Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 June 1

June 1

File:John Martin Scripps hotel bill.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: Relicense as Public Domain. The deletion rationale of violating non-free content is mooted by the PD status of the image. Whether it is useful in the article is an editorial decision that can be dealt with through the article talk page through the regular editing process. Whpq (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A hotel bill for John Martin Scripps doesn't improve understanding of the subject, honestly. In other words, not contextually significant to this person. George Ho (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wrong ! Martin claimed a mysterious "friend" disposed of the body & he attempted to call his friend at two different Sentosa hotels and Martin's itemized bill from the River View Hotel confirmed he did in fact ring both hotels on the 10 March. This is the only shred of physical evidence he put forth at his trial to try beat the charge so its important to include for contextual reasons .... honestly, is there any point in uploading any photos at all in your opinion ?!! WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure mundane text content, so this is arguably PD but even if it was this doesn’t strike me as educational for that very reason. The average person will not understand its significance without explanation. WTAPT needs to stop uploading unfree media for every marginally related thing to a subject. Dronebogus (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retag as public domain; no creative input. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2023 (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:Zulu Baker Caine.gif

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. Whpq (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is used in the Cast section of Zulu (1964 film). There is no fair use rationale for its use in the film article. The image fails WP:NFCC#3a since the poster already illustrates the article and there is no critical commentary of the image itself, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationale was removed at some point - it was there in the original upload.

The poster illustrates the film as a whole, this image illustrates the two major performers and characters in the cast, a different functions altogether. The claim that seeing images of the film's major stars does not inform the reader is fatuous at best.

Typical for Aspects, they would rather delete images than correct the faults in their paperwork. This is ironic given that their own paperwork is faulty in this FtD nomination: the image was uploaded by me, yes, but not using my current "Beyond My Ken" account, using a former "Before My Ken" account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fine now that the two fair use rationales have been restored. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not used in critical discussion. In general we only use unfree media to illustrate specific things that are discussed prominently. A random out of context scene is not that. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, decorative fair use. Does not aid readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2023 (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:Stravinsky picasso.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. Without a publication date, determination of copyright rests with the restored copyright via URAA. See also Wikipedia:Precautionary principle. Whpq (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

US copyright was restored to this sketch in 1997 under the URAA; see this entry at the copyright office. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can this be copyrighted if it was published before 1928 as the file info states? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Quirky Kitty, where the sketch was first published is unknown, and I've done a great deal of digging to try to find an answer, but to no avail. The sketch, along with hundreds of Picasso's other works, were re-copyrighted in 1997 using the URAA, which allowed foreign works to restore copyright IF they were copyrighted in their home country in 1996. Picasso's works were copyrighted in France in 1996, as he'd only died about 20 years earlier. That's as much as I understand- if I'm mistaken, please do correct me. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I would like to see evidence of publication (not creation) before 1928. But if the uploader is correct about the publication date, URAA restoration only lasts until the copyright would have expired if the work had originally been published in the US. See c:Commons:Hirtle chart. Wikiacc (¶) 23:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this image is easily replaceable by File:Igor Stravinsky as drawn by Pablo Picasso 31 Dec 1920 - Gallica.jpg. Wikiacc (¶) 23:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we have another picasso drawing of Stravinsky that would be a drop-in replace, that we're sure is public domain. The reader loses nothing by us using this free image over the potentially unfree one. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 12:39, 5 June 2023 (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:Hoe Kah Hong.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 2023 June 9. Whpq (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoe Kah Hong.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:FranciscanWoodscolor320x225.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: soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the file's undeletion. Whpq (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logo is well above the threshold of originality. St. Francis Hospital (Columbus, Georgia) has little commentary about this organization, so this may or may not qualify for fair use. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2023 (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:Sfh foundation web.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. As Whpq correctly points out, a PD version is available -FASTILY 04:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly above the threshold of originality as the dove is not a simple geometric shape. Opening a discussion as I feel it is a borderline case. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend maintaining the license as non-free. I think it displays enough original authorship to confer copyright protection in the US. Not only did someone draw the bird, they created a textured background and added shadowing. Several creative choices were made here. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is above the threshold of originality. Conversion for use as non-free content does not seem reasonable as this is the logo for the foundation, and not the hospital? This appears to be the web site which uses just a plain text logo. -- Whpq (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2023 (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.