Knecht, Tilings with fixed triangles in a frame.") User has many similar orphaned images uploaded. Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as well as the rest of his uploads in a separate nom (too many to list). He is clearly promoting his mathematical art. Licensing is dubious as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:19, 21 April 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:PhenX Toolkit Screenshot.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 ⚡ 11:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged US federal government, but stated author is RTI International, a private organization that claims copyright. Wikiacc (¶) 03:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CSD F9 This one's an obvious copyright violation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:42, 22 April 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:Polomolok.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 ⚡ 02:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found this image on the web. Possible copyvio, with incorrect desc.; certainly won't pass through Commons' "checkpoint." Also tagging two more files by this user, with doubtful origins. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

other affected files:

File:Unidentified beach (20111026T0910).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Bongao.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

I have a hard time believing that the uploader is the author of a file named "Unidentified beach". If you took the photo, surely you know where it is. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I examined the pic's history, and found out this one: "03:58, 16 October 2015‎ ... Cavarrone moved page File:Glan.jpg to File:Unidentified beach (20111026T0910).jpg: FNC#9." Assuming it was named Glan.jpg before, it might be the beachfront of Glan, a town of southern Mindanao province of Sarangani, situated in the same region as the subject of "Polomolok.jpg." Actually I pity over these files that might be deleted, but I cannot help with their small resolutions and lack of reliable metadata. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues here:

"Found this image on the web" is a very unreliable deletion reason for old uploads because it could easily have been taken from here. In fact, just check any file that was uploaded many years ago here (or at Commons) and you can find it all over the internet.
And "small resolutions and lack of reliable metadata" is also not a good deletion reason. They merely look as if taken by early cellphone cameras from that time.
File:Polomolok.jpg was overwritten and consists actually of 2 distinct images by 2 different users. The original 2007 version clearly states that the uploader took it. This version should be restored and can be kept (WP:AGF).
As for the 3 uploads by User:Rayetan, they should be deleted. This user is unfortunately not a reliable uploader, just see all the deletion notices at User talk:Rayetan and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rayetan.

-- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polomolok.jpg: delete Rayetan's version for having no source and restore original version by Guy5 per P199. No vote yet on the other two. Wikiacc (¶) 17:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After having read points of view by @P199 and Wikiacc:'s points of view, I hereby state my renewed opinion here. For File:Polomolok.jpg, keep the original version and delete Rayetan's version since I found this on numerous online sites, some predating Rayetan's upload date. Yet I want to rescue Guy5's picture because Commons:Category:Polomolok, South Cotabato is scant of pictures of Polomolok as compared to the categories for incorporated settlement-type LGU's like Cagayan de Oro City and Argao, Cebu. I assume @Guy5:'s uploads are decent. For the two other files, my opinion is still the same - delete. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:56, 24 April 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:WestcliffUWarriorsLogo.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: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:WestcliffUWarriorsLogo.png (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:The Weeknd - After Hours (Target edition).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: fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary in the article it is used in -FASTILY 00:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails per both WP:NFCC#3a and #8. Additional image is not required to enhance the reader's understanding of the article in-question, After Hours (The Weeknd album), and its exclusion would not be detrimental of the reader's understanding. livelikemusic talk! 16:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The following image is discussed in the article's "Artwork and aesthetic" section, and its inclusion enhances the reader's understanding of that particular portion (and others as well) of the article, especially if they are art or photography minded. Also to individuals interested in the album's aesthetics whom suffer from Aphantasia or another similar condition, it can be detrimental, and thus the inclusion of the image can be particularly beneficial. DovahDuck (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The alternative album covers are not the subject of properly referenced prose, and therefore fail NFCC #8. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:34, 22 April 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:The Weeknd - After Hours (Remixes).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: fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary in the article it is used in -FASTILY 00:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails per both WP:NFCC#3a and #8. Additional image is not required to enhance the reader's understanding of the article in-question, After Hours (The Weeknd album), and its exclusion would not be detrimental of the reader's understanding. livelikemusic talk! 16:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The following image is discussed in the article's "Artwork and aesthetic" section, and its inclusion enhances the reader's understanding of that particular portion (and others as well) of the article, especially if they are art or photography minded. Also to individuals interested in the album's aesthetics whom suffer from Aphantasia or another similar condition, it can be detrimental, and thus the inclusion of the image can be particularly beneficial. DovahDuck (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The alternative album covers are not the subject of properly referenced prose, and therefore fail NFCC #8. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:34, 22 April 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:Babbit cover (photo).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: unclear copyright status. Was also tagged as non-free and then orphaned, so it would have been deleted within the week regardless. -FASTILY 00:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This file was originally under File:Babbit.jpg but then the file now at File:Babbit cover (scan).jpg was uploaded there instead. I did split the file per the recommendation on my user talk page from Marchjuly as these aren't the same images and because the filename is vague, but now that begs the question of which file to use at Babbitt (novel).

The (scan) file is presumably in the public domain (the book was written in 1922) and if that's so the (photo) file might need to be deleted if it's copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the original cover art is WP:PD either because of its age or because of its simplicity, then a straight-on scan of the cover is likely going to be considered a slavish reproduction per c:COM:2D copying and thus be ineligible for its own copyright. A photo, however, might be considered to be eligible for its own copyright if it contains some 3D aspects like this one. In that case, the copyright on the photo would also need most likely need to be considered. So, if this photo is eligible for its own copyright (which I think is likely the case) and the copyright holder has released it under a free license the WMF accepts, then the photo can be kept; if not, it needs to be deleted per WP:FREER since the file would be considered to be non-free content and would fail WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 22 April 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:N4.road.boyle.bypass.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 ⚡ 01:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Prod (based on this diff on my talk page [1]. Image is orphaned and is simply a picture of a road. The writer on my talk page (who will be notified of this nom) indicated it had been used on a page but I can not see how it added any value there at all. He also suggested moving it to Commons, which is something someone could do if they wished. Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordan 1972: I have now transferred the file to Commons using FileEx/Importer, @ Commons:File:N4.road.boyle.bypass.JPG. The local, enwiki copy can now be immediately deleted as duplicate of Commons file. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: "Transferred to English Wikipedia" is not a valid source. The source from English Wikipedia needs to be brought over to Commons (in this case "Own work of [[:en:User:Ivanrlynn]]" would be acceptable). I've fixed this file, but please keep it in mind for the future. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: thanks for reminding me! :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:45, 22 April 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:Tictacdoughtitle2.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, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicitive of File:Tictacdoughtitle.jpg. Same logo of program, this file in a different color. AldezD (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the secondary logo fails NFCC #8, as its removal would have zero impact on readers' ability to understand the subject of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:35, 22 April 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:I wont not use no double negatives.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 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:I wont not use no double negatives.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.