Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 25

< June 24	June 26 >

June 25

File:WP Evening News.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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn -FASTILY 23:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC applied to free image, would be better to have on Commons (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - is still most likely copyright in U.K. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:47, 25 June 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:SERGI004rob-2.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 ⚡ 00:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this image falls under the public domain in Brazil but not in the United States. If that is the case then it may need to be relicensed as a Non-free historic image. My understanding of public domain, what is allowable on Wikipedia as PD, etc is still a bit patchy so I thought I would bring this file here for clarification. For now I have just added the PD-Brazil-media license to the file. Thanks in advance for your input Salavat (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Uploader) I also have limited knowledge of what qualifies as public domain, though from what I understand it qualifies per this license/template. FredModulars (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The URAA date is 1 January 1996. Assuming the 70 year period from publication then this image wouldn't qualify I believe. Salavat (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salavat (talk · contribs) this image was found on a government website. Template:PD-BrazilGov claims "It is a work published or commissioned by a Brazilian government (federal, state, or municipal) prior to 1983." I might be missing something here, but wouldn't that mean it fits within the boundaries of 1 January 1996? Or would the date the article was published be the date used? I'm not too sure. FredModulars (talk) 07:29, 26 June 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:EstadoNovoaddress.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 ⚡ 00:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as the above discussion for File:SERGI004rob-2.jpg. Seeking clarification on its licensing and whether it needs to be converted to a Non-free historic image license. Was going to merge the discussions but wasn't sure how to do so Salavat (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Repeat) I would assume it qualifies on the basis of this license/template. FredModulars (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The URAA date is 1 January 1996. Assuming the 70 year period from publication then this image wouldn't qualify I believe. Salavat (talk) 06:37, 26 June 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:Dalai Lama with Abdulqadir Nooruddin, CDMW, 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is being used to show the subject's participation at a conference. The fact that the person was at the conference can be expressed with text and so fails WP:NFCC#1. The conference is not mentioned in the article body and is only present as an image caption. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Even if some mention were made of the conference in the article body, I don't see how that would meet the significance required of non-free content. Whpq (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image is free to reproduce per tibet.net's terms of use and so I brought it in to a Wikipedia article which did mention that the person was an principal representative for the community (as a means to show that indeed the person represents the community). The page has since been moved to drafts, and so the image could now be deleted while the page incubates. In the meanwhile, I'll work to get tibet.net administrators to release the image-in-question under a CC by SA 4.0 license the next time. Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 15:30, 26 June 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:SpaceJamANewLegacyTeaser.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 ⚡ 00:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:SpaceJamANewLegacyTeaser.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Orphan 2600:1700:4E90:2560:D9DE:4F2C:959F:FB67 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC) This file is unfree and no longer used in articles therefore it fails WP:NFCC.[reply]

Next time just tag an orphaned non-free file with {{subst:orfud}}. That will sort the image out in seven days and avoids coming to FFD. Salavat (talk) 06:42, 26 June 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:Throbbing Gristle - What A Day.ogg

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 ⚡ 00:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Song not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the "industrial music" article, currently a Good Article, outside the caption describing the sample. Well, even when mentioned, the sample doesn't improve understanding of the genre very much, and the genre may be well understood already without the sample, especially after deletion. In other words, may fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 20:26, 25 June 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:Queen Elizabeth wedding dress.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: relisted on 2021 July 26. MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Queen Elizabeth wedding dress.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh photo.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: relisted on 2021 July 26. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh photo.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.