Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 26

< May 25	May 27 >

May 26

File:Sacco vanzetti dedham courthouse.gif

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: Already deleted. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo from the New York World-Telegram and Sun collection at the Library of Congress, attributed to "Herbert Photos, Inc., New York". According to c:Template:PD-NYWT&S and Library of Congress guidance, photos from this collection that are not specifically attributed to staff photographers might be copyrighted. Wikiacc (¶) 02:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although this is part of the New York World-Telegram and the Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection, the photograph was not taken by one of the photographers as can be seen from the name which is indicates a photo agency. Also, the Library of Congress item info does not indicate that the photo was taken by a staff photographer. Compare this with some other photo from the collection where the notes specifically state "NYWTS staff photo". The photo is from 1927 so this does not appear to be public domain. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 27 May 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:Artist mia laberge oil painting nonobjective 2.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: Already deleted. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings by Mia LaBerge, claimed PD-self. While the uploader may well have taken the photos, LaBerge presumably still has copyright over the original artworks. Wikiacc (¶) 03:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uploader claims to have permission "for WP use" [1]. I believe the procedure at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission should be followed. Wikiacc (¶) 03:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, all orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Although there is an assertion the artist provided permission, there is no proof. Furthermore, the assertion of the permission seems to indicate that it is specifically for use on Wikipedia which would be insufficiently free. OTRS confirmation of permission and appropriate license would be needed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 27 May 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:Charli XCX 1999 alternative cover.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: Already deleted. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a cover being used as primary means of identification in 1999 (Charli XCX and Troye Sivan song). This alternative cover has no sourced commentary in the article about this image itself thus its omission would not be detrimental to understanding the article's topic (WP:NFCC#8). Wcam (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see the image at the cited source, here. I see it in an archived form, here, archived 22 January 2019 but there is no indication that it is an alternative single cover rather than a publicity shot by the label's photographer, Andrew Thomas Huang.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:50, 29 May 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:Killzone3HelghastEdition.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: Already deleted. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - non-free image listing retail edition contents. Can easily (and has been) replicated entirely using prose. Not critical to the understanding of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:08, 26 May 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:Killzone3HelghastEditionEU.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: Already deleted. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 8 - non-free image listing retail edition contents. Can easily (and has been) replicated entirely using prose. Not critical to the understanding of the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:08, 26 May 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:Killzone 2 E305.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation; the image lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it is used in. No prejudice towards restoration if the article is expanded on to specifically discuss this image. -FASTILY 00:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8 - Not critical to the understanding of the article. Excessive number of screenshots.

While there is some discussion in the article about the 2005 presentation being pre-rendered, there's nothing in the prose to explain how this image illustrates that point. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This was something that was largely discussed in the industry at the time as well as when the game launched. Prose can be expanded and the earlier gameplay image could be placed with this one to show the differences between that pre-rendered shot and the final game. --JDC808 ♫ 07:34, 27 May 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:Killzone 2 PS Day.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: Already deleted. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8 - Not critical to the understanding of the article. Excessive number of screenshots.

While there is mention in the article of this level being on display in PS Day, there's nothing in the prose to explain why this screenshot is necessary, and it's substantially similar to the screenshot already in the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:16, 26 May 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:Katsiaryna Halkina.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: Already deleted. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of being the copyright holder is dubious. Uploader has claimed to be copyright holder on another image that was a clear copyright violation. This image is from the 2016 Olympics. An image like this would need to be shot from an area only accessible to press. Whpq (talk) 18:03, 26 May 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.