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) 00:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the desire for the creators to want the character to do fun things could easily be described in text, the character's image is already used in the infobox, and the image does not contribute anything to the article or is not noteworthy in itself. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the NFUR doesn't really provide a real rationale for purpose, and its use in the article is not required for a reader to understand creators of the TV show wanted the character to do fun things. -- Whpq (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have a good rational for its purpose and their is already a picture of the character. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 15:14, 23 August 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.
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 per author's statement here. ✗plicit 02:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the image says Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted. which is not a permitted license for use on Wikipedia. Izno (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The uploader/copyright holder did upload the file under a ((cc-by-sa-2.5)), which is acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. They also still seem to be around and last editted on August 14, 2022. So, if the uploader wants to still release this as originally licensed, the additional restriction regarding non-commerical and educational use should be removed from the file's page since they aren't compatible with that particular CC license. If the uploader still only wants to file to be used for non-commercial and educational purposes only, then the file most likely needs to be deleted since the subject of the photo is still living and there's no way to justify converting the file's licensing to non-free use because of WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am the uploader. I'm certain I just didn't really understand the licenses when I upload it. I'm happy to release this to whatever more permissive license is helpful here. How does one go about doing this? Ford MF (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fordmadoxfraud, I think just removing Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted. from the file fixes the issue since the page is already tagged with CC by SA 2.5. I'm not sure if this is a very common situation though so.... :) Izno (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fordmadoxfraud. The current CC-by-SA-2.5 is, as pointed out above, fine for Wikipedia's purposes, but any of the licenses listed here or here would work as well. Even though there are some Creative Commmons licenses that can be used for non-commercial and other types of restrictions, they are too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes. Simply removing the part about "non-commerical and educational use" should be sufficient, but you can further make it clear that this is your "own work" and you agree to license it as such by emailing your WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT if you want. It's probably not necessary, but it will make it clear to anyone wanting to reuse the file that you are the copyright holder. Finally, this file probably should be moved to Commons once the aforementioned restrictions have been removed. Freely-licensed files like this probably are better off being on Commons because it makes them much more easier to use by other Wikimedia Projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 23 August 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:Imjin.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) 03:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the photo may be reasonably licensed by the uploader, the painting underneath is clearly still in copyright and we do not appear to have an appropriate license statement from the creator. It is also unused. Izno (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:59, 22 August 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:Sputniks 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. It is not clear as to whether the presence of ((GFDL-self-with-disclaimers)) overrides these terms, but the precautionary principle means we probably should not keep this file. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the file page includes The use of this file is permitted only on Wikipedia. which is insufficiently licensed. Izno (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - restricting use to Wikipedia is insufficiently free. -- Whpq (talk) 00:38, 23 August 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:Ninjamask1.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) 03:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the text of the file page Rollins JP, http://www.history.com, and from what I can tell this is a copy of some other image (less the line over the eye, see Google Images), I am pretty sure this is not a free image. Uploader was later blocked for "abuse". It is also unused. Izno (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:00, 22 August 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:Julian phipps international grasstrack rider.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. It is not clear as to whether the presence of ((GFDL-self-with-disclaimers)) overrides these terms, but the precautionary principle means we probably should not keep this file. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the file page includes The use of this file is permitted only on Wikipedia. which is insufficiently licensed. It is also unused. Izno (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:00, 22 August 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:Auvillar bridge 600px.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. It is not clear as to whether the presence of ((GFDL-self-with-disclaimers)) overrides these terms, but the precautionary principle means we probably should not keep this file. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the image says Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted. which is not a permitted license for use on Wikipedia. Also unused. Izno (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:01, 22 August 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:Neumontcampus.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. It is not clear as to whether the presence of ((GFDL-self-with-disclaimers)) overrides these terms, but the precautionary principle means we probably should not keep this file. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the file page includes The use of this file is permitted only on Wikipedia. which is insufficiently licensed. The image is also unused. While the summary says it's used with permission, I do not believe we have on hand such permission from the creators. Izno (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:01, 22 August 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:Capaseal.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.
All this probably needs is an NFUR, but we would need to source the item which may not be trivial. It is very unlikely to have been created by the uploader either way. Izno (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a certification label of a quality testing organsiation so the claim of own work is highly dubious. A more up-to-date version of the seal can be found here. There is no discussion about the certification seal in the article so conversion to non-free use is not supportable. -- Whpq (talk) 00:43, 23 August 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:On ship ardii.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.
