Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 24

< July 23	July 25 >

July 24[edit]

File:Atalla.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: Removed from MOSFET. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from MOSFET per WP:NFCC#8. An image of an inventor is not necessary to understand the article subject. The is no sourced critical commentary on the image and such commentary if it existed would be irrelevant to the article subject. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is relevant to include a photo of the inventors in a section that is essentially about them. I feel the section would feel somewhat incomplete without an illustration of the inventors which the article section is talking about. Also, I'm not entirely sure whether it's a free or non-free image, as I'm not very familiar with the image upload rules. Shouldn't there be some leeway for non-living persons? It's the only online photo I could find of him. The only alternative photo I've found is in a book of a younger Atalla working at a lab in the 50s or 60s. Would that be a better alternative, since it's an old image of him at work? Maestro2016 (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Atalla looks like is irrelevant to MOSFET. See c:COM:CRT/US/c:COM:HIRTLE for the ways that the photo could be PD, other than being released as such by the copyright holder. You need to be able to prove that it is. There's no leeway for images of deceased persons used in this manner. Non-free images of deceases persons can be used for identification in the article about that person, but that is not the case here. You need a free image to use it in the manner that this photo is being used in MOSFET. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've found out that the young Atalla photo I'm proposing to use is from 1963. So I presume that means it's public domain now? Maestro2016 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether it was originally published with or without a copyright notice. See c:COM:HIRTLE. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any copyright notice on the 1963 photo in the book. Which leads me to believe it must be public domain. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now replaced the image with the alternative photo mentioned above. Maestro2016 (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2019 (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:LoGH Overture to a New War.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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file is a fair use file being used on Legend of the Galactic Heroes. However, the article already has File:LoGH vol1 first edition tokuma novels.jpg as a fair use file. Meanwhile, the file shows characters from the novel/animation, yet its contextual significance is not enough for supplementing the plot. Therefore the file has a chance to violate WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2019 (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:Adams Chadwick.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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this can be released as own work. It's clearly noted as being the work of Ansel Adams. It might be PD based on age, but I'm not versed enough to know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2019 (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:AFL - Fitzroy Football Club Best & Fairest List 1990.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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this claim to PD is valid - it's a page from a book that isn't itself PD. It looks like there's enough non-list content to not simply be uncopyrightable as a list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2019 (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:Beyoncé - 4 (Deluxe).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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails per WP:NFCC#3a. livelikemusic talk! 15:35, 24 July 2019 (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:Erected Penis.png[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 F4 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, unencyclopedic. Commons has enough of these with higher resolution, and both enwiki and Commons have a Template:Nopenis because of the frequent addition of similar media. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Slightly out of focus and anything that looks like a smartphone selfie is out of scope.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 24 July 2019 (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:西太后.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 ⚡ 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, claims PD100 without any licensing information except for dead link. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2019 (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.