Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 18

< October 17	October 19 >

October 18

File:Ktvt1995logoandid.png

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 ⚡ 07:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative use of a non-free screenshot itn KTVT#As a CBS station. Although there is some discussion related to the station's switch to CBS, there is no sourced critical commentary specifically related to this particular screenshot; so, the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is not really being provided. The file's caption does discuss some error in the way the screenshot shows the station's city of license, but no reliable source is cited in support and there doesn't seem to be any corresponding article content supported by a reliable source; so, basically the caption cannot be verified even though it might be true and would be subject to removal as WP:OR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I have updated the article with references from the FCC and Cornell's law school regarding a station's city of license requirement. I don't usually cite law listings, so I wasn't sure exactly how correctly to post that. I didn't think to include this previously when posting the station ID screenshot. The screenshot has been placed at the point of the new references. Hopefully this will in some way help clarify what was meant originally when I added the screenshot. Shaggylawn65 (talk) 08:10, 14 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) 06:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Everything that's said about the FCC issue with the logo can be understood by text alone because it's about text that appears on the logo: "The logo included the CBS eyemark logo, but the station ID showed the city portion as 'Dallas/Ft. Worth'." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 19 October 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:Order of the Arrow sashes.png

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 October 26. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Order of the Arrow sashes.png (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:Thomas Anthony Dooley III, MD.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: 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 ⚡ 07:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

old image of notable individual. Appears to be scanned. Dubious self-work claim FASTILY 23:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked closely at the image and I think it's just compression artifacts, not newsprint or something. The uploader is an SPA whose only edits pertain to Dooley so I think it's a plausible that this is a family photo that the uploader legitimately owns the copyright to. --B (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 06:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per B. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 18 October 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:The Square Cafe Bargoed- Circa 1935.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: relisted on 2018 October 26. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Square Cafe Bargoed- Circa 1935.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:Huak.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: relisted on 2018 October 26. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huak.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:Blue Thunder in flight.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is File:Blue Thunder in flight.jpg eligible for fair use? There are 3 photos of the Blue Thunder cockpit mockup in the Blue Thunder (helicopter) article already, though not in the condition seen in the film. The aft portion of the aircraft is mostly identical to a stock Aérospatiale Gazelle, a photo of which could easily be added to the article. BilCat (talk) 21:08, 18 October 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:Cessna Skycourier cabin.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image eligible for fair-use? The purpose is given as "illustrate this in development aircraft general configuration", which File:Cessna 408 SkyCourier model.png now shows. Is showing a cutaway cabin layout sufficient to permit fair use? Note that most aircraft articles do not have photos of the aircraft's cabin, when applicable, though there are probably many non-free cabin images and cutways. BilCat (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the purpose by "interior configuration". While the model photo shows the exterior config, the cabin layout is interesting for this one, as it was designed around the 19 seats/3 LD3 payload (a composite like this picture would be even better) and no free picture is available for now. It is a promotional picture, publicised by Textron to advertise its model, their interest is its diffusion.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fairly simplistic image doesnt really add anything to the article not already explained in words. MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 23 October 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:Little Mix - LM5 Album Deluxe.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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. livelikemusic talk! 23:53, 18 October 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.