Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 May 31

May 31[edit]

File:GRSHS colors.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Gusa Regional Science High School-X Colors1.png on Commons. ✗plicit 01:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reason to keep locally when it's simple enough to be ineligible for copyright (and can henceforth be hosted on Commons). — Bilorv (talk) 09:54, 31 May 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:Nigel the gardening dog.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: keep. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC criteria #8 because the inclusion of this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic (the dog's owner), and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding.

The dog in question is discussed in one paragraph in the article on the owner, and there's no visual component to that description that would need to be illustrated. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the two paragraphs on Nigel illustrate that he is the subject of a book by Don and regularly appeared on Gardeners' World, making his likeness encyclopedic. A quick search shows there is a lot of potentially usable coverage of Nigel even in sources written years after his death e.g. [1], [2], [3]. — Bilorv (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an individually notable dog and most dogs of a distinct breed look pretty much identical anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article indicates the dog has notoriety of his association with the article subject. -- MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nigel is the main title of the section and carries many distinct references there. The image of him provides further context to the article. The paragraphs on him explain how and why he's notable. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 12:35, 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:Meet the Legends.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 ⚡ 06:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image used in an episode article, Meet the Legends, but depicts the actors rather than the fictional characters. Very rarely do images of living people meet non-free content criteria as they are inherently replaceable (a free replacement could be created e.g. by contacting the person's agent). — Bilorv (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bad quality replaceable image that isn’t useful to the article Dronebogus (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that it is an image of the characters not the actors though I see how this could be confused for an out of universe promotian image. OLI 19:11, 31 May 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:British halfpenny coin 1971 obverse.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: Retain current licensing.. Copyright has not expired in the US. Whpq (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 51 years since 1971 - crown copyright has expired. —Matr1x-101 $_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}$ {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 21:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please import to Commons under commons:Template:PD-UKGov. —Matr1x-101

_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}

{_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 21:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo, keep as-is. Crown copyright on coins lasts 50 years, so these were not PD in the UK until 1971+50=2021. However, the URAA date for the UK was 1996, which means these are still copyrighted in the US until 1971+95=2066. -FASTILY 05:32, 8 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:Kohima Smart City Logo.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, with no prejudice to restoration if someone can create a valid fair use claim for the image -FASTILY 04:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logo is well above the threshold of originality. Eligibility for fair use will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis as the logo is in use on two articles. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 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:Seal of Kohima.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, with no prejudice to restoration if someone can create a valid fair use claim for the image -FASTILY 04:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File history contains two versions of the seal, both of which are well above the threshold of originality. Eligibility for fair use will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis as the seal is in use on two articles. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 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.