Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18[edit]

File:Sixlets.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: relicense as {{PD-simple}} — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content (packaging) FASTILY 06:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue? I took the photograph. It's a mediocre picture of a product in its packaging for educational purposes. Is no photo of product in a package ever allowed in Wikipedia? ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arx Fortis:. How an image such as this can be licensed depends on the product packaging as explained in c:COM:Packaging. There are essentially two copyrights which need to be considered; the one for the photo you took and the one for the packaging itself. You created the photo, so you can release it under a free license if you want; you didn't, however, create the packaging design and permission from whomever did might be needed for this file to be truly considered 100% free. In this particular case, the logo on the packaging looks like it might be simple enough to be considered {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States, at least that's my opinion; if, however, the consensus turns out to be otherwise, then the logo will need to be licensed separately as {{Non-free logo}} instead. This means your photograph can be released as your "own work", but the file would be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy since the logo part is non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Packaging looks simple enough for the image to be re-licensed as {{PD-simple}}. Salavat (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2019 (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) 07:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and transfer to Commons. The text on the packaging is below TOO in US and in the source country Canada. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 20 January 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.

Non-free former logos in image gallery[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: Done -FASTILY 03:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free former logos being used in an image gallery in Sat.1#Logos. Non-free files. are almost never allowed to be used in an image gallery per WP:NFG because the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is almost never provided. A gallery of former logos, in particular, almost always just shows the logos without without any corresponding relevant sourced commentary about the evolution of the organization's branding, etc. provided in the article. This seems to be the case here.

It is, however, possible that these might be considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection either as {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Two of the former logos being used in the gallery are File:Sat 1 Logo 1980.svg and File:Sat.1-mit-Namenszusatz.svg. The first file is a Commons file (PD-textlogo) and the other one is a local Wikipedia file (PD-ineligible-USonly). So, if the consensus is that the other former logos (as well as the infobox logo File:SAT.1 logo 2016.png) can be converted to either one of these licenses, then all the non-free content use issues will be resolved. The question is whether the 3D ball imagery falls below c:COM:TOO US; it's kinda close in my opinion, so I'd like to hear what some others think.

If none of these can be converted to a PD license, then they fail WP:NFC#cite_note-4, WP:NFCC#8 and even WP:NFCC#3a in the case of File:SAT.1 ball logo 2016.png since it's basically the infobox logo without the "Sat.1"; therefore, I suggest delete for all except the main infobox logo currently being used unless someone is able to address the non-free content use issues, particularly the WP:NFC#cite_note-4 problem for the former logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2019 (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) 07:02, 18 January 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:Link Super Smash Bros Ultimate.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: relisted on 2019 January 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Link Super Smash Bros Ultimate.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:DV Daniels USPS Postmark.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: Missing evidence of permission. Get in touch with OTRS if USPS responds saying this is PD -FASTILY 03:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USPS stuff is copyright post 1978 - c:Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#United_States Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that to be about the stamp, not the postmark crossing it out. In this case, the stamp is only there to show the postmark location and is not the subject of the picture. Yakatz (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I emailed the USPS Rights and Permissions office for their opinion. Yakatz (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this needs to be treated as non-free content because of the stamp imagery per WP:NFCC#1. A non-free image is not needed to "prove" that a building was named in Daniels honor because a citation to a reliable source is a more than sufficient free equivalent per WP:FREER to serve that particular encyclopedic purpose. Moreover, since the postmark is a bascially stamp "PD-text", it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that a free equivalent without any stamp imagery can be created. So, there's no way to justify converting this to a non-free license.
