A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saghar Ghanaat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saghar Ghanaat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khadempour322. I see you've uploaded this file again as File:بابک خرمدین (کارگردان).jpg, and this time you did provide a non-free use rationale which is good; unfortunately, however, the source you provided for the file is still likely to be considered a problem which means the file is still at risk of being tagged and deleted per WP:F4. It's almost certain that this file didn't originate on Persian Wikipedia. The file had to come from somewhere else because someone had to upload it to Persian Wikipedia. So, if you can, please find the original source for the file and add it to the non-free use rationale as soon as possible. The sooner you're able to do that, the less likely the chance will be that the file will be nominated for deletion for improper sourcing. There might be other issues with the file, but at least an unclear provenance won't be one of them.

The file also doesn't appear to be a "poster" which means that there's probably a better copyright license that should be used instead of the one you've chosen; this, however, is a problem that can be sorted out once the original source of the file has been clarified.

Finally, since this file has been uploaded for use on English Wikipedia, it might've been better for you to have chose an English name (or at least a romanized name) for it to make it easier for others to use. This is also something, however, that can be relatively easily sorted out once the original source of the file has been clarified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly In a discussion I had with a Wikimedia administrator, he told me that it is possible to upload a file from Persian to English, and I did the same.--Parizad (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly I added the source to see if the problem is resolved.--Parizad (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding a source because that at least help clarify where the image comes from. I'm not sure who the Wikipedia administrator is that you asked about this, but each Wikimedia Foundation project has it's own administrators and it's own policies and guidelines. It's technically possible to upload a file used on another language Wikipedia to English Wikipedia, but the file will need to comply with the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia.

English Wikipedia does allow some types of copyrighted content to be uploaded and used per Wikipedia:Non-free content, but there are lots of restrictions placed upon it as explained here. There are essentially ten criteria that a non-free file needs to meet each time it's used for that use to be considered policy compliant. In this case, the criterion that's likely going to be an issue is WP:NFCC#1 (see also WP:FREER for more details). Wikipedia does often allow non-free images of deceased persons to be uploaded and used in articles like Babak Khorramdin (director) per item 10 of WP:NFCI, but only if there is no chance of a free equivalent image being created or found which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one. Most of the time this is not an issue in Wikipedia articles about persons who are dead, except when the person has only just recently died. In the latter case, simply uploading a non-free image as soon as the person dies is considered inappropriate by some editors unless it can be shown that a reasonable attempt was made to find a freely-licensed equivalent image. So, if you can clarify in the non-free use rationale why the image is not replaceable (e.g. by explaining what you did to try and find a free equivalent image) instead of just adding "no. No non-copyright version is available, by definition", then that will make it less likely for someone to challenge the file based for NFCC#1 reasons.

The file is also not a logo at all, which means you can't really give it's "Purpose of use" as "the logo is only being used for informational purposes; (...)". It's important when you add a non-free use rationale to a file's page to not simply just copy-and-paste and use the non-free use rationale from another file's page because not all non-free use rationales are the same. My suggestion to you would to be to use Template:Non-free use rationale biog as the rationale instead since this is more appropriate for non-free images of this type. I've already changed the file's copyright license to something more appropriate, but the rationale also needs some clean up. If you could do this, then that would help sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly If you can add the template yourself, because I am a novice, I am not familiar enough with the template and please do me this favor.--Parizad (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is copy the code from Template:Non-free use rationale biog onto the file's page and then fill in the parameters as best as you can according to the template's documentation. Once you've done that you can remove the syntax for the other non-free use rationale. If I were to add the template, then that would mean the I think the file's non-free use complies with relevant Wikipedia policy and I'm not completely sure that it does. You are the one who uploaded the file so you're the best person to try and explain why you think it does comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, particularly WP:NFCC#1.

