Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 18

August 18

File:Proxy Server Block Diagram.jpeg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 08:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The file was uploaded by the author apparently for his sandbox. But he uses a different file there, uploaded by him. — Ирука¹³ 03:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and of poor quality. Firstly, this image is not used anywhere, and File:Block representation of a Proxy server.png is a better representation of the same concept in every way, which is also uploaded using a correct license, and makes this file redundant. An SVG would be even better, but deleting this unused JPEG image would be a good start. — The Anome (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Geoffrey Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes, 18th Baron Saye and Sele.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 14:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the creator of the portrait should be given to determine correct licensing Estopedist1 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Clementeoriginalplaque.jpeg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 14:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If try to illustrate with this image Roberto Clemente plaque, then it will be a violation MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. If cut off everything around plaque - a violation of c:COM:De minimis/c:COM:FOP US. Therefore, it is a potentially unnecessary file. — Ирука¹³ 10:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ed Sheeran mathematics tour dates.jpeg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 12:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text on this poster is unreadable (because the resolution is too low to comply with fair use), which means that this poster does not significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the topic, as required by WP:NFCC#8. Cropping to just the stadium image would be better, but not convinced that it still meets NFCC8. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Text being unreadable does not have anything to do with fair use. For example, billing blocks on movie posters are often unreadable in the standard size on Wikipedia and are considered fair use. A poster used to identify the concert in the infobox of the concert article passes WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First time I've ever seen someone claim that text on a poster which is downsized for fair use being unreadable does not significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the topic. The poster here is to identify the concert and the article about the concert, not for people to read it. Also in regards to NFCC#8 I'm pretty sure it refers to the poster itself, not the text inside it. The name of the concert is clear even in the downsized poster, that should be all that matters. S5A-0043^Talk 10:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're ignoring where I said Cropping to just the stadium image would be better. There is zero value to having unreadable text on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NFCC rational for the portion used already states “ The entire poster: because the image is poster art, a form of product packaging or service marketing, the entire image is needed to identify the product or service, properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image.” Kindly explain how cropping the poster will work in regards to this. S5A-0043^Talk 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The entirety of the image represents the tour poster, and the text, regardless of readability, represents part of the visual design of the poster and would be inappropriate to crop out. -- Whpq (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq and SBS6577P. — The Anome (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Example of trials in a numerical stroop experiement.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 14:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, replaced by the author with another image. — Ирука¹³ 11:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and redundant, with a better version already available to replace it. — The Anome (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:MobiviaGroupeOldLogoNorauto.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 12:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current logo for this company that is used in the company article; including an older logo seems to fail non-free use. ~T P W 16:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could this be {{pd-logo}}, as it consists only of geometric shapes and text? If so, then it can be moved to Commons, and if not, delete as per the nom's rationale. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the head with helmet looks to be above threshold of originality for me. Use in a gallery of old logos fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company was founded in France and still has its headquarters there. It would be a reasonable supposition to say the logo was originally published in France. As such, we should refer to the Commons guidance on the threshold of originality in France. It appears the bar for achieving copyright protection is quite low in France and even purely text-based creations can obtain protection if they show the "imprint of the personality of the author." The key consideration appears to be whether the creation shows the aesthetic consideration of the creator. In this case I think the stylised face and helmet pushes us over the bar. In my view, {{pd-logo}} won't apply here and we must consider it solely against fair use criteria. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:HSBC BWF World Tour Logo.svg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generic logo being used in specific season articles, in violation of WP:GETTY point 14. The general article BWF World Tour seems to be using different logos to this one, and so there isn't a valid fair use of this image. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Irish Football Association logo.svg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Remove from all except Irish Football Association -FASTILY 10:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the logo of the Irish Football Association, not of the national teams themselves. As such, it is an invalid use on any article other than the IFA article. For the national teams, the Ulster banner could be used, as this is the actual flag that the Northern Ireland football teams use. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Castkungfukids.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a screen grab of a TV show. No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unused, and no free use rationale given. — The Anome (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Italian Map of the Holy Roman Empire after 30 Years War.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 The Anome (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page number at bottom right and the fact it looks like a scan indicates this map was probably taken from a textbook. Questionable licencing. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio; clearly a scan from a book, no free use justification, typeface used shows that this book is too recent to be out of copyright. — The Anome (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a copy from a book, and that book should be assumed copyrighted unless anyone could irrevocably demonstrate otherwise (which is unlikely to be the case). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now WP:SNOW deleted as obvious copyvio. — The Anome (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2023 (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:Lucy Letby mugshot.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 23:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The individual is alive, hence Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1 does not apply. Schwede 66 21:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is a mugshot still being used on Joe Exotic's page? If it's not a problem for him then I don't see why it should somehow be a problem for Lucy Letby's page either. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because File:Joe Exotic (Santa Rose County Jail).png is a public domain image, so can be used. This image is a non-free image, so has to meet all of the WP:NFCC, which this doesn't. Also, WP:OSE. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The blanket reason of 'being alive' is not, in itself, sufficient to fail criterion#1 and is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. The policy states non-free content can be used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created (emphasis added). The death of the subject is one obvious example but the policy does not specify or limit it to that one circumstance. Living persons are hard to justify, in general, as they can pop up at public events, or are even free to release something themselves. This is not the case here. The subject is obviously not free to do any of this. HM Prison Service will not allow cameras in, so even the most spirited Wikimedian has zero chance of capturing that 'free' shot anytime soon. Considering this judiciously rather than on a 'blanket' basis is called for here. Thanks. FotoFree (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One could be created though. Anyone who has ever met her and has a photo of her could licence one. Including anyone that has an image of her from around the trial. No evidence that any attempt to get a free image has been made. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I were being honest, do you think that someone will actually release a photo of a serial killer under a license that allows commercial exploitation of the photo? Allowance for commercial usage is a must for Wikipedia pictures, and not sure about you but it feels like common sense to me that they likely won't. Asking the family or a friend and they'll likely try to distance themselves from a convicted serial killer, and in case you aren't aware "UK law bans photographers from taking pictures or videos from inside the courtroom, unlike some countries such as the United States." And I find it highly impractical that we trace the high number of people who are outside the court trying to get a close view. S5A-0043^Talk 10:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FotoFree. S5A-0043^Talk 03:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with FotoFree, I wanted to re-upload the Lucy Letby mugshot image in only-English Wikipedia with templates {{ir-Mugshot}}{{Non-free fair use in|Lucy Letby|image has rationale=yes}} before discovering Nineteen Ninety-Four guy upload then first, I thank him. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FotoFree. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FotoFree. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fail to see how you can find a free equivalent.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NFCC#1 is not a blanket prohibition on images of living people, but it is just the case that most non-free images of living people could have a free replacement made. In this case, the subject will be incarcerated for life so there will be no opportunity for a free image to be created. -- Whpq (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq and FotoFree. Since she will be in prison for the rest of her life, it will be effectively impossible to create a free image of her. — The Anome (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be worth including a link to the Cheshire Constabulary's terms and conditions, which suggests limited reuse is acceptable for the purpose of research, self study and education, provided that the material is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. While these terms are not compatible with Commons, I think they strengthen a fair use rationale. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The suggestion that 'someone might provide an existing picture and freely licence it' is a straw man that would block any non-free photo. If it happens, then this image will be deleted and the new one uploaded to Commons and used. But it hasn't happened yet, and there is no known way to arrange for it to happen, so we are in the position 'where no free equivalent is available, or could be created' [emphasis added] as required by condition 1.

-- Verbarson ^talk_edits 14:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.