FWIW, I also think it's kind of hard to argue de minimis here for the stamp, but this type of image seems unecessary even if that were the case per WP:TEXTASIMAGES. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2019 (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) 07:02, 18 January 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:Soviet Major General Aleksandr Dmitrievich Berezin.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 because there is no US license and the image's use would not comply with WP:NFCC. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test case for discussion, as there are a whole raft of these Russian officers at Special:ListFiles/Wreck_Smurfy. The license claimed is not relevant as that applies to Russia, and we need a US license for en-wiki. I thought that they might be possible to move to commons, so I asked first at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/11#Advice_on_Image. Which does not exactly help - basically if they were moved to commons, then they would want evidence of publication date to apply the correct license, if they were not published (until the web site source), then they will still be in copyright. I did talk to uploader at User_talk:Wreck_Smurfy#Russian_Images, but the actual original publication date seems to be unknown. If we decide to keep these images, then we do need to add a proper US license and a "Do not move to commons" template. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a writer myself, I have great respect for copyright, as mine has been violated on at least one occasion. One reason I have not uploaded these to Commons is precisely due to the publication date issue. Given my knowledge of Red Army uniforms and insignia, I can determine the year these images were created to within 1 - 3 years. Since they are publicly available on the internet, it stands to reason that they were published at some point, but I have no way of knowing exactly where or when. If this is the stumbling block, so be it. In any case, I include these images in my articles primarily for human interest and for esthetic reasons. We all know that articles are more readable if something is done to break down the wall of text. These images are at least relevant to the given unit, unlike a generic image that an editor added to the article on the 81st Guards Rifle Division. In the end, if these images are to be removed, readers can still access them through the external links, assuming those websites remain available for the foreseeable future. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no direction on the acceptability of these files. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking forward to the discussion on these files. In the interim I have ceased uploading any such files. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards thinking all of these should be re-tagged as fair use, but don't really want to do that sua sponte
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that in addition to learning Russian for Wikipedia, I'm also picking up a bit of Latin from this discussion. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 11:25, 26 December 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) 10:20, 6 January 2019 (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) 07:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Wikipedia doesn't convert images to fair use (as suggested above by B) per se as explained in WP:NFC#Background and it's best to treat "fair use" and "non-free content" as similar but separate concepts. Moreover, I'm not sure that converting these to non-free content wouldn't just create a new set of issues with respect to WP:NFCC. For example, an image of a deceased person is probably going to be fine per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as it's being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone biography about said person and there are no WP:NFCC#1 issues; however, things are much more difficult when you try to use such images in other articles or for other reasons. Using a non-free image of an officer for primary identification purposes the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the unit he commanded wouldn't in my opinion be an acceptable type of non-free use, and simply moving the file to another part of such an article just to show the person is also unlikely to be acceptable per WP:NFCC#8. So, unless this file be shown to be {{PD-Russia}} or PD for some other reason, I suggest delete since converting to non-free is not really a viable option unless someone wants to write an article about Berezin per WP:SOLDIER and use the image there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 18 January 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:Urban Light at night.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the article already has a FU image that is far superior in depicting the installation and an admin on Commons closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with urban light as delete. I voted keep in that discussion since I do believe they are utilitarian, but if we're going to have a fair use image, we should not have two in one article. Killiondude (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I deleted the second image. As it shows the installation at night with people interacting, this one is more representative. Barte (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image currently violates WP:FREER. These pictures need two copyright tags: an unfree tag for the artwork and a free one for the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CC license added. Qusane (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2019 (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) 07:04, 18 January 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:MW 13-018b NEONBOOK.tiff[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: Missing evidence of permission; the art gallery does not appear to have the consent of the artist & photographer to publish the work under a free license. This file may be restored by any administrator should the situation change. -FASTILY 03:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No permission in 2018091110009028 from either the artist, Mary Weatherford, or the photographer, Jonathan Muzikar. Ping Bencemac, who accepted the permission provided by the David Kordansky Gallery. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked more details. Bencemac (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“We represent the artist who's work is depicted and who owns the image”. Bencemac (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems like a matter more suitable for discussion at WP:OTRSN than FFD since only OTRS volunteers can see the permissions email and decide whether it's acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2019 (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) 07:04, 18 January 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:Jim and Cathy Justice.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. PD Mark is not a valid license. If the copyright holder provides a suitable license, the file may be undeleted at that time. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jim and Cathy Justice.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ¶ I don't have any reason to doubt that this page is under the purview of Jim Justice, nor do I suspect any malfeasance in the releasing of this image into the public domain. I have updated the FDP to match the source. