Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 19



File:Donkeys in Monolithi Beach.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 ⚡  03:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Donkeys in Monolithi Beach.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Harrygouvas ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Nominating for deletion as Unencyclopedic. This is a product of forgery. It is falsely stated that:
 * this photo belongs to Harry Gouvas (or to his pseudo-museum; see the initial description by Gouvas );
 * it was shot at Monolithi Beach, Preveza, Greece;
 * it had been shot in the 1930s;
 * the photographer has been identified as Nikolaos Thomaides (1875-1942), a local photographer of Preveza.

The people and the donkeys had been shot at Atlantic City, New Jersey in 1906, , and they had "further photoshop treatement" before put in front of a another backround. ——Chalk19 (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

PS. Obviously Harry Gouvas had deliberately made false statements in an earlier discussion (July 10, 2016) opend by Jo-Jo Eumerus. ——Chalk19 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a forgery or a photo manipulation. Also per nom. George Ho (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would G3 be applicable here? 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:6B (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:6B is probably right (a "Pure vandalism and blatant hoax"). ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2017 (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:Bluesbrotherssoundtrack.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 ⚡  03:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Bluesbrotherssoundtrack.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Nehrams2020 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Six months ago, I the film soundtrack cover of The Blues Brothers (film) because I thought it lacks contextual significance, required by WP:NFCC. However, it was because the album was well charted in music charts. I discussed the image at Talk:The Blues Brothers (film), but no one responded for six months. Therefore, I decide to take this to FFD as PRODding is a one-shot process and "di-disputed fair use rationale" is inappropriate for a de-PRODded file. The film soundtrack is, I think, not independently notable, but the section in the film article about the soundtrack is large enough to allow room for an image and an infobox. Even if the soundtrack were notable, the stand-alone article wouldn't be guaranteed. The article subject is the film, and the soundtrack cover does not help readers increase their understanding of the film. The article already has its content that helps readers understand the film. Also, most of the soundtrack's track listing consists of the fictional characters or other musicians performing other people's songs and compositions. George Ho (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2017 (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:Burqan 2 2.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 ⚡  03:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Burqan 2 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Kivaan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCCP#1, a free image could reasonably be found/created, just like we have a free image of the Fateh-110 missile. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2017 (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:Leonard Mlodinow headshot.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 ⚡  03:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Leonard Mlodinow headshot.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Djb2183 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Permission is not specific enough and does not include commercial reuse. There is a "when writing about me" restriction that precludes public domain and would also not fall under a creative commons type license. We would need a more specific type of release, preferably with an actual legally binding copyright license stated. Majora (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2017 (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:Holiday in Duckburg.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 ⚡  03:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Holiday in Duckburg.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Pigby ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The caption at Donald Duck universe is inconsistent with the fair use rationale. The fair use rationale claims to identify the subject, but the usage in the article seems decorative. 108.210.218.199 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2017 (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.