Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 1

< May 31	June 2 >

June 1

File:Wikipedia profile photo (Lumen24).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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long-unused personal photo of long-inactive contributor. No conceivable encyclopedic use. Can't PROD due to FFD under previous name, see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2015_September_23#File:Asad.jpg ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:16, 1 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:A view of Holy Trinity School.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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yanked from the school's website per source link; orphaned, low-res, and possibly a copyvio. Hog Farm _Talk 01:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Salavat. SportingFlyer T·C 18:21, 7 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:Waterparkcollegecrest.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, crest logo is likely copyrightable, no indication that uploader is copyright holder. Hog Farm _Talk 01:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:17, 1 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:ANDREGARCIA-GREEN-LOGO.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File not uploaded with proper non-free use rationale. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:06, 2 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:Edge LiveAid.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

territorial U2 area editor claims the image use isn't allowed. the Getty license clearly states non-commercial usage is allowed. Wikipedia is a non-commercial site. Getting a good picture of the Edge from this era is extremely difficult, and I find the usage here to be fair 50.99.231.179 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Getty is quite clear on their site] here:[reply]

Perpetual, meaning there is no expiry or end date on your rights to use the content. Worldwide, meaning content can be used in any geographic territory. Unlimited, meaning content can be used an unlimited number of times. Any and all media, meaning content can be used in print, in digital or in any other medium or format. Non-Exclusive, meaning that you do not have exclusive rights to use the content. Getty Images can license the same content to other customers. If you would like exclusive rights to use royalty-free content, please contact Getty Images to discuss a buy-out.

in my opinion, there is no rationale to justify the removal of the image from the Edge's page, as the reasoning for its upload is clear. If the territorial area editor @Y2kcrazyjoker4: can find another image with the Edge having long hair from this era, I am more than open to it. It's telling he didn't respond at all to the comment on the talk page and opted to delete it without engaging in discussion. He has been banned multiple times for this behaviour, but seems to have issues learning from mistakes. 50.99.231.179 (talk)

I didn't delete any comment from the talk page, that's blatantly false. I removed the image from the article and tagged it for deletion because it's an invalid fair use rationale. You can't just upload images that don't belong to you and claim they are fair use because you want to depict someone with long hair. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't say you deleted my comment, genius. i said you deleted the picture without engaging in discussion. it's obvious you didn't delete any comment.

Delete This is a clear-cut violation of WP:NFCI. Non-free images of living people are never allowed, and in this case, there are many freely licensed photos of The Edge available for use. One editor's desire for a photo with a specific hair length cannot override policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming the Getty Royalty-Free license is not violated, and that Wikipedia is classified a non-commercial website, then I see no reason to remove the image. It is within the grounds of the license, and thus can be used on the site freely for non-commercial purposes (which is what I assume activity on this site would constitute).
- Reply You are wrong about "non-commercial". Yes, the Wikimedia Foundation is a non profit group, but our licensing allows for all of our text and almost all of our images to be re-used by anyone for any purpose, specifically including commercial uses, as long as it is attributed. Non-free images are allowed only in very narrow circumstances, and non-free images of living people are clearly excluded from that narrow policy exception. This is well-established, and your desire for a photo with long hair is a whim that must be disregarded. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- i see. look at this one https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/english-rock-musician-the-edge-of-the-group-u2-performs-news-photo/1280822164 wow he looks even cooler. is possible that the copyright holder could give permission exclusively for wikipedia, if i was able to obtain it from either pete still or paul natkin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.231.179 (talk • contribs)
  - @50.99.231.179: There is no "permission exclusively for Wikipedia". Everything published on Wikipedia is available for others to use, freely, for any purpose (commercial or not), so long as the give attribution to the author/creator. No image that appears here can be granted permission "only for Wikipedia"; that's just not how this site works. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In order for us to use this, its essentially going to have to be released with a free license allowing commercial use, which seems unlikely, and non-free images of living people are almost always replaceable with free media, and thus fail WP:NFCC. Hog Farm _Talk 18:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Cullen and others, policy is clear on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this is a crystal clear WP:NFCI violation. SportingFlyer T·C 18:22, 7 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:WorldmapLBEST.gif

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 ⚡ 01:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant original research. The only page on which it was used [1] may soon be deleted, so I will quote the comment the creator made here: "I've made a world map showing, to the best of my knowledge, where it is and isn't legal. Might add to the article? Green indicating legal, blue indicating the act is legal however pornography featuring bestiality is not, yellow indicating that the appropriate laws in this country vary at state or regional level and finally red indicating that bestiality is illegal both in practice and pornography. I stress that I can and will not garuantee its accuracy nor will it ever be complete. It should only serve as an indication." This has not been maintained since 2006 either so it is hopelessly out of date. This is not only useless, it is dangerous. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable accuracy and sourcing. Salavat (talk) 15:11, 2 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:Peace12.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peace12.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) Sswe12 (talk) 21:43, 1 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.