Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 22



File:Vexillology (album).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, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Vexillology (album).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jasper the Friendly Punk ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

(Transferred from my talk page) Hi, I work for the record label that released [this album]. I'm contacting you because you were the most recent non-bot editor to the artwork shown on this page. The page for this item shows that was never used for the release of this album. Whoever uploaded this image is has been intentionally hoaxing readers. The image of the hand holding up a dead mouse is fake artwork for this release. is and has always been the only artwork for this album. Every release by Play Records at that time had the Play Digital logo (the fake artwork is missing this logo.) The artwork listed as "Alternate cover" is the only artwork this release has ever had. That image's caption describes it as "2015 re-release cover". That's also incorrect. The 2015 CD re-release was of both this album and his next album and listed both album titles in the artwork. For reference, here is the original release of this album on the original platform on which it was released. This artwork has never been changed. I've already removed mention of this fake artwork from the article. Can you remove the fake artwork JPG from the site please? I'm not sure how to delete erroneous images. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at simon [at] playrecords [dot] net. Thanks. sifr4 (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Ron h jones (Talk) 00:42, 22 February 2018 (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:Mohamedasky.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 ⚡  12:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Mohamedasky.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Mohamedasky69 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

unused personal image, no encyclopedic use  F ASTILY   06:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused selfie and we are WP:NOTFACEBOOK. ALH (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2018 (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:Shaktisinh addressing public gathering in his constituency.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, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Shaktisinh addressing public gathering in his constituency.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Yashrajsinh14393 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Slightly concerned because the original version had a copyright watermark, subsequently removed. Sitush (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If the work is actually the work of the uploader, then the watermark wouldn't be of too much concern. I'm not really seeing anything to indicate that it isn't "own work" based off of a cursury Google search, but I could be wrong. ALH (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, if those are the circumstances. But the EXIF data doesn't help and in my experience uploaders from India often have a poor grasp of the "own work" concept. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In my experience, I don't think anyone has a good concept as to what own work means, but that's a different discussion. Upon looking further into uploads from this user, I would agree with the conclusion that the uploader may not have a good idea on what "own work" means. Specifically, I was looking at File:Limbda coat of arms.jpg, which is a coat of arms marked as the user's work. ALH (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2018 (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:WWJO.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 as F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * File:WWJO.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Milk the cows ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Former logo being used in a decorative manner in WWJO. Non-free former logos no longer used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox typically lack the context required by WP:NFCC which is exactly the case of this former logo. So, unless it can be converted to PD-logo so that it is no longer subject to WP:NFCCP or sourced critical commentary about the logo itself is added to the article to justify its non-free use and its non-free use rationale is revised accordingly to reflect this, the file should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Decorative galleries on radio and television station pages have long been frowned upon. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 09:26 on February 11, 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and convert to PD-logo. This is plain text; is does not meet the threshold of originality and is not eligible for copyright. ℯ xplicit 01:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 22 February 2018 (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.

Non-free former KLDJ logos

 * 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 File:KLDJ-FM.png, move File:KLDJ.png to Commons - F ASTILY   02:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * File:KLDJ-FM.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Milk the cows ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).


 * File:KLDJ.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Milk the cows ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Former logos being used in a decorative manner in KLDJ. Non-free former logos no longer used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox typically lack the context required by WP:NFCC which is exactly the case of these logos. So, unless they can be converted to PD-logo so that they are no longer subject to WP:NFCCP or sourced critical commentary about the logos themselves is added to the article to justify their non-free use and their resepctive non-free use rationales are revised accordingly to reflect this, the files should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Decorative galleries on radio and television station pages have long been frowned upon. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 09:26 on February 11, 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete File:KLDJ-FM.png as nominated. Keep File:KLDJ.png and convert to PD-logo. This is plain text; is does not meet the threshold of originality and is not eligible for copyright. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 01:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is some heavily stylized text. Are we sure that it doesn't meet originality requirements after all? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Both decorative images violating WPRS/TVS WP:GALLERY guidelines. There is no need to retain these as PD images at all.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Except File:KLDJ.png can be moved to Commons and utilized on projects where fair use for media files is not allowed at all, like the Spanish and Japanese Wikipedias. <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 05:41, 2 March 2018 (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:St Oswald's Priory, Gloucester information panel.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Copyvio The images shows large sections of text, clearly readable.