Unused personal photo. Out of scope. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Send to Commons it may be useful there. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused personal photographs of no use on enwiki do not magically gain any use when transferred to Commons. Hog FarmTalk 02:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an unused personal photo is out of scope for Commons. I see no educational use for this photo that would justify transferring to Commons. Whpq (talk) 13:11, 24 August 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:Mick Fuller Daily Telegraph 2019.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) 20:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal which fails WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-3). There might also be WP:NFCC#4 issues as well related to the source provide for the file. This file is currently not being used, and a bot has tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:F5 (WP:NFCC#7). This file has actually been deleted twice before per WP:F7 for WP:NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 concerns. The first time the file was deleted, the uploader re-uploaded it and re-added it back to the article; it was subsequently tagged again and deleted again, but this time the uploader asked that the file be restored so that it can be discussed at FFD; so, that's where things are right now. Since the was being used in New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal#2019 Daily Telegraph interview before it was last deleted, I'm assuming that's where the uploader wants the file to be used and that's the non-free use that needs to be discussed.Non-free cover art and non-free cover images (e.g. book covers, album covers, newspaper front pages) are generally OK when being used for primary identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about a work that the cover image represents per item 1 of WP:NFCI (assuming that all of WP:NFCCP are otherwise satisfied). In such articles, it's generally assumed that there is either already some critical commentary discussing the cover image itself or such commentary could be found and added to article at some point. Using non-free cover images in other ways or in other articles, however, it typically much harder to justify. In such cases, it's generally expected (as explained in "NFC#cite_note-3") that there be sourced critical commentary specific to the image iself (not the work it represrents) already present in the article so that seeing the image significantly improves the reader's understanding of such content to such a degree that not seeing the image would be detrimental to that understanding. I'm not see this in relevant section of the article where the image is intended to be used. There's commentary about things said by the police commissioner during the interview and how some others responded, but there's really nothing about the cover image itself except a sentence that begins with "Appearing in a front page exclusive published on 18 November". The cover image is also pretty much nothing but a photo of the police commissioner and a headline about the interview, neither of which are things that the reader needs to see and could possibly be expressed in other ways per WP:FREER. The non-free use rationale provided for the file states "Comments made in the interview received significant coverage and the piece represented the first instance of any NSW Police Commissioner explicitly defending the use of strip searches by the organisation.", but again none of that really justifies the reader needing to see this particular cover image. The consensus against non-free of cover images simply for identifying a subject of an in-body sections of some larger article about a different subject (releated in someway perhaps, ut still not the primary subject) goes quite a ways back per and been applied as such to lots in lots of other similar cases of non-free cover over the years, and I'm not really seeing any reason for not applying that consensus in the same way to this file's non-free use.Finally, the file might have problems with its sourcing per NFCC#4. While it's likely that this isn't a fake image and actually is what the cover of The Sydney Herald looked like on that day (so it most likely would meet the definition of "published" for NFCC purposes), the source provided is not to a website or social media account under the control of the copyright holder. It's sourced to someone's Facebook account and there's no indication that this person received the consent or the paper to upload the image to Facebook. Even if there's only a slight chance that image has been modified in any way, there's still a chance. So, it would be much better to provide a source either under the direct control of the The Sydney Herald or perhaps some other reputable publication which might be considered a reliable source in its own right and which might actually be critcally discussing the cover image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in the interview section of the article that needs this image in order for a reader to understand. Its use fails to meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This file was originally flagged as an WP:NFCC#8 violation. Per WP:NFCC#8, inclusion of non free content is permitted provided that it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". This file is featured in an article discussing the use of strip searches by NSW Police. In 2019, NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller appeared on the front page of Sydney's Daily Telegraph as part of an exclusive interview in which he defended the use of strip searches by the organisation. Comments featured in that interview suggesting that young people should have "a little bit of fear" of law enforcement were heavily criticised at the time and are frequently brought up in relation to the Commissioner in online discussions. This event was significant as it was the first time any NSW Police Commissioner had publicly addressed the use of strip searches by the organisation in a planned context. Comments made in the interview are referenced in the text, however the inclusion of the file highlights the significance of the story, which is made evident by the fact that The Daily Telegraph had chosen to run it on it's front page. The inclusion of the file also helps to show the reader how the use of strip searches by NSW Police has been represented by local media outlets. The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal article also utilizes an image of a newspaper front page for a similar purpose [[File:Times front page, 24 September 2012.jpeg]]. OpticalBloom241 (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. Decorative fair use, lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. -FASTILY 08:30, 26 August 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:Axl child.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) 20:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence on this page for the assertion that "it was published in the United States between 1927 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice". The stated evidence of lack of copyright notice is simply the image itself, which is insufficient: if the image was published at all, the version in this JPG may have been cropped, or the copyright notice may have been adjacent to but separate from the image as published. The stated source http://weheartit.com/entry/76303750 is gone and may not have been copyright compliant. jnestorius(talk) 18:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NFCC#1 and the source is most likely not copyright compliant; was taken down on the Internet Archive. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bascially per the reasons given by the nominator. The source given for the image is a We Heart It page which appears to be an image sharing social media site like Instagram or Pinterest; so, it seems unlikely that there was any vetting of images being done before they were uploaded. If you do a Google Image search of "Axl Rose as a kid", you'll find other photos of Rose from his youth. Most of these appear to be posted on forums and other similar wesbites without attribution or anything else related to their provenance. What is most likely going to be needed in a case like this is something showing an complete version of the photo with a border and also showing the back of the photo to verify there was no copyright notice. It will also need to be be shown that the photo was published prior to January 1, 1978 without such notice. It's more important to show when the photo was first published (in a copyright sense), then when it was taken. Unless such a thing can clearly be established, I don't think we can simply assume that to be the case because the photo shows up years later on the Internet without a copyright notice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 24 August 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:KHGG SportsHog1580-103.1 logo.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) 20:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obsolete logo, as it's no longer relevant to primary identification it needs to have contextual significance, and the logo itself isn't really discussed in either usage. Doesn't meet WP:NFCC as things currently stand. Hog FarmTalk 19:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Logo is being used in pretty much the same way in both KAGE (AM)#Previous logo and KHGG-FM and neither of those uses satisfies WP:NFCC#8. For reference, this file probably could've been proposed for deletion or tagged for speedy deletion with ((di-disputed non-free use rationale)) instead discussing it here at FFD since neither of its uses is even close to being WP:NFCCP compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 23 August 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:Capture DriveWorks dim.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.
History contains two different images; both are screenshots of non-free software. File is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:50, 24 August 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.
