Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 September 4

September 4

File:Winstanley College Student Union Logo.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 ⚡ 13:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fail NFCC8, not the primary subject of the article and doesn't really increase a reader's knowledge of the subject. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:11, 4 September 2024 (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:Winstanley College TV Logo.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: Convert to PD-ineligible-USOnly per Marchjuly (non-admin closure) —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fail NFCC8, not the primary subject of the article and doesn't really increase a reader's knowledge of the subject. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even copyrightable? It seems too simple for copyright to apply, and its use in the article is an editorial decision which should be handled on the article talk page. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it might be {{PD-textlogo}}, but in general, uses in articles are governed by the non-free content criteria, and FfD is the right place to discuss whether the NFCC are being met. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NFCC only apply to non-free content; they don't apply to public domain logos. Whether this is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection and should be converted to "PD-logo" or some other PD license is something that can be discussed here. If that's the case, then IP 4.37.252.50 is also right in that deciding whether to use a PD logo often can be resolved through article talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying it was meant as: It seems too simple for copyright to apply, and its use in the article is an editorial decision…? That makes sense; sorry if I misinterpreted. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to PD-ineligible-USonly ({{PD-ineligible-USonly|United Kingdom}}): This basically seems to be nothing more than the letter "w" twice superimposed on a light blue background, which in my opinion seems to lack sufficient creativity to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO US, even if it would still be considered eligible for such protection in the UK per c:COM:TOO UK. For logos like this, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is often used for local use on Wikipedia because (unlike Commons) Wikipedia only needs to comply with US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2024 (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:NoahFrankie Ponyo.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 ⚡ 13:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This cover art is redundant to the Japanese cover currently in the infobox of the Gake no Ue no Ponyo (song) article. Use of more than one non-free file serving the same purpose violates criterion 3a of the non-free content policy. Delete. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:40, 4 September 2024 (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:Mina-lupo sigla.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 ⚡ 13:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot of two portrayers may not contextually signify the song "parole parole". George Ho (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2024 (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:Look of Love.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 ⚡ 13:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film screenshot of two performers in a song segment may not contextually signify the song The Look of Love (1967 song). George Ho (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2024 (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:Patty and Selma in their real hair color.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, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this adds any meaningful commentary to the characters. Especially since this seems like a one off joke. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8. The image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary and its removal from the article would not detract from a reader's understanding of the topic. -- Whpq (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2024 (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:Ahmed Muthasim Adnan portrait.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, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the source Flickr account for this provides a free license, the information text states this is Uz. Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan portrait by Supreme Court of Maldives. so the Flickr account is not the rights holder for the image. c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Maldives indicates that government text of a legal nature is not copyrighted bur this isn't text. The image license is doubtful. Note that Commons has c:Category:Ahmed Muthasim Adnan so we are not without free images of the subject. Whpq (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can otherwise be shown (i.e. VRT verifiction) that the Flickr account holder is actually the copyright holder of the photo. Although it might've been unintentional, this does seem like a case of Flickrwashing and the Flickr licensing seems questionable at best. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2024 (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:Joanna Harbour VVG.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, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 as candidate is alive and currently running for office. reppop^talk 22:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#1. hinnk (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1. Even if WP:FREER and item #1 of WP:NFC#UUI weren't problems, this type of non-free use would still fail WP:NFLISTS. @Reppop: For future references, files like this which clearly fail NFCC#1 can be tagged with {{rnfu}} per WP:F7 instead of being discussed here at FFD; such files usually only need to be discussed when someone is arguing {{di-replaceable non-free use disputed}} and an administrator feels further discussion is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks. I'll make note of it if something similar comes up that I see. reppop^talk 04:09, 6 September 2024 (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.