If you search for images of Khorramdin using Google's Image search, you get all kinds of different images of him in addition to the one you've uploaded. I've got no idea why you chose this particular image and not any of the other ones. If one of those other images is released under a free license or is within the public domain for some reason, then no non-free image can be used. Since you uploaded the file, I'm assuming you checked for free equivalent images, but if you didn't then you should do that now. Have you tried checking Tasnim News Agency for any images of Khorramdin? Photos taken by Tasnim News Agency photographers seem to be OK to upload to Commons under the license c:Template:Tasnim if certain conditions are satisfied; so, if you can find one of those, then it could be used instead of a non-free image. If there Tasnim News Agency doesn't have a photos of Khorramdin, then perhaps there's another reason why a certain photo might be OK to upload to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly The reason for choosing this image is that only his face is in the photo.--Parizad (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly I did this and uploaded a photo of Tasnim to his parents, which is used in the article itself.--Parizad (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the desire to get a photo of Khorramadin that only shows his face, but that's not really in and of itself a sufficient justification for using a non-free photo. A free equivalent doesn't have to be a free version of the exact same photo, and it doesn't have to be a free version of a photo of equivalent quality; it only has to be a free version of a photo that is capable of basically serving the same encyclopedic purpose (e.g. primary identification) as the non-free one. So, if there's a free photo of Khoramadin that meets c:COM:L than it should be used instead of the a non-free one, even if it's lower in quality and even if it shows other people. A free image of Khoramadin and other people could be uploaded and then cropped to show only Khoramadin, and a freely-licensed cropped image would still be preferable to a non-free image. The image you found of Khoramadin's parent seems to be OK from a licensing standpoint. Whether it belongs in the article from a contextual standpoint is a different question, but it's licensing seem OK. So, if you can find an image of Khoramadin taken by a Tasnim photographer, even if it shows other people as well, then you could probably upload that image to Commons under the same copyright license. That image (or a cropped version of it) could then be used in the infobox of the Wikipedia article about Khoramadin instead of a non-free one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parizad, I'm disappointed to find out that you are a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Babak khoramdin1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Morteza Jafarzadeh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morteza Jafarzadeh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Morteza-Jafarzade.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop uploading non-free images of still living persons because such images are almost never considered acceptable per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. I understand that figuring what images are OK to upload to Wikipedia is sometimes a tricky thing to do, but you've been advised about uploading non-free images of living people before by another editor multiple times. Just because you've archived those "warnings" so that they're no longer visible on your user talk page doesn't mean that it's OK for you to keep uploading these kinds of files. Non-free image use is placed under lots of restrictions and it's OK to make a mistake with them once and maybe twice; if you keep repeating the same mistakes, however, an administrator is likely going to step in and either give you one final warning or just simply block your account. I'm pretty sure you don't mean any harm, but at some point you've got to try and learn from your mistakes and avoid repeating them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Filmiran-logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is also not a good sign. As I previously tried to advise you, a non-free file needs two things: a file copyright license and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use. If you fail to provide one or the other, then the file can be speedy deleted per WP:F4 or WP:F6. This file is also not being used in any article which is a violation of non-free content use criterion #7; this means it's also eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F5. I've got no idea in which article you intend to use this file or how you intend to use it; so, I can't really even suggest to you what type of non-free use rationale you should use or even add that rationale myself. Once again, there are lots of restrictions placed on non-free files by Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and it can be difficult to figure what types of files are OK to upload and use, and which files aren't. However, if you keep making mistakes when you upload non-free files, particularly if you been advised about a problem before, then eventually an administrator is going to decide that you've been warned enough and block your account. It's very important that if you're confused about a non-free file and don't know whether it's OK to upload that you ask for assistance at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. There are editors who watch those pages who will be more than happy to try and help you out. A good idea might be to upload any more non-free files until you're (1) absolutely sure where you want to use it and (2) absolutely sure it's going to be OK to use on that page. Otherwise, you're just going to be uploading another file that's eventually going to be tagged otherwise nominated for deletion. This wouldn't only be wasting you're time, it would also be wasting the time of other editors as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kamran-and-Hooman-20.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]