Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 15

< February 14	February 16 >

February 15

File:Manfred Lindner.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inage is claimed to be own work. It looks to be a crop of a larger photo that can be seen here. There is a previous version of this file which also appears to be a publicity photo and is used as a bio profile photo on several site including this. WP:OTRS confirmation of authorship and licening would be required. Whpq (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a user with no understanding of copyright. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the licensing cannot be OTRS verified for either of these two files. I say " two files'" because this file shouldn't have been overwritten like it was and the updated version should've been uploaded as a separate file. So, if the licensing of these two files is verified, the file will need to be split into two separate files and then moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 15 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.

Orphaned files uploaded by Krise

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: missing evidence of permission -FASTILY 23:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned files which are possibly unfree. See relevant discussion about these at User talk:Fastily/Archive 7#File:Dragot 1.jpg, but bascially these file were all uploaded by Krise back in 2008, but that account has been spammed-blocked since 2015. It's possible they were uploaded by the artist who created them and intended for use in Robert Aliaj Dragot, but that article was deleted as a copyvio back in 2008. My guess is that the images were used there, but became orphaned once the article was deleted. There seems to be no way to verify the files' licenses without OTRS and the uploader is unlikely going to respond to a {{npd}} notification; so, I bringing this up for discussion here to see if there's any way to keep the files. The files are all tagged for a move to Commons, but they probably shouldn't be moved without OTRS verification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I mailed Krise (in English) a link to c:Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator. Don't expect anything after more than 10 years, but who knows. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, but the problem with that is that the uploader is indefinitely blocked and also appear to have been engaged in some sockpuppetry as well. So, if they create a new different account in order to comment on these images, they will be considered to be engaging in more WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE type of behavior, which most likely lead to the new account being blocked as well. Perhaps just emailing OTRS would be OK, but I'm not an OTRS volunteer and not sure how that applies to blocked accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Marchjuly: I gave them a link to the release generator which would result in a mail to OTRS. OTRS won't care if the account is blocked, they just verify permission through mail and add OTRS permission templates to files. They can even upload the material if it hasn't been uploaded already. You actually don't need a Wikimedia account at all for this, and sometimes after a request people will contact OTRS to provide permission without actually having an account here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:37, 16 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

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 ⚡ 01:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly source - this image has never been released as a "promotional poster" it seems to be sourced from rupaulsdragrace.fandom.com which is itself a fan website. The promotional image for Series 2 of drag race is actually this image which is attributed to the BBC. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’ll find this image has been released by the BBC. That fandom page has uploaded a cropped version of the original have they not. Messinwithbruce (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Messinwithbruce where did you get the image from? Provide a link. When I searched, I could not find that as the official image. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC iPlayer image or a related publicity photo may e the basis for the image from fandom. The fandom image may be something that a fan created. Looking at the image zoomed in, the extraction edges aren't very clean. The stated source in the NFUR does not provide a specific URL. If a verifiable source cannot be provided for the image, then it should be deleted in favour of using a verifiably official logo/title card/promotional poster. -- Whpq (talk) 02:05, 16 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.