Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 October 3

October 3

File:Philly the Gaur.jpg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free image of a mascot. The mascot is copyrighted so a photo of the mascot has two licensing issues to consider: (1) that of the design, and (2) that of the photo. The design is presumably own by the team, and is copyrighted and the mascot design won't be released under a free license. But a photo of the mascot could be released under a free license even though the underlying mascot is copyrighted and would still need to be used as non-free content on Wikipedia. This photo is copyrighted, and could be replaced by a freely licensed photo taken of the mascot for use as non-free content. See WP:FREER. Whpq (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2023 (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:Eric Jacobson puppeteer, July 2015.jpg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This image incorporates Fozzy Bear in the image. I declined a speedy deletion as a photo of a copyrighted character in favour of discussion. The photo is freely licensed and includes a person for which we have an article. Whpq (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is needed to identify the human subject, it could certainly be cropped. Felix QW (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed being used as the only image in the article about Eric Jacobson. Cropping would still allow its use in the article about him. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cropped version has now been uploaded as File:Eric Jacobson puppeteer, July 2015 (cropped).jpg. Felix QW (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2023 (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:Suomen laki.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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not serve to identify the subject of the article, since the subject of the article is the law, and not its specific publication. Specifically about this publication the article says 8 words from a sentence that is not supported by sources (WP:NFCC#8 & 1). — Ирука¹³ 04:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the books should be used as identification or not, we certainly don't need a non-free photograph of the three-dimensional books when anyone could simply photograph or even scan the cover. Felix QW (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2023 (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:John-Howard-prison-reformer2.jpg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of this Commons file. Neither this file nor the Commons version are in use at the English Wikipedia. Ineligible for F8 as it is tagged Keep Local. Felix QW (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2023 (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:Lawnroad 1935.jpg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned picture, whose copyright has been restored in the US and which is hence copyrighted there until 2031. Permission is alleged on the description page from the owner of the original copy, but not from the photographer. If it was indeed Jack Pritchard, UK copyright would not expire until 2063. Felix QW (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2023 (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:Lawrence Ogilvie & Brian Mulligan, Long Ashton Research Station 1930.jpg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately copyright has been restored in the US, making this photo copyrighted until at least 2026. If it cannot be converted to non-free use at Long Ashton Research Station, it should be undeleted when its US copyright expires. Felix QW (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2023 (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:Lawrence Ogilvie, Bermuda 1926.jpg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another difficult publication issue. As a family photograph taken by an unknown photographer, I would struggle to assert this image having been published. Thus it may be copyrighted in the US until 120 years after creation, i. e. 2047. I appreciate that there may be differing opinions here though. Felix QW (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2023 (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:Lord Berners in 1935.jpg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

US copyright has been restored, making this image copyrighted there until 2031. An alternative is available at Commons. Felix QW (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2023 (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:MG K1 1932.jpg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this factory publicity image was circulated in the US without notice/renewal simultaneously with the UK, it will still be in copyright there until 1928. The image is currently orphaned. Felix QW (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2023 (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:MG D-Type.jpg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this factory publicity image was circulated in the US without notice/renewal simultaneously with the UK, it will still be in copyright there until 1927. There are plenty of free images of this vehicle type available, some of which are used already as gallery images at MG D-type, where this is currently the infobox image. Felix QW (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2023 (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:Earl Martineau.jpg

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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a 1925 published photograph, this has been public domain in the US since 2021. Original files should be restored and moved to Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2023 (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:Oxford Newspaper Clipping1934.pdf

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image of a newspaper clipping whose copyright will have been restored by the URAA and will not expire in the US until 2030. Felix QW (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not orphaned, it is a reference in the page 'Alfred Brotherston Emden'. Oxonhutch (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a clipping of one article in a whole newspaper, I believe it is covered under the principle of 'Fair use' Oxonhutch (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being used in any article, and we don't require references to articles be hosted on English Wikipedia. Abzeronow (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The detailed content regarding the completion of the quad of St Edmund Hall is unique as far as I can ascertain. Its loss will reduce the encyclopaedic content of the article in that it removes a citable reference. Oxonhutch (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted in the nomination, the work is still copyrighted in the US dues to the URAA so this is a non-free work. Using this as non-free content is not possible. If used as a reference, it fails WP:NFCC#1 as we accept offline sources so a simple citation would suffice without the need for an image. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2023 (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:The Rolling Stones - Hackney Diamonds.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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lower-rez, higher-filesize version that isn't the actual cover (note that it lacks the script on File:The Rolling Stones - Hackney Diamonds.jpg). Why was this uploaded at all? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 3 October 2023 (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:Ussr0113.jpg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exact publication date is unknown, besides c:COM:URAA would have likely restored this anyway. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 20:01, 3 October 2023 (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:Xoom logo.svg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:Xoom A PayPal Service.svg —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 20:11, 3 October 2023 (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:Robert C Benchley.jpg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This image is very likely still to be copyrighted in the US until 95 years after its publication in 1938. See discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2023_September_20#File:Dave_Burnaby.jpg. While this file is in use, there is a public domain image of the subject on the same article. Felix QW (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2023 (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:NVidia GeForce 9 Series.jpg

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, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This GeForce 9 series logo features old Nvidia wordmark, which was replaced by current Nvidia wordmark. Also, this logo was derived from the GeForce 7 series logo. HarmonZach (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rationale for deletion is unclear. What is wrong with the file? StartOkayStop (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be wrongly uploaded without any knowledge. One Turkish website added this wrong logo. HarmonZach (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does seem that the nvidia logo changed its font to the current style (with all letters roughly equal, rather than the italicised n) in 2006, while the GeForce 9 series was launched in 2008. So it seems unlikely that the old styling would have been in use for a product-specific logo in 2008.

I cannot actually find evidence of any logo in use for the 9 series, but perhaps I also didn't look at the right places. Felix QW (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with deletion. HarmonZach (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2023 (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.