Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 October 17

< October 16	October 18 >

October 17

File:Drach2.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious own-work claim. An unedited, uncropped version exists here. ✗plicit 00:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Pedant (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2022 (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:Pleione-limprichtii-formosana-unknown-levels.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source file deleted on Commons due to no author or source information. ✗plicit 00:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2022 (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:Cypripediumcalceolus-levels.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. Precautionary principle, and known free alternatives available. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source file deleted due to no source information. ✗plicit 00:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I think it should be possible with some effort to ascertain the ultimate source of the image, the large watermark and the abundance of good alternatives on Commons (see commons:Category:Cypripedium calceolus - botanical illustrations) suggests deletion. Felix QW (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I replaced its two uses (one of which was in a stub template) with a non-watermarked Commons image. Felix QW (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2022 (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:Vicenza panorama.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. Whpq (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low resolution, superseded by File:Vicenza da Monte Berico DSCF4388a.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 03:48, 17 October 2022 (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:Вибух-кримський-міст.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. Whpq (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image comes from AFP (source: https://www.afpforum.com/AFPForum/Search/ViewMedia.aspx?mui=3&hid=766604C4FDD25505329C4632B6058FD884C84DA54A57CF091D3CFE18768D790A&cck=ea2de5), which I believe it's a commercial source, which is usually not allowed unless the image itself is the subject of critical commentary, and may be subject to speedy deletion. Also the uploader didn't state why it's not replaceable in the rationale, the question is it might not be replaceable with any free image illustrating the bridge after explosion. Stylez995 (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are page from Russian wiki? They're upload image. Bonthefox3 (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonthefox3: Russian Wikipedia has its own non-free content policy, as for each individual Wikipedia projects. English Wikipedia has somewhat stricter WP:NFCC policy than other projects. Wikipedia prefers to use freely-licensed images whenever it's possible.

Also for another non-free image uploaded by you on used on the same page, File:Спутниковый снимок Крымского моста после взрыва 8 октября.png, you didn't explain why it's not replaceable in the rationale either. Although the image is not from commercial source, like AP and Getty, I think this might not be needed as it's adequately described by text in the article, and the image should be replaceable with freely-licensed alternatives as anyone can go there and take a free photo of the bridge after the explosion, as it's reopened to traffic, and upload to Commons, or maybe a public domain ISS image from NASA. --Stylez995 (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2022 (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:Nokia 7650.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, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious copyright claim as image could be found at other websites [1] prior to the upload to Wikipedia. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2022 (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:Fontanalogo.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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. ✗plicit 23:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure whether the Fontana Records logo is below the US threshold of originality. Nonetheless, images containing the logo were deleted on Commons because the logo is still copyrighted in the Netherlands, its home country, for almost six more years. Should be "PD-ineligible-USonly" if considered below the threshold. George Ho (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2022 (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:Exorcist angiogram scene.webm

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 2022 October 25. Whpq (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exorcist angiogram scene.webm (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:YvonneEllimanIDontKnowHowToLoveHim.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: relisted on 2022 October 25. Whpq (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:YvonneEllimanIDontKnowHowToLoveHim.ogg (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.