Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 24

< February 23	February 25 >

February 24[edit]

File:The Red Tour.png[edit]

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 -FASTILY 01:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing states "not solely for illustration", however, there are two other free photos at The Red Tour illustrating this concert tour. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, usage of a non-free poster in the infobox is normal practice in identification of a tour. The free images are a good addition but I don't think they should replace the poster. I also put in a better fair use for the file. Salavat (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The free images are not suitable for use as visual identification which is the purpose of this poster. -- Whpq (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This a fair use poster used in the infobox about the tour. Aspects (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2021 (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:Putin fuel spill.jpg[edit]

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 16:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stock image, see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/03/vladimir-putin-orders-state-of-emergency-huge-fuel-spill-siberia-power-plant-kerch, which attributes it as such. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 14:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image wasn't taken from the Grauniad which is notorious for its errors. The image came directly from the website of the President of Russia which states that "All content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". Putin is the self-same President of Russia. If he wishes us to freely use his image, who are we to argue? See also copyfraud. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. This is clearly not a stock image and the Kremlin website clearly has an "all materials on this site are released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" disclaimer at the bottom. (I'm slightly concerned that an experienced Wikipedia editor would take the word of the Guardian—whose reputation for inaccuracy is both legendary and well-deserved—at face value without checking further.) ‑ Iridescent 15:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Apologies, I made this nomination without much thought. FWIW I didn't just go take the word of the Guardian, also see BBC, and on stock image sites Alamy and Getty. I would also note that the terms say that the CC license does not apply to photographs the TASS News Agency is the copyright holder of, when such photographs are posted on the www.kremlin.ru website with an indication of the agency and author., which it is according to the Getty link, but not attributed as such on the Kremlin site, so this isn't relevant here. Again, sorry, this is clearly copyfraud as said in the keep !votes above, and the Getty link also cites the Russian Presidential Press and Information Office, so they do appear to be the copyright holder. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 16:15, 24 February 2021 (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:Shen Wei Bubble.jpg[edit]

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Duplicate of File:Self-portrait by Shen Wei.jpg. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2021 (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:Kings College Erected in 1756.jpg[edit]

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different scan or source of an image that is on Commons (File:King's College. Erected in 1756 (NYPL Hades-268282-1253355).jpg). This one is sourced from the Hamilton Grange National Memorial Archives and has a water stain or similar damage to the image. The Commons image is sourced from the New York Public Library and has no stain marks. I don't see the need for this image unless that stain is significant in some way. Whpq (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2021 (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:Directive 1.png[edit]

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Available under superior quality here: File:Presidential Space Directive - 1 Signing (NHQ201712110008).jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with Commons version (thanks Magog the Ogre for flagging the file type difference). Wikiacc (¶) 03:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2021 (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:BlameItOntheBoogie.jpg[edit]

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is already the free image, i.e. side label of the US vinyl single, used at Blame It on the Boogie, no matter how exciting- or dull-looking the side label is. I don't think the Dutch picture sleeve is any longer necessary. Per WP:NFCC#8, I still don't see how deleting the picture sleeve would affect the understanding of the song. If a user wants to see an image of the band, there are freer images of the band to be used in the article. George Ho (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (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:Drag Race UK 2 poster.jpeg[edit]

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not adequately sourced. Sourced from medium.com which is a self-published source. The website about us section says "Anyone can write on Medium. Thought-leaders, journalists, experts, and individuals with unique perspectives share their thinking here. You’ll find pieces by independent writers from around the globe, stories we feature and leading authors, and smart takes on our own suite of blogs and publications." ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image is from the official BBC Three website and is the official poster of the season. medium.com is a user based website which has taken the photo from the BBC for their image. A source was added to the summary.Messinwithbruce (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to this. Medium is a site where anybody can publish whatever they want. Who knows where they grabbed the poster from. It's not like the writer of the "article" took any care. All they are doing is advertising what I assume is an illegal streaming site. Did you read the "article" text? It's pretty clear that this is far far away from reliable as a source. -- Whpq (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is the source given; the homepage of a streaming service, where the promotional poster cannot be seen. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 23:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Which is the same source used for the series 1 poster. Messinwithbruce (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The series 1 poster was likely available on the site at the times. It certainly looks legit an not fan made. Streaming rebroadcast here shows a cropped version of the poster. As pointed out by Darkglow, there is no use of postr on the site. Nor has anybody provided any credible evidence that this is a bona fide BBC poster for the show.-- Whpq (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2021 (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.