Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 May 3

< May 2	May 4 >

May 3

File:MyLuckyStarOST.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) 02:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in My Lucky Star (TV series)#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (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:MyQueenTaiwanOST.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) 02:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in My Queen#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (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.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film) album covers

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) 02:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album covers being used in a decorative manner in Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film)#Music. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for these particular album covers anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (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:Shorta.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fake, non-official logo of an Egyptian club called Ittihad El Shorta SC. The official logo can be found on the club's article. Ben5218 (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 09:01, 3 May 2019 (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:Who's a Rat 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: keep. All of nom's issues have been addressed. ℯ xplicit 09:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two and a half reasons: I believe the free status of this picture is not necessarily reliable - a read through both of the article and the website itself indicates that copyright of the photos of the individuals on the site itself are not reliably (or at all) held.

While a picture of a website might be fair use, there's no way that Wikipedia can reliably use the photos within that site themselves.

I also feel that any actual use of the article would not be permitted due to the BLP policy on disparaging images WP:MUG. That would make this photo an inherent orphan.

Finally, there are not indefensible concerns of safety here, with the 3 individuals being at some heightened risk. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not represented as a free image ... go look at the image page; there's a fair-use justification. Second, if it were just those images, you'd have a point, but I would consider those pictures to be de minimis use; on Commons that's considered acceptable in an otherwise free image. As for the other concerns you have expressed, they are not by themselves reasons to delete an image, and honestly they could be easily addressed by blurring out the faces. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: - given their prominence, comparable size and identifiability, I would say that the usage of the photos is significant enough to surpass the de minimis level. In consideration to the other aspects, certainly they could be resolved by face blurring - if I could do so then I could at least reduce this to a single concern. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I can do it later today. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done A little bit later than I would have hoped, but done. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly, at least after the blurring, it's de minimis and any BLP concerns have been rectified. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 3 May 2019 (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.

Files from wixsite-ritmodelchino

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. There is no evidence that the copyright holders have licensed these work as PD. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of these images are licensed as public domain and sourced from https://kelaoshi.wixsite.com/ritmodelchino and https://kelaoshi.wixsite.com/ritmodelchino/recent which does indeed make a statement that the material is public domain. However, that claim on the website is simply not true.

File:Vinincunca Mountain Range, Cusco Peru 2019.jpg is a stock photo from Shutterstock.
File:Pedro Pablo Kuczynski 2019 trial.jpg is a screen shot from Justicia TV. The uploaded file still has the Justicia TV logo in the upper left corner making it clear that the claim from the wenb site of "I've had the opportunity to recently photography some events that were happening in Peru that involved former President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski's trial because of the Odebrecht scandal." is simply false.
File:Pedro Pablo Kuczynski 2019.jpg is a screen cap from a Youtube video(got to 56s mark).
File:El Ritmo del Chino.jpg is a screenshot as well. I remember seeing this video way back when. See this example from Youtube (go to 10s mark). Whpq

The claim of public domain from the source site does not hold up to scrutiny. (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq I don't see any evidence that that is untrue, however I was simply following the indications of Wikipedia's "free use policy" as I found this on a website that published "free use" photos. I am not responsible for what this site publishes/ does not publish, nor the validity of the statement they make. DoctorSpeed^{Want to talk?}

Furthermore, I do recognize that some of the photos (judging from your detailed post on the Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 May 3 page) are from the videos you have mentioned, however I am leaving the possibility that the author of this site has obtained a license from the original publishing media, or may have even published the media him/herself. I am in the look for a form of contact on the site that I have obtained the media to directly reach out to the author for clarification, or to question the validity of the licenses he/she has placed on the media. Regardless, I do think it is healthy to go through the files for discussion process of which you have initiated. Regards, DoctorSpeed^{Want to talk?}

The chances that the site's owner licensed the images as public domain are vanishingly small. Shutterstock is a stock image company. Yhey license images but not by releasing it in the public domain. Also, the site owner made the claim "I've had the opportunity to recently photography some events that were happening in Peru that involved former President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski's trial because of the Odebrecht scandal.", but the photo that he implies he took is not a photo, it's a screenshot and even includes the Justicia TV logo. That's just a straight up lie. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2019 (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:Adele 21 PVG.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image does not meet criteria at WP:NFC. Despite being a songbook cover, it is featured in the generic article Album and has little to no contextual significance. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not being used as primary visual identification at the top of the article as claimed in the NFUR -- Whpq (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2019 (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.