Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 August 5

August 5

File:Yvonne and James II, 2021, Jordan Casteel at Met 2022.jpeg

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. Consensus is that critical commentary is lacking to support WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting is not discussed in the article it illustrates (except a mention in a bullet-pointed list). Innisfree987 (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entire section is discussing her oeuvre, and the image illustrates several features described there (the varying skin tones, the pose and direct gaze, the palette). I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 to say that because the section has a critical analysis her work as a whole, an image of one of her works wouldn't significantly increase readers' understanding. hinnk (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claimed justification on the file is “To support encyclopedic discussion of this work in this article.” But this work is not discussed in the article. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To wit, it seems a lot like OR for you to claim this work represents her style when no cited sources are saying that. What if experts think it’s atypical for her oeuvre? Innisfree987 (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective quoting like that doesn't help anyone. The full statement says, "The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): Key example of the artist's figurative paintings of Black families, photographs, and communities, for critical analysis of the artist's style", which seems like a perfectly valid justification. If a different painting is more typical of her work, then replace it with that instead of proposing this very strained interpretation of the non-free content criteria. hinnk (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the portion that was untrue, and it is. Further, my point is not that either of us as individuals should decide what’s representative, but that we would need reliably sourced material discussing its relevance. As is required by our upload form on which the uploaded would have selected, “This image is the object of discussion in an article. This is a copyrighted artwork or photograph, and the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article.” It’s just not. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's my upload so I'm probably not supposed to weigh in, but I would note that there are quite a few notable examples of NFC that don't have a direct, textual reference to the work in question.

One of the broader problems here is that much of the scholarship that would establish individual paintings/works of art as typical of an artist's style are created by the museums/institutions that own said work. I've run into many editors who seem to believe that anything produced by a museum about a work owned by that museum is a non-objective source, and can't be used on Wikipedia. So, in the eyes of some editors, to establish that this painting is indicative of Casteel's style - which the Met explicitly says in their listing for the work - we would need a second, completely separate source. In the past I've tried going that route - adding specific references sourced via a museum - and have had the contributions immediately reverted by other editors because the source is "too close to the subject." I could rant for days about the ways museums work and the ethics of arts scholarship, but a lot of editors take an extremely hard-line approach (if a museum owns something, anything they write about that object is non-usable), which can make it very difficult to add visual elements to artist bios, arguably the most important element when trying to learn about an artist. So I've often just added images that I know to be typical of an artist's style - information gleaned from the museums that own the works - without going down the textual reference route to avoid any editing conflicts. May not be the best approach, but it's been generally accepted so far.

But obviously I defer to the group on this. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted. 19h00s (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you couldn’t find a single independent source discussing the image, then to me it’s quite definitive that the painting isn’t and won’t be discussed in the article. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(But you’re certainly welcome to weigh in!) Innisfree987 (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't find WP:OR to be applicable in that way, and I would only evaluate against the WP:NFCC, not the file upload wizard. I don't think Innisfree987 and I are presenting new arguments at this point, so I'll leave it there. hinnk (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 09:23, 16 August 2024 (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:Captain Kohl leading the Herfylking.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. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate source for this image makes no reference to its provenance. There is no mention of it dating to the 19th-century, no description of it as a propaganda image, and no identification of the author. The image was first uploaded to the internet in 2005. My guess, barring additional information, is that the image was created shortly before then. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Picture is not encyclopedic. My guess it is an old comedy image, with the joke (usually below the image) not included. That guess would fit common practices in the country of origin. Snævar (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2024 (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:AMD GPUOpen Logo, Jan 2016.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GPUOpen now has a relatively simple new logo that likely doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Given the non-free logo no longer seems to be the primary one, I think it could be replaced. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2024 (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:Harbou Metropolis 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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is a book cover currently tagged as public domain in the U.S., but unsuitable for Commons because the book's author is Thea von Harbou (1888–1954). I don't think she would be considered an author of the cover though, only the artist Walter Reimann (1887–1936), whose signature you can see at the bottom and whose work is public domain in Germany. hinnk (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see the signature when I put the don't transfer until as the birthday of hers, if it was Walter who made it it should be suitable for commons and PD in the US and Germany Wiiformii (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent catch, this is now on the Commons under the same name, delete on Wikipedia. Hekerui (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2024 (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:Whisper Aero HQ 2020-2022.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 ⚡ 01:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Whisper Aero has 7 non-free images, only the logo seems to meet NFCC requirements. The others show the company's headquarters and its products, failing to meet NFCC 1 and 8. Bestagon ⬡ 22:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, will find images that fit policy Bapple4747 (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as unused fair use. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The article is already deleted. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm pretty sure the logo is simple enough to be below the threshold of originality. However, that's probably a moot point as the company in question is not notable. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2024 (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.