Note: I won't follow up on this, too many idiots around here who attack IPs without reason. If this is the wrong place or format, do the necessary work yourself. 91.10.38.198 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2018 (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:Juliette Benzoni signing books in 1963.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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. Seems clear cut. We have a free image that is sufficient and a non-free image (at least based on information at hand) that largely fill the same purpose. NFCC#1 applies to both images - Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Juliette Benzoni signing books in 1963.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jeff G. ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This apparently fails WP:NFCC#1 – there is a free portrait of Benzoni on Commons, File:Juliette-benzoni-31-10-2009.jpg. It may also fail #4, as there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the copyright holder authorised publication at www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per the fact that there is a free alternative. ALH (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is evidence that the copyright holder of www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch has authorized publication of this photo in 2017081710018172. This is a better photo for the articles about Juliette Benzoni and her first successful book Catherine (1963 novel), and is the only photo we have of her signing that book.  — Jeff G. ツ 10:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination unless this can be OTRS verified. WP:NFCC requires that we use free equivalents when are capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free. The primary purpose of identification does not require that we use a non-free image to show how a certain person appeared at a certain time of their life, unless their Wikipedia notability is primarily derived from their physical appearance as covered by reliable sources at the time. If non-free photos simply showing how some appeared in their prime was an accepted form of non-free use, there would probably be no articles about living or dead people without a non-free image being used in their main infobox. Benzoni is deceased and in general a non-free image of deceased individual is allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as it satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria; not satisfying NFCC#1 means that it can't be used in such a way. Now, if it can be shown that this particular image itself was the subject of sourced critical commentary in independent reliable sources, then perhaps in would satisfy WP:NFCC and could be moved near such content within the body of the article. The non-free use rationale, etc., would have to be revised accordingly to reflect this new use, but that's probably the only way to keep if it can't be verified to have been released under a free license.However, authors often sign their books and there's nothing usually particularly significant about them doing so. Being the only image we have of her signing a book only matters if that is something which is/was the subject of critical commentary per WP:IRREPLACEABLE and WP:HISTORIC.
 * Finally, there's no possible way at all to justify this type of non-free use in the main infobox of the article about the book Catherine (1963 novel). It's obvious from the sources cited in the article that she wrote the book, and the primary means of identification in an article about the book should be the cover art of the book itself. The original cover art is it can be found could be upload as non-free book cover using the non-free use rationale Non-free use rationale book cover. I'm not sure if any of these are the proper cover art, but book covers are not usually too hard to find. Even if this file is verified by OTRS to be under a free license, it probably still shouldn't be used in the main infobox for identification of the book/series. It can be moved to the body of the article and a non-free book cover used in the main infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:, it really doesn't matter what the copyright holder of www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch thinks, says or asserts – that site is filled with apparent copyvios (newspaper clippings and the like) and I have started removing links to it per WP:LINKVIO. What matters for NFCC#4 is whether there is evidence that the copyright holder of the image (presumably either Editions Trévise or their photographer) ever authorised publication of it on that website. I'll admit I haven't read every word of that rather long ticket, so will just ask: do you see any such evidence? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately, but not for lack of trying.  — Jeff G. ツ 13:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Another: File:Juliette Benzoni receiving the Knight of National Order of Merit, Chevalier de l'Ordre National, from President Jacques Chirac in 1998.jpg. I think the same considerations apply to this too (uncertain source, no evidence that catherinedemontsalvy.ch hosts it with permission, free alternative available), so I'm adding it here. But if anyone thinks it should have its own individual listing, please go ahead and do that instead. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete "File:Juliette Benzoni receiving the Knight of National Order of Merit, Chevalier de l'Ordre National, from President Jacques Chirac in 1998.jpg" for the same reasons given above for the other file nominted for discussion here. Note this is not a double vote, since this is about a second image subsequently added to this discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Justlettersandnumbers The website www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch whom you suspect of copyvios, had been approved in 2009 by the late Juliette Benzoni herself. The newspaper clippings and the like as you wrote on the Catherine (series 1986) article after you deleted all links
 * 14:45, 23 February 2018‎ Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,043 bytes) (-1,116)‎ . . (rm links to www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch per WP:LINKVIO (it is anyway just somebody's website, not a reliable source))


 * had been contributed by the author herself to that websiste. There is evidence with a welcome speech by the author in French, mentioning the name of the webmaster and wishing everyone a good stay at the catherine de Montsalvy site. About who is the copyright holder of the photo showing Benzoni at Opera Mundi, signing her very first bestseller Catherine? It cannot be elicit anymore. The publisher Editions Trévise does not exist anymore. Laramie1960 (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2018 (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:Juliette Benzoni in her garden at Saint-Mandé, 8 August 1985.jpg
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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. Since as is WP:NFCC does not appear to be met per comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:Juliette Benzoni in her garden at Saint-Mandé, 8 August 1985.jpg">File:Juliette Benzoni in her garden at Saint-Mandé, 8 August 1985.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Jeff G. ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This apparently fails WP:NFCC#1 – there is a free portrait of Benzoni on Commons, File:Juliette-benzoni-31-10-2009.jpg. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per the fact that there is a free alternative. ALH (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is no free alternative photo of Juliette Benzoni in her garden, or at that point in her career in 1985.  — Jeff G. ツ 10:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete unless OTRS verification can be made. A non-free image of her in here garden at that particular point in here career is going to be hard to justify per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. More than one non-free image is not really needed for primary identification purposes and non-free images aren't really allowed to show a person as they look at particular stages of their careers unless their appearance was something covered in reliable sources at the time per NFCC#3. Moreover, this particular phot itself is not really itself the subject of any sourced critical commentary so the context required by NFCC#8 is lacking. Finally, a non-free image showing her in the her garden is completely unneccesarily per both NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 is it's intention is to support article content such as "She travelled widely, and enjoyed gardening and cooking for her family and her guests." So, unless this can be verified by OTRS to have been released under a free license or some sourced critical commentary about this particular image is added to the article, I can see any way to justify this type of non-free use based upon WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2018 (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:VS Code (Insiders).png
<div class="boilerplate ffd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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: Keep under current license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * <span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx ffd-file" id="File:VS Code (Insiders).png">File:VS Code (Insiders).png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by KamranMackey ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is a file marked as non-free. Since Visual Studio Code is released under the MIT license, I think this file is free content. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:7185:B855:ACA:9F40 (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am afraid you are wrong. Only the slightly incomplete source code of Visual Studio Code is released under MIT license. When compiled without change, it does not turn into Visual Studio Code, but rather a shapeless Electron window that exhibits most of the Visual Studio Code behavior. Visual Studio Code binaries are released under a non-free license. This is a deliberate action to combat backspaceware and keep Microsoft's name and legal marks protected, while still keeping everything else free and enable open-source development. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2018 (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.