Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

November 6[edit]

File:Nokia X3-00 open and close.jpeg[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 ⚡ 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nokia X3-00 open and close.jpeg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:56, 6 November 2018 (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:Duncan Montgomery Gray Sr.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: relisted on 2018 November 14. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duncan Montgomery Gray Sr.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Princess Anastasia St Peterline Livery Oct 2018.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 ⚡ 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Querying if the mural artwork here would have a seperate copyright, or not covered by Freedom of Panorama. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The so-called "mural" on the ship is merely updated livery, as noted in the file title and the caption in the article [1]. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2018 (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:Hotel-Dunapartft.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: relisted on 2018 November 14. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel-Dunapartft.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Joshua James Full Portrait.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 ⚡ 10:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contested WP:CSD#F4 as "no source".

F4 does not require a source. It requires " the necessary licensing information to verify copyright status". As a photograph of someone who died in 1902, and for where the claim of federal PD status (via the Coastguard) is credible, we do not need to know that source – the age alone is adequate. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nom. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide a verifiable source proving this was a work of the US coast guard as claimed. -FASTILY 22:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a non-federal work, it's old enough to be PD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"it's old enough to be PD" ^{[citation needed]}. Then prove it. -FASTILY 01:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here are official Coast Guard sources, stating it is a "U.S. Coast Guard photo": [2], [3], [4], [5]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Thanks for finding the source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2018 (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:Vinyl The Analogue Record in the Digital Age.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 ⚡ 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free book cover used in an author article, not an article on the book itself. Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NFCI 1. Significant critical discussion of the book within the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the cover itself is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. There is no need for the book cover to be present in order to understand the textual material present in the article covering the book. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the image that needs to have the critical discussion per WP:NFCI 1, it's the critical discussion of the book that justifies the use of the image. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:NFCC#8. The book is not the subject of the article, the author of the book is the subject of the article. The removal of the book cover will no detract from a reader's understanding of the topic. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book is part of the article topic because the topic is the author and the books he has written. The article doesn't need to be exclusively about the book. There just needs to be sufficient critical commentary in the article where the image appears. It can be a bio, book article or some other type of article as long as the commentary belongs in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could accept that argument if the cover were needed to provide understanding about the book, but it doesn't. As such, I feel it does not meet WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC #8 and #10c. The cover itself is not the subject of critical commentary, and the cover is not being used as the primary means of visual identification in an article about the book as stated in the rationale. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NFCC #8 and #10c. The cover itself is not the subject of critical commentary, and the cover is not being used as the primary means of visual identification in an article about the book as stated in the rationale. By the way the subject of the wiki article is not even the sole author of the book, he is the co-author. Softlavender (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. This would be fine if used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the book itself, but there's really no justifiction for it's non-free use in the article about the author unless, as others have pointed out, the cover itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary. It might be possible to include cover art such as this if the author was known to create/design his own book covers and there was sourced content to that extent in the article since it could be seen as an example of his "artistic style" so to speak; however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Now, if someone feel this book meets WP:NBOOK and wants to write an article about it (apparently some do per comments made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominik Bartmanski), then the file can always be restored per WP:REFUND and used there per item 1 of WP:NFCI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonfree book covers in author bios, like nonfree album covers in musician bios, are generally disallowed, absent sourced substantive critical commentary of the cover itself (not simply the book). Here, the image is also not used in accordance with the putative use rationale, since it does not "serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question" and is therefore subject to summary removal from the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2018 (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:Pakuwon Mall (former PTC) Kutha Suroboyo.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 ⚡ 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free image of a modern Indonesian building. There is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, and this building is not old enough to have had the copyright expire. Both the photo and the architecture is copyrighted in this image. However, per WP:FREER, we could have a freely licensed photo of this building. Whpq (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Essentially two copyrights in play here: one for the building because there's no freedom of panorama for architectural works in Indonesia and one for the photo. Wikipedia couldn't keep a non-free photo of the building if Indonesia did consider it ineligible for copyright protection; so, there's no reason to keep a non-free photo of the building when it doesn't. Unless it can be clearly shown the that Instgram account holder has released their work under a free license Wikipedia can accept, someone could basically take a similar photo which is sufficient to serve the same encyclopedic purpose and upload it under an appropriate free license. In such a case, the building imagery would still be treated as non-free, but the photo itself wouldn't need to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As replaceable. FoP for buildings is not an issue if the images stays on en-wiki Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:27, 10 November 2018 (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:6th Tunjungan Plaza, Surabaya.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 ⚡ 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free image of a modern Indonesian building. There is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, and this building is not old enough to have had the copyright expire. Both the photo and the architecture is copyrighted in this image. However, per WP:FREER, we could have a freely licensed photo of this building. Whpq (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#1 WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. There is already one non-free image being used for primary identification purposes of the shopping center in the main infobox so another one of the complex (or a part of the center) is not needed per NFCC#3a. Moreover, this particular photo is not itself the subject of sourced critical commentary anywhere in the article; so, the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8 is lacking. Plaza 6 is briefly mentioned in Tunjungan Plaza#Plazas, but the text itself is sufficiently understood per WP:FREER without the reader needing to see this particular image per NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As replaceable. FoP for buildings is not an issue if the images stays on en-wiki Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:27, 10 November 2018 (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.