Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 1

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: Textbook derivative of non-free content. Assuming the the company agrees to license the packaging under a free license, then they will need to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to get the file restored -FASTILY 08:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

c:COM:PACKAGING, the main subject in this photo is the packaging, which is too complex to fall below the threshold of originality. The details are neither minimal nor incidental, and is therefore an unacceptable derivative work. ✗plicit 00:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I wasn't aware of that policy - is there any way that the image can be kept? Perhaps if I were to correct the licensing? JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 02:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JediMasterMacaroni: It may qualify as fair use if there is significant commentary on the relevant article. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for details. You can also contact the copyright holder, ask them nicely and hope they're willing to allow the image to be published under a free license. c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team provides information on how to do this. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I'll contact the company, and in the meantime I'll kindly request that the image is not deleted while we await their response. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 04:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Apply a FUR as to how it meets our criteria. We are talking about a product and its packaging. As such, it's general labeling is appropriate for identification of the product so people could identify it when they see it and then use in said article. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the focus of the photo is the product package which is copyrighted. There is no specific identified non free use for this image. Its current usage would not qualify. Whpq (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. An associated article is needed. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 3 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lizzo special target.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gagaluv1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Improper licensing and rationale which does not explain why the inclusion of a second non-free cover is required. This version of the album is limited to one retailer (in one region) and is NOT used as the primary means of identification. The contents could be easily explained in words and its omission is not detrimental >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 18:06, 2 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rothschild & Co.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ThiefOfBagdad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused logo unsuitable for Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete superceded by File:Logo of Rothschild & Co.png Buffs (talk) 18:05, 2 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

A promotional image uploaded in 2007 for a promotional article deleted in 2008. The abandonded file is linked nowhere and now Facts Inform (undisclosed CoI) is trying to write an article into the file description. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unused image. I would say the claim to being the copyright holder suspect and would need VRT confirmation in order to be kept. Whpq (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Buffs (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G11 - the file page is clearly being abused for promotion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:50, 5 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.