Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 23

May 23

File:Sonic Crackers and Knuckles Chaotix comparison.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 14:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 May 15#File:Sonic Crackers shot.png, the top screenshot fails WP:NFCC#4 because it comes from a leaked development ROM that is not known to ever seen an official release (see WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion). (Does WP:G4 apply here?) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was published by UGO Networks so meets previous publication criterion. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Said screenshot still originates from the leaked ROM. Compare Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 May 12#File:DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg for another example of a file that has been printed outside of Wikipedia without the copyright holder's permission. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better precedent you can link to? There was very little discussion/participation in that link, nor is there enough for me to understand if its the same situation or not. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TheJoebro64. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Richard "Rick" Rendon.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via WP:VRT 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not an image host; no assertation of notability. Unencyclopedic. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Palmcalc41.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple button design, PD-ineligible layout, and non-creative design, therefore the whole thing should be PD. Jay Cubby 22:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mark as PD without a doubt. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.