Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 25

February 25

File:RoAir logo.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G3 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No foreseeable encyclopedic use. Being used to create hoax article Roblox Airlines about a fake airline. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 00:45, 25 February 2016 (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:Chaetodon larvatus, adult, 1 Feb 2000, off Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the uploader's WP:NFCC#1 rationale is insufficient. The species exists. It is not extinct. In fact, it's apparently an invasive species, which would imply they're not scarce. The fact that this is a really good photo doesn't make it irreplaceable by Wikipedia standards. A freely licensed photo could reasonably be taken, so it's replaceable. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your specification. I would reiterate, from the file's original info, that this particular image was originally published with a fair use clause. Please access the file page and see under the section "respect for commercial opportunities", as well as having a look at info given at the file's original URL. The file's author has indicated clearly that it is available for non-commercial use, if due attribution is given. Wikipedia is not commercial. I have provided full attribution of source and author, as requested, in the file info. So, all criteria given by the creator for fair use have been met. In my view, the terms of the file's appearance in Wikipedia are therefore reasonable. If non-commercial Wikipedia cannot fairly use something that is explicitly made available for non-commercial fair use, I don't understand what purpose "fair use" may serve. Pufferfyshe (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pufferfyshe: "Non-free" images (and that includes these with "noncommercial" licenses) are only to be used as a last resort if it's impossible or extremely unlikely to obtain a free one. In this case, someone there could easily make a photography themselves of the fish, thus making it fail WP:NFCC#1.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image is replaceable with one that is freely licensed as their is a category of these images at Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2016 (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:Priacanthus sagittarius from Haifa Bay, 2010, photo by Daniel Golani.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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the uploader's WP:NFCC#1 rationale is insufficient. The species exists. It is not extinct. In fact, it's apparently an invasive species, which would imply they're not scarce. The fact that this is a really good photo doesn't make it irreplaceable by Wikipedia standards. A freely licensed photo could reasonably be taken, so it's replaceable. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you. The case of this image is different from that of Chaetodon larvatus (above). In this case there is no original commercial interest, because the source publication is open access. However, I do not yet have any documentation of fair use permission by the publisher, as was the case for the other image. So yes, this image may not be properly available for Wikipedia, because the terms under which it might appear fairly are not yet known -- hence, they cannot yet be satisfied. If I were to contact the photographer and ask for their permission, or indeed to ask them to upload the image and release it under a fair use license, would this solve the problem? Pufferfyshe (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pufferfyshe: The gist of WP:NFCC#1 is that we don't permit fair use images at all if they can reasonably be replaced with free ones. This one can reasonably be replaced with a free one and thus needs to be deleted unless the researchers who made this and the above image agree to release it under a free license (see commons:Commons:Licensing as to what "free" has to entail). That will need proof as well, I note.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:08, 25 February 2016 (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:Scott Winterstein.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 05:00, 25 February 2016 (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:Alphago logo.svg

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 as is. — ξ ^xplicit 23:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While SVG versions are uploaded per my request at WP:GL/I, possibility of not being eligible for copyright arises. Versions are uploaded as File:Alphago logo Original.svg and File:Alphago logo Outlines.svg and File:Alphago logo Reversed.svg at Commons. However, Google DeepMind is a UK entity of American company, Google. Is the logo the US or UK work? Is the logo free or non-free? George Ho (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should assume the logo is copyrighted in the UK until other evidence is found. I'm pretty sure the logo would meet the UK's very low threshold of originality, so should be kept as fair-use for now. I feel terribly sorry, as I had originally advised it being moved to Commons. I wasn't aware that it may be copyrighted in the UK. Jolly Ω Janner 00:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Even English Wikipedia may treat the logo as free to use but not to transfer to Commons. It abides to US laws. --George Ho (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2016 (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:Guingon Group of Companies

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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeinfluxus 22:05, 25 February 2016 (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.