Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 May 11

< May 10	May 12 >

May 11[edit]

File:Nuva fuxi.gif[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, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Available in a superior format as File:Anonymous-Fuxi and Nüwa3.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 04:52, 12 May 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:With a Little Help From My Friends - Joe Cocker.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, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This artwork is (nearly) similar to that of the parent album of the same name. However, none of the releases use that cover. I highly suspect that it came from the source describing a re-release of the parent album. The image is used in song article, but it should either be deleted or replace the current image in the parent album article. George Ho (talk) 06:58, 11 May 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:Baby Doll Alternative Cover Art.jpeg[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 ⚡ 20:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative album cover. No significant sourced commentary about this cover. Ir's usage as a means of visual ID in the infobox fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: i've db-author all the files that you have flagged, because i've found that all files violates guidelines. And both alternative cover arts aren't official (i recently checked). Regards - CptViraj (talk) 18:49, 11 May 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:SS America Bringing the Troops Home as the U.S.S. WEST POINT In New York Harbor.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, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a publication history to show that the copyright wasn't renewed? Otherwise, the PD license is invalid, and this is replaceable fair use (see c:Category:Illustrations by William James Aylward). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:35, 11 May 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:Eileen Sharp Gauguin.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we safely say that this is a free image? It was originally published in a UK newspaper in 1925. It could be a corporate work owned by the newspaper, an possibly anonymous work owned by the newspaper photographer, a work owned by the stage producer (who might be corporate or individual), a possibly anonymous work by an individual photographer associated with the production company, or something else. I don't see any way to say safely that this is out of copuright, although there's at least a good chance that it is. If it isn't free, its recent use isn't permitted, because it's an image related to a stage play in an article about the novel it was adapted from, not the play itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly valid non-free license denoting its non-free usage to illustrate the section about the play. Please do not nominate images for deletion then delete them before a decision has been made. Dreamspy (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the image's uploader as I believe it's use in the section describing the play based on the novel was perfectly valid. Also why did you open a discussion about keeping or not keeping it after you'd unilaterally deleted it? Isn't the purpose of the discussion to decide that? Jack1956 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reader does not need to see this image in order to understand anything that is said about the play in the article, namely: "The book was made into a stage play in 1925 at the New Theatre with Henry Ainley as Strickland and Eileen Sharp as Ata". The rationale talks about visual aspects like "pose" and "period setting" as if these are relevant, but none of it is discussed in the article, so it's not.

@Dreamspy and Jack1956: simply stating that you think it passes the non-free criteria is not going to cut it when it's been called into question. Your responsibility is to address the issues in this nomination. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Delete: This discussion, despite the aspersions cast above, didn't begin as a deletion nomination, but as a request for additional information that might allow this to be kept as a free image. Unfortunately, none has been provided. As talk, the only commenter to actually address policy issues, points out, this is an open-and-shut case. We can't use nonfree promotional images from a movie or TV show to illustrate the article about the book it is adapted from. Policy is no different regarding stage plays. Images like this are removed from articles, regularly, without discussion or dispute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the purpose stated in the NFUR claims it is being used as primary means of visual identification of the subject of the article. That is not in fact the case as File:The Moon and Sixpence.jpg serves that purpose. The usage fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 00:53, 19 May 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.