Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 December 30

< December 29	December 31 >

December 30

File:Ccr logo2 med.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such logo either on the official website of the denomination or on the website of the denomination's Venezuela diocese. The original uploader gave no online source as to where this image came from. I think therefore the image should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, it's possible the logo simply wasn't archived. But I agree, the uploader couldn't be bothered to provide a link and with that verifiability dies. I tried Google images and snapshots from different dates, some different subpages (I was hopeful for "resources"..) and got squat. Delete. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:59, 31 December 2021 (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:Droogs.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some sort of official photo. Need evidence that uploader is actually the copyright holder. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ixfd64, not even remotely official, the heads have been replaced. Badly. A Clockwork Orange (film), photoshop, whatever, can't be bothered to look any further into this. Delete. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not educational; probably taken from A Clockwork Orange promotional material so copyvio. Veverve (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2022 (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:Republican Guard protective unit.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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the file's undeletion. Insufficient evidence that this image is PD. If new information comes to light this is PD, image can be restored. Nthep (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion under criterion F9 as a copyright violation of [1]. @Marchjuly has indicated that this may be PD. FASTILY 23:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure how c:COM:Ethiopia may apply here and to the use of {{PD-because}} for this file, which is why I posted as much on the file's talk page. All of the photos on the source website seem to be watermarked with the logo of the Office of the Ehtiopian Prime Minister and the photos are attributed to that office by the webiste. So, I guess it depends on whether works created by Ethiopian government employees as part of their official duties are considered to be PD. If they are, then perhaps this photo is PD; if not, then most likely it's not PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ethiopian government works are not PD. Though I can not find the exact photo on the PMO flicker page, looking at the photo set you will see all the photos are indeed non-free images. Safe to say this photo is too since there isn't any clear proof that it is PD or free.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ue3lman (talk • contribs) 18:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ue3lman: Some of the older photos in that Flickr photostream (like these) are actually licensed as PD, but it appears that they started using an "All rights reserved" license for some reason in December 2018. All of the photos from that December 2018 training exercise, thus, are licensed as "All rights reserved". The photo being discussed here isn't on Flickr, but it can be found on the Office of the Prime Minister-Ethiopia's official Facebook page (direct link is here). I don't have a Facebook account and can't check to see whether the photo is released under a free license Wikipedia accepts or PD. If you or someone else can verify there's no such license, then Wikipedia most likely can't keep this file without the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2021 (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.