Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 January 10

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⚡ 05:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Autohistorical1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Justindavila (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

appears to be the work of Collective:Unconscious, likely copyvio, dubious own work claim FASTILY 00:43, 10 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.

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⚡ 05:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:AutoMate AM-250 Induction Sealer.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mikehb66 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

promotional image of some sort (appears to be scanned from a magazine/ad), dubious own work claim FASTILY 00:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looks like a scan, and so the uploader is not the copyright holder. The uploader would need to use OTRS if they are actually the copyright holder of the original image. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 10 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.

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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 02:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matt Santos and Arnold Vinick in "The Debate".jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theleekycauldron (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The screenshot does illustrate two characters debating and Forrest Sawyer as the moderator. It also illustrates the setting. However, I wonder whether the whole screenshot is necessary and whether the episode can be already understood without the screenshot. If that's the case, then the image may fail WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, per WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#1, the free text about the episode is well written and may be adequate and makes non-free content replaceable, like this image. George Ho (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I see it as no different than a film poster being used in an article. As for there being a free use equivalent, I'm pretty sure that relates to other images and not text. SL93 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm... WP:FREER says that a properly sourced text can possibly be "a free use equivalent", making non-free content replaceable and fail the "no free equivalent" criterion. Don't you think? George Ho (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  George Ho Still doesn't matter to me. Unless the text states what the people look like without having to visit other articles, I disagree that it's any different from having a film poster in the article. SL93 (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Comparing this screenshot to a film poster is a false equivalency, as the latter satisfies the contextual significance criterion "by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys" (WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#cite_note-3). Screenshots of episodes do not benefit from this clause and are required to not only "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", but their omission must also "be detrimental to that understanding" per WP:NFCC#8. The text in the Synopsis section adequately conveys the information presented in this image. ✗plicit 04:13, 17 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.

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: Relicense to PD-ineligible-USonly -FASTILY 02:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Internet Watch Foundation logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Banana19208 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

While this is probably copyrightable in the UK (Discussion here where this question will be debated), there are many logos at commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality more complicated than this that had copyright registrations rejected in the US. Thus this should be relicenced as Template:PD-ineligible-USonly Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relicense to PD-ineligible-USonly, seems to be below the US's TOO. Salavat (talk) 00:21, 11 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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asim Brkan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kornelije Kovac (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused album cover, no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:22, 11 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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avenues2006.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Msbhalla (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

India has no FoP for 2D graphics works. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:22, 11 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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Creu.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aramcara (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No clear source as to where this alleged logo comes from. The website of the organisation which supposedly used the image does not contain this image.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I searched other websites I found on an older version of the organisation's WP article. The other official website does not contain this logo. I checked another official website, the logo was nowhere to be found again. Veverve (talk) 23:04, 10 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.