Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 March 31

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 G7 by JJMC89 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:A snapshot of Krzysztof Rau's play Czy Pan istnieje, Mr Johnes.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Staszek Lem (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. It is not used in relation to the article subject (the film) but is in a subsection about a stage play adaptation. The reader can easily understand what is written about the film without it. Even what is written about the stage play can be understood without it. The rationale claims that the image illustrates the overall grotesque visual impression of the play, but this is not mentioned. The article only describes the play as eerie story was cast into an eerie show. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. De facto the article subject is not only Wajda's film, but several adaptations of Stanislaw Lem's 1955 radio play, which is clearly seen from the TOC. If yall will insist on formalities, I will move the article to the title Czy pan istnieje, Mr. Johns?, which would be clearly of its own notability, due to numerous adaptations. I'd also like to trout-slap the nom, who placed the db tag on the image, but did not respond to my explanation in File talk:A snapshot of Krzysztof Rau's play Czy Pan istnieje, Mr Johnes.png. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for "wrong" rationale, it should not literally repeat the article text. I felt that "grotesque visual impression" is an adequate synonym for the article text "eerie show", which in itself is a terse approximation of what sources say. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The nom was also disingenuous stating "only describes" and then quoting out of full context. In fact the image expands the following sentence: "The eerie story was cast into an eerie show, enhanced by multimedia effects, weird masks and costumes of the actors, lights, and music". The image shows what "multimedia", "weird masks and costumes" and lighting are like in the play. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The part I didn't quote is not critical; it is a basic description. That description already exists and is free (criterion 1) and no image is needed to understand that. None of those elements are the subject of commentary in the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, misinterpretation of Criterion 8: Yes the image is necessary to better understand the described subject (Criterion 8), not the description, which, as you put it yourself "a basic description", and it is not really a replacement of the image. People see more detail in it. With your opinion we can delete all film posters, all film snapshots, etc. Are you going to do this? By the way, Criterion 1 says "No free equivalent" I disagree with its applicability here. Do you really suggest that that a single-sentence text description is an equivalent of an image?. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Long story short, I was convinced by the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content and removing the file from the article. I believe there is a technical speedy deletion of unused non-free media (I dont know details). I suggest user:JJMC89 do it, to avoid burocracy and distracting other people. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2020 (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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nate Thayer.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmacauley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I see no indication that the photographer has released this image into the public domain. The uploader is not the photographer. Chubbles (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2020 (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: delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trucks unload food at KID.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmacauley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I can't find any evidence that the photographer released this under GFDL. The uploader is not the photographer. Chubbles (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2020 (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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:KID Hospital.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmacauley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I can't find any evidence that the photographer released this under GFDL. The uploader is not the photographer. Chubbles (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2020 (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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rice, beans, dried & canned fish - July 1983.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmacauley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source website for the image does not indicate that it is public domain. The uploader is not the photographer. Chubbles (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2020 (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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robie at Schloss Seehof 1945.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmacauley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I do not believe the uploader is the photographer. Assuming, generously, that the photographer was 20 years old when this photo was taken, that would make Cmacauley a stately 100 years of age right now. In a previous discussion, the uploader indicated that he has uploaded a number of images he says he inherited, which he had claimed rights to and licensed PD/CC0. I believe this is one of those files. Thus, if so, the copyright and release information for this image is incorrect. Chubbles (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2020 (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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheAmericans101.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Whovian99 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The use of the screenshot of the Jennings family in Pilot (The Americans) may not comply with WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance). Either use it in The Americans#Cast and characters and change rationale, or delete the screenshot. George Ho (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2020 (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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of Site 2 .jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmacauley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Information provided by uploader states that this image was taken by the uploader in 1990 and was released GFDL. However, I located a prior image of the work in the Online Archive of California, dated 1987. See [1]. Chubbles (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2020 (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: Deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus -FASTILY 00:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheAmericans102.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Whovian99 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:TheAmericans103.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Whovian99 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:TheAmericans104.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Whovian99 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:TheAmericans105.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Whovian99 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I'm concerned about other screenshots used in individual articles about their respective episodes of The Americans (season 1) and their compliance with WP:NFCC#8. A screenshot of the sex scene in one episode can be already conveyed without needing to see who's who or who's in it, right? And I don't think critical commentary of these screenshots suffices enough to justify using them. Also, I can assume text entries convey the plot points of the episodes sufficiently for most readers. George Ho (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Market stalls.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmacauley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader claims to have taken this photo. However, the source of this image is this website. The website states, "Anh Lê Văn Hưng gởi hình" (Mr. Le Van Hung sent the picture). The uploader is not Le Van Hung. Chubbles (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this image. I took this photo at Nong Samet in 1984. Mr. Le Van Hung obtained it from me. Cmacauley (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly seen that the source is not the blogpost, where it is of inferior quality. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looks like I was wrong about this one. Chubbles (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nong Samet Outpatient Dept 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmacauley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader claims to be the author of this photo, Cameron Macauley. However, the source of this image is this website. The website states, "Photo courtesy of Le Van Hung". The uploader is not Le Van Hung. Chubbles (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this image. I took this photo at Nong Samet in 1984. Mr. Le Van Hung obtained it from me. Cmacauley (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly seen that the source is not the blogpost, where it is of inferior quality. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looks like I was wrong about this one. Chubbles (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2020 (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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MustafaO (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Failed Prod. Issues remain that it is orphaned and very low quality. Uploader removed the prod indicating the image is their own work (licesing/permission was never noted in Prod, but it may be a concern as well). It is also substantially duplicate to File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg, File:Ugaas Haji Dodi Robleh Nur.jpg. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just noting that this image is substantially similar to another image that is in use, File:Ughaz Haji Dodi Robleh.jpg. Chubbles (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2020 (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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ugaas Haji Dodi Robleh Nur.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MustafaO (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Failed Prod. Issues remain that it is orphaned and very low quality. Uploader removed the prod indicating the image is their own work (licesing/permission was never noted in Prod, but it may be a concern as well). It is also substantially duplicate to File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg, File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just noting that this image is substantially similar to another image that is in use, File:Ughaz Haji Dodi Robleh.jpg. Chubbles (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2020 (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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MustafaO (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Failed Prod. Issues remain that it is orphaned and very low quality. Uploader removed the prod indicating the image is their own work (licesing/permission was never noted in Prod, but it may be a concern as well). It is also substantially duplicate to File:Ugaas Haji Dodi Robleh Nur.jpg, File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just noting that this image is substantially similar to another image that is in use, File:Ughaz Haji Dodi Robleh.jpg. Chubbles (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2020 (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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:NTNU logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Littletung (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Superseded by File:Norwegian University of Science and Technology logo.svg. File not in use and unlikely to be used. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to other SVG file. Salavat (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (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.