Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 March 26



File:Sihanoukville airport.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  06:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Sihanoukville airport.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Kwanefung ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Can be replaced by free files Billytanghh (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Yellowbird-habanero-condiment-front-label.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Yellowbird-habanero-condiment-front-label.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Xyzerb ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Photo is of bottle of hot sauce that was uploaded as public domain yet photo includes image of bottle's label which is very likely still protected by copyright, thus making the image non-free and a derivative work regardless of whether photo was taken personally by uploader or the bottle was owned (i.e., purchased) by uploader. File was discussed at WP:CQ and the opinion was that file does not even qualify as a non-free image for upload to Wikipedia per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC since the draft article it is being used in already contains a non-free logo for the product which is the same as the bottle's label. Typically, public domain images are tagged with Copy to Wikimedia Commons, but this image would not be acceptable for upload to Commons per c:COM:PACKAGING and c:COM:DW, which further makes it licensing as public domain suspect. Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it. I'll create a drawing and use that instead. --Xyzerb (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 Melhor Banda de Todos os Tempos da Última Semana Cover.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 as failing NFCC#8 in that the image fails to significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic - Peripitus (Talk) 11:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:A Melhor Banda de Todos os Tempos da Última Semana Cover.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Victor Lopes ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Second album cover in A Melhor Banda de Todos os Tempos da Última Semana. WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC B (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't a second album cover, this is the cover of a single. Victão Lopes  Fala! 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:5 denari.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:5 denari.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Tomica ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Photo of a Macedonian denar coin from some geocaching website used under a claim of fair use. (For one thing, the image page violates WP:NFCC since it does not tell us who took the photo.) 3D objects - even barely 3D objects like coins - are copyrightable derivative works and so this image could be replaced with a less non-free version. (Please note that per Commons:Commons:Currency, Macedonian currency is NOT public domain and so we cannot have a completely free version.) B (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:50 macedonian denars-coins.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:50 macedonian denars-coins.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Tomica ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Photo of a Macedonian denar coin from some guy's blog used under a claim of fair use. (For one thing, the image page violates WP:NFCC since it does not tell us who took the photo.) 3D objects - even barely 3D objects like coins - are copyrightable derivative works and so this image could be replaced with a less non-free version. (Please note that per Commons:Commons:Currency, Macedonian currency is NOT public domain and so we cannot have a completely free version.) B (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:10 denari 2008.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:10 denari 2008.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Tomica ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Photo of a Macedonian denar coin with no actual source used under a claim of fair use. The description page just gives the image link as the source. I looked and there was a previously deleted version (it was deleted for having no fair use rationale) and that previously deleted version did not give a source. (For one thing, the image page violates WP:NFCC since it does not tell us who took the photo.) 3D objects - even barely 3D objects like coins - are copyrightable derivative works and so this image could be replaced with a less non-free version. (Please note that per Commons:Commons:Currency, Macedonian currency is NOT public domain and so we cannot have a completely free version.) B (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Ditching of Ethiopian Airlines Flt 961.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: Kept - at least the nomination issue has been resolved - Peripitus (Talk) 11:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Ditching of Ethiopian Airlines Flt 961.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Firemansam08 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The Fair Use rationale claims this is a screenshot of a TV station "or identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents". I don't believe that is the case. This image is used on an article Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961, which is about an airline accident. It is not used to illustrate anything to do with the TV station or its programmes. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The reason behind the fair use tag is that the image itself is of television footage that shows the crash (not because it's used to illustrate a TV station, though that's the intention of the template). Is there a better option? May be appropriate to re-tag it with Template:Non-free fair use. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 06:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Update - We apparently have Template:Non-free aircraft image, which I've re-tagged the image as and now !vote keep. If there's question on whether it meets our non-free criteria, that can be brought up at Non-free content review. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 06:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Horn 1.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Horn 1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by DoubleUareX ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused, and indiscernible. I am not sure moving it to Commons do any good. It does not match their project scope, COM:SCOPE. Codename Lisa (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Low quality and doesn't seem to be useful for anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:German soldier on guard at the Atlantic Wall, 1944.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:German soldier on guard at the Atlantic Wall, 1944.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Jonas Vinther ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC: random picture of a German soldier. The section would be equally easy to understand without this picture. Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It does, in my opinion, not fail WP:NFCC and is relevant in the section it's currently in. The picture helps to understand exactly what kind of natural defenses the British/the Allies faced as well as the overall surroundings on the beach. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But there is no sourced critical discussion about such things, so a picture illustrating it is unnecessary. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stadigvæk, Stefan, jeg syntes vi skal beholde det. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To further argue my case that this image should be kept, I've filled out the not answered questions in the image summary. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:1999 AVN Awards Best Specialty Tape Bondage.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:1999 AVN Awards Best Specialty Tape Bondage.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Pumik9 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:FREER: pictures like this should have two copyright tags. Also fails WP:NFCC as the FUR isn't for the article containing the image. Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It does, in my opinion, not fail WP:FREER and is relevant in the section it's currently in (but if I'm missing something, please do let me know, as I may be able to fix it): a) There is no known free version of the photo available; b) Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all? I would say "no" because were that the case Academy Awards wouldn't have a prominently displayed Oscar; c) The photographer has given permission for use of the photo but I don't think a second copyright is required from the designer of the trophy because they're not really designed; they're mass-produced from different parts screwed and glued together; not really a designed sculpture or piece of art. But like I said earlier, if I've misunderstood something let me know. (I've fixed the missing FUR — the original page the image was too long and is being broken down into articles by year, thus the reason for moving the image — to remain with the related information, but I've only been working on that the last couple of days and hadn't had time to finish everything yet.) Thanks.. pumik9 • (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand the concern here. There are two sets of rights here - the rights of the designer of the trophy and the rights of the photographer.  We have an obvious fair use defense for the former, but not for the latter.  Though there will not be a completely "free" version because the trophy is copyrighted, we could be "less non-free" if we had a photo taken by a Wikipedian. --B (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, if the rights of the photographer are the concern, he gave me full permission to allow the photograph to be published on Wikipedia. I thought I made that clear on the photo's page though — did I do something incorrectly? I still have his email approving of this — Is there something else I need to do? He thought this was a great thing to do. pumik9 • (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't notice that and that's good to know but unfortunately not quite enough. Wikipedia does not accept images with a Wikipedia-only permission.  In other words, asking "can I use it on Wikipedia" is not the right permission.  Wikipedia requiresthat the image be released under an acceptable "free" license.  Because this photo is a derivative work of a copyrighted object, there are some who believe that this is incompatible with a regular CC-BY-SA license and so my recommendation is to ask that the photographer make his work available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.  WP:CONSENT has a sample form that can be used.  You can send him an email with that form (fill out the appropriate portions for him - the image name and the license is the "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication") and ask him to submit it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.  I apologize for how complicated this is - the purpose of it is that we are trying to build a free content encyclopedia - that is, one that is not encumbered by copyright restrictions. --B (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh.. OK, thanks for the patient explanation; I certainly wasn't aware of this. I have emailed the copyright owner as per your instructions and hope he does as asked. (Personally I think this is excessive bureaucracy for something that shouldn't be bureaucratic — I'm surprised Wikipedia gets any third-party photos at all! But then I have to remember that copyright law in many countries isn't as liberal as it is where I am.) Assuming the copyright owner does as asked, then it stays up? But what if this annoys him and he doesn't respond: When does it come down? And thanks again for your help. I just wish this information was part of the upload process so I would've known about it when I was uploading it. pumik9 • (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We do get quite a few third-party permissions actually. In fact, there is a 60-day backlog processing them because we get so many and there are so few volunteers (though if you get the appropriate permission, you can let me know and I can go search for this one in particular).  Yes, it should come down if we don't get that permission.  There's a sliding scale of "not good".  Getting some random guy's photo off the internet with no permission whatsoever (not the case here) is the worst.  Getting a photo with a Wikipedia-only permission, while not as bad, still isn't really acceptable.  If the Wikipedia-only permission came from the actual copyright holder for the object depicted (in other words, it's a sculptor sending us a picture of his own work, but without a free license), then we might at least consider it because there's only one person whose rights we are considering.  Yes, I completely agree that the process is confusing and bureaucratic.  There have been innumerable efforts at creating user-friendly upload forms and explanatory pages, but the problem is that you can't explain it in two sentences and that's about all you're gonna get into TL;DR territory.  I honestly don't know what the right answer is - there is a lot of information that needs to be communicated to understand Wikipedia's (complicated) license needs. --B (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Popstefanov at Ponferrada 2014.pdf

 * 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: kept but tagged as missing permission to allow the uploader some more time. The discussion they are having with B has at least started in the right direction - Peripitus (Talk) 11:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Popstefanov at Ponferrada 2014.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Gpop87 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Uploader stated: Scanned from a picture taken by my friend, for me to keep. without permission (not incidated) of his friend that this file would be used on the internet under this license. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 18:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: A picture of this cyclist, uploaded by this uploader, has already been deleted at least six times (see: User talk:Gpop87). Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you tried having a human (not template) conversation with the uploader about what is required? (Have the friend send am email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org affirming the authorship, the license, and the matter of attribution?)  It's obvious that the template messages are sufficiently intimidating and not helping him understand what he needs to do.  He even has email enabled - you could send an email if it looks like talk page messages are not being understood.  When someone is uploading random stuff they found on the internet, okay, fine, template away, but when he's obviously trying to upload something that if we simply ask the right questions we can get released under an acceptable license, have a HUMAN conversation with the other HUMAN. --B (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Sunny Boy Cereal Packaging.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Sunny Boy Cereal Packaging.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Oldkush ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC: non-free collage. Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:DunBradstreet.svg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * File:DunBradstreet.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Mendaliv ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC: extra logo. Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now D&B drastically changed their logo all of two weeks ago after using the same one since at least November 2001 (archived webpage). While I'm normally all for clearing out the old logos, this old one is the one by which most people will recognize the company. As such, I don't think it's surplus within a NFCC sense. I'm not saying we should have a library of old logos, but it makes some sense to keep an older one around for at least a little while when they've only just changed the current one. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Modify or Delete This old D&B logo is still showing up on other Wikipedia-linked pages such as this one: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dun-Bradstreet/108628702495558?fref=ts. It is showing up as the main logo on this page, which is confusing to users. It either needs to be further modified so it only shows up as a historical logo across the web, or deleted to avoid causing confusion around the company's recent rebrand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennacanfora (talk • contribs) 17:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem at Wikipedia's end, that's at Facebook's end. If they haven't re-scraped the article yet, and you're affiliated with D&B's brand management department you can probably request that they do so. That or ask the marketing department to create an official Facebook page for the corporation. In short, there's nothing that Wikipedia can do to change that Facebook page. Even deleting the image will not purge it from Facebook's cache of the page. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.