Wiki How:Files for discussion/2019 March 26

< March 25	March 27 >

March 26

File:Vinci Da (2019 flim poster).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: no consensus. That there is a speedy deletion criterion does not imply that anything that falls under it MUST be deleted, c.f the nutshell in WP:CSD. And G5 deletions have often been contentious, much along the same lines as in the discussion here. So, no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion under criterion G5 by Justlettersandnumbers as created by a sockpuppet of Jm sigal FASTILY 00:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for that reason. Note: if consensus is not to delete, I'll have to review some other recent deletions of sockpuppet creations. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, poster is correctly licensed and has appropriate fair use. Deleting due to G5 seems pointless. Salavat (talk) 23:57, 27 March 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:MLA logo 2018.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: relicense and move to Commons (c:File:Modern Language Association logo 2018.png). — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too simple to be copyrighted. funplussmart (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to PD-logo and transfer to Commons. Salavat (talk) 23:58, 27 March 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:Vanessa james.jpeg

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) 00:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A free use image could possibly be found for all of these. Many of these are incorrectly licensed (such as File:James Cipres 2012 Euros.jpg saying it is a screenshot of a website to be used to illustrate that website). All of these are of living people, so they fail to follow the guideline mentioned in {{WikiProject Biography}} "Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like." This is also mentioned in paragraph two of Wikipedia:Non-free content. Elisfkc (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all of these images are being used in the same article, which already has free use images, thereby proving my point. Elisfkc (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - In addition to the points raised by the nominator, the stated purpose of the images is just a vague statement such as "Add photos" which is a complete failure to meet WP:NFCC#8. The usage in this article is purely decorative. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, it looks like many of the photos come from [1]. Considering this photographer is selling photobooks, there may also be issues with WP:NFCC#2. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 26 March 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:Nanyang.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) 00:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

personal photo. may be malicious upload. no pages are using it. robertsky (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an expansion to my report as I had reported hastily during a quick break, contrary to user's claims, this photo is not from an official school instagram page. A reverse search on Google images reveals that this photo was probably taken from this tumblr post, which probably ripped from one of the school girls' Instagram account (now privatised). Under Wikipedia:Image_use_policy, the photo would qualify as a private photo as the photo appears to be taken in restricted area of the school, i.e. in the classroom block, along the corridors of the classrooms, where the public generally cannot access without prior permissions given. It would also be morally wrong have this photo up here as well, as it depicts the school girls (most likely under the age of 16 as this a secondary school) in an undesirable fashion (school girl A's hand cupping on school girl B's chest/breast). Even if the photo is from an official school instagram page, it should be the school to upload and release the photos for use here as the rights of photos on Instagram belongs to the school, not the user. - robertsky (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, questionable source and likely a private image without permission to use on a public website like Wikipedia. Also, image was previously used by uploader on Nanyang Girls' High School, but was removed due to it not being relevant due to being too much of a personal photo. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 03:02, 1 April 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:The picture of "The Golden Cangue" Beijing Opera.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) 00:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free Beijing Opera poster is being used as the primary means of identification at The Golden Cangue. However, the opera is an adaptaton of a novella which is the primary topic of the article. The adaptation is a section of the article. This poster is not the subject of any critical commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 16:41, 26 March 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:Thegoodlifemusicvideo.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) 00:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary in the article(s) it is used in FASTILY 22:31, 26 March 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:Chapel of the Holy Shroud Altar Under Construction.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 2019 April 3. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chapel of the Holy Shroud Altar Under Construction.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.