Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 9

< December 8	December 10 >

December 9[edit]

File:Last Christmas by Ashley Tisdale.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 ⚡ 12:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cover art of Ashley Tisdale's version of "Last Christmas" was PRODded and then deleted in January 2018 as previously File:Ashley Tisdale - Last Christmas.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Then the cover art was re-uploaded under the different name by a different user. For the same reason as PRODding the image, the Tisdale cover art fails WP:NFCC#8 ("contextual significance"). To this date, the "Ashley Tisdale version" section doesn't have sufficient critical commentary to support this cover art, and the version itself was listed in only one US digital song sales chart. Furthermore, the song itself is already understood as one of Wham!'s (or George Michael's) Christmas songs, and the Tisdale cover art's appearance hasn't had made any significant difference to readers. George Ho (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 19:13, 9 December 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.

File:Marcella-detroit-and-elton-john-aint-nothing-like-the-real-thing-london.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 ⚡ 12:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cover art of Marcella Detroit and Elton John's version of "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing", which charted in only one country, was PRODded as previously File:MarcellaEltonAin'tNothing2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and then deleted in December 2017. Then it was re-uploaded this year under the different filename. For the same reason as PRODding the image, the cover art fails WP:NFCC#8. Critical commentary of the "Marcella Detroit & Elton John version" section isn't sufficient enough to this date to support the cover art. Furthermore, the song is already understood as originally sung by Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell, and the Detroit/John cover art hasn't had improved the understanding of the song. George Ho (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Delete it. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 19:30, 9 December 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.

File:Seventeen - Semicolon.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This cover art contains plain black background with the EP/album title "semicolon" in spelled-out format appearing twice and circling around the big punctuation format (;). The band's name and "Special Album" appear between one of two spaces of the spelled-out duplicates. Furthermore, the punctuation and the spelled-out term itself sit next to each other at lower-left corner in small size. I think this image is ineligible for copyright in the US (c:COM:TOO US). However, I'm uncertain whether South Korean copyright (c:COM:TOO South Korea) would find the cover art original enough. Korean logos displaying human expressions are disallowed at Commons. This may or may not be an exception. George Ho (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely passes TOO in South Korea. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 19:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm well aware of the "too simple to be copyrighted" feature making artworks ineligible for copyright in the US, and if I thought it were too simple, I would've exported it to Commons already, as I have done with File:Matmos - The Consuming Flame - Open Exercises in Group Form.png and did yesterday with File:Rival Consoles - Night Melody.png. However, as the text is arranged in a circular fashion and not just simple text printed horizontally, I am not convinced it meets that here. If it's found to be too simple, I can easily export it. It's really not a big deal. Also, George, I'm very aware it's only the digital cover. I used to add a caption like this to each K-pop album image I uploaded too, until I had the user Koavf hound me over it at Self-Portrait (EP) and Bloom*Iz (among others), and tell me that this claim needed to be sourced, even though for every other aspect of an album, like its track listing and credits, Koavf would repeatedly tell users it did not need an external source because "the album itself is the source for this material". (Then again, Koavf was not particularly known to be very consistent with his behaviour when he would hound users like myself, because the hounding was clearly primarily just done to annoy.) Ss112 01:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf is currently blocked indefinitely, and I'm reading his article. George Ho (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: I know he is. That's not particularly of consequence here. I'm simply explaining to you why I didn't add the caption myself, and that users, for whatever reason, evidently have objections to things like this. Ss112 02:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to {{PD-simple}}. COM:TOO South Korea requires three things from a work: "it is not just an imitation, it has own characteristics as a product of mental efforts, and it can be distinguished from existing ones." The arrangement of the text is not a first of its kind, and actually quite a simple Photoshop trick. There is nothing particularly creative nor does it comprise of its "own characteristics as a product of mental efforts". I doubt this would be copyrightable in South Korea. Ə XPLICIT 01:36, 23 January 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:The Mandalorian logo.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this file past TOO or not? This image is not very complicated at all — the only real stylization is the As not having a bar, which just makes them into uppercase lambdas Λ too. There are similarly complicated logos like File:Los Angeles Football Club.svg which are cited as not copyrightable in the US, so why does this one have to be under fair use? DemonDays64 (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, maybe someone else thought it was [this] instead. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 19:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the US, clearly PD-text. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:57, 11 December 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.

File:Kiwi jam.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per c:COM:PACKAGING this file is not properly licensed for Commons due to the prominent label. If the decision here is to keep, it should be tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}}. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forget moving it, it's orphaned. Delete. — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 19:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 10 December 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.

File:Solanki Roy.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 ⚡ 12:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be own work but I find the claim to be dubious. Uploader has uploaded File:Honey Bafna.jpg twice with a claim of own work when it is a clear copyvio. This particular image appears to be part of a professional photo shoot. See this image from the subject's Facebook page. WP:OTRS confirmation would be needed. Whpq (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is from Instagram. Highly unlikely uploader is the rights holder. And as stated above OTRS confirmation would be needed regardless Slywriter (talk) 18:11, 10 December 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.