Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 2

< September 1	September 3 >

September 2

File:Luz Mendoza 2019.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged OTRS pending for 7 months. After reviewing the associated OTRS ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed. FASTILY 08:09, 2 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:Dr ADP Baddevithana 2020 - Wikipedia.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged OTRS pending for over 3 months. After reviewing the associated OTRS ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed. FASTILY 08:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (draft not touched since June) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:17, 5 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:StaJe(Musician).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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged OTRS pending for over 3 months. After reviewing the associated OTRS ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed. FASTILY 08:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:19, 5 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:Lim Wee Kiak NDP.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: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged OTRS pending for over 3 months. After reviewing the associated OTRS ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed. FASTILY 08:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:19, 5 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:Pokémon Red and Blue cover art.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: keep. Izno (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This violates minimal usage and goes against common practice exercised by the VG Wikiproject. Article prior to modification. The previous image (showing Red version standalone) already covers the style used for the artwork. « Ryūkotsusei » 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This image is a combination of two images, both of which are presumably fine. If this one somehow violates the fair-use practice, the article would just use both standalone images anyway. Red and Blue are two separate games. The article only depicts both of them because they come as a pair. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the sentiment brought up here regarding Pokemon. They're basically the same product. « Ryūkotsusei » 14:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you said that on a fandom forum, you would get a lot of backlash. Yes, they have a plethera of identical pieces of content and numerous similarities elsewhere, but the games are different enough to justify two distinct games. If they were the exact same game, it would be foolish to offer them both separately and advertise them as different.--Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 20:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, usage is sufficiently minimal to comply with WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 11 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:Victor Aviat Oboe.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 ⚡ 03:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File is licensed GFDL and text says only non-commercial use. MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of the GFDL licence, the uploader's comment is "Copyright owned by Peter Dörrie. Picture made in september 2009, only for non commercial use." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conflicting license. Non-commercial requirement makes it incompatible with the GFDL-self license also present. Further, the GFDL-self license is incompatible with the notation on the page that the image is not the work of the uploader, but that of Peter Dörrie. Note that the uploader originally uploaded it under a non-commercial license (see this version), which placed the image for speedy deletion. The uploader then changed the license [1] to the GFDL-self license, removing the speedy deletion tag but failing to fix the underlying licensing problem which remains. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 3 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:Vahavta.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 ⚡ 09:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file is licensed GFDL only. Its a bad license for photos because it makes photos almost unusable. We can keep it if uploader agree to add a Cc-by-sa-4.0 for example. MGA73 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears to be a mechanical copy of a 2-D rendering of pubic domain text. What aspect of it do you consider is not PD? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mabbett It looked to me like a photo of a writing on a brick wall but looking at it again I agree that it looks like writing on paper. If it is a scan/photo of a 2D text I agree it should be licensed {{PD-text}}. --MGA73 (talk) 17:55, 4 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:Allan Mustard Ashgabat portrait.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: Missing clear evidence of permission. May be restored upon receipt of permission via OTRS -FASTILY 01:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a crop of c:File:Allan Mustard Ashgabat portrait.jpg, which was just deleted as a copyvio, being attributed to "MS Photo Studio". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's the source: [2]. There is indeed a watermark from "MS Studio", so that's not far off the mark. Looks like it complies with Wikipedia:Public domain#US government works, right? --Bsherr (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not right. What makes you think "MS Studio" is a US gov. employee? Since when do US gov. watermark their work in that way? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usually portraits offered in the press area of a government website are free. But I've sent an email asking for confirmation, and I'll open an OTRS when a reply comes in. --Bsherr (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not in the press area of the website. Sent a email to whom? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 3 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.