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have emailed the Flickr account using FlickrMail and asked for clarification. If this were just some random guy uploading images with PD-mark, then we obviously don't accept those, but this is a government office and it's worth asking whether they really mean something like CC-0 or perhaps West Virginia has some sort of public records law making these legally public domain. Punting on this to give them time to reply. (Keep in mind that everyone is going to be closed for the holidays so if they don't get back to me in a week, please relist this again.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre and Fourthords: FYI --B (talk) 23:11, 22 December 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) 12:03, 31 December 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) 07:06, 18 January 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:Senator Joseph McCarthy.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) 06:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of Senator Joseph McCarthy. (There is an associated OTRS ticket that does not establish acceptable source/permission.) Given his apparent age, it is highly possible that this is his official Senate photo and so I think it should be reviewed rather than deleted outright. B (talk) 17:08, 28 December 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) 07:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an official Senate photo, I'd expect to be able to find that in his entry on the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. I might also expect to see it in his featured biography from the Senate Historical office. I might even be able to find it in a book about McCarthy or the McCarthy hearings, or published online before we published it. But I have not been able to find it in any of those places, which leaves no option but Delete for lack of evidence of copyright status. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:10, 18 January 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:Louisa Vesterager Jespersen.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: relisted on 2019 January 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louisa Vesterager Jespersen.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:Edwin Keeble architectural sketch for National Guard Armory, 1939.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: relisted on 2019 January 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edwin Keeble architectural sketch for National Guard Armory, 1939.jpeg (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:Hotel-Dunapartft.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: relisted on 2019 January 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel-Dunapartft.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:LSMR-409.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons administrator has raised an objection, believing this image is not properly sourced and so we don't know the author is a navyman. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:LSMR-409.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 12:13, 25 December 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) 07:08, 18 January 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:F-4D Phantom II.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: relisted on 2019 January 27. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-4D Phantom II.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:A&D Company logo.svg[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. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo with no article used. Willy1018 (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason this is orphaned while the company's article still exists appears to be because a few months ago user And_furukawa, a redlinked account with a name beginning with "AND" as in the logo which has only edited pages related to this company, replaced the image with a nearly-identical image that has an advertising slogan embedded in it. I would be inclined to keep and restore this clean version to the article. ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 18:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be PD in Japan (so it could be moved to Commons)? I'm inclined to agree with Struthious Bandersnatch here. Restore this logo to the article since it doesn't have the advertising slogan. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 25 December 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) 07:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on c:COM:TOO#Japan, especially the cup noodle example, I would say it is free in Japan. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the image in A&D Company and removed the US-only tag. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:50, 26 January 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:Texas Monthly September 2004 Cover Photo.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) 06:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image that fails WP:NFCC#8 in that there is no significant sourced commentary about this magazine cover photo. Whpq (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI. There's no reason for a non-free image to be used to show three members of the Rangerettes when it's reasonable to expect that a free image can be created per WP:FREER if the purpose is just to show three members in costume; moreover, there's no real discussion of this particular magazine cover to justify it's non-free use per WP:NFC#CS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph of the Popular Culture section are several magazines the Rangerettes have been in/on. The purpose was not simply to show three members in the uniform, rather as one example of a magazine cover. The cover of the magazine itself is a copyrighted image, but the photographer who shot the photo allowed it to be used for this purpose. Michael from Kilgore 00:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfKilgore (talk • contribs)
- The copyright holder's permission is not needed for non-free use; it's really is only necessary if the file is being released under a free license. If the photographer who took the photo wants to release the photo under a free license that Wikipedia accepts, then he/she can do so by sending a consent email to Wikimedia OTRS. The reader doesn't really need to see an example Rangerettes on a magazine cover to understand they received coverage in magazines; so, unless there was some critical commentary in other reliable sources about this particular magazine cover itself can be added to the article, there's no real justification for this type of non-free use per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not take the following as rude, because it isn't meant that way. There are countless articles on Wikipedia containing photographs that, in my opinion, are only there to reinforce text and add some "color" to the article. If you believe Wikipedia should be a text only medium, I respectfully disagree. I am an amateur Wikipedia user, so if I've added this photograph in an incorrect manner, point me to the exact procedure for doing it the correct way and I will resubmit. Thank you in advance for the help. Michael from Kilgore 08:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfKilgore (talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - How a file may be used on Wikipedia largely depends upon how it is licensed. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and stating other files are being used in other articles is not is not really a good way to justify the non-free use of this particular file in this particular article per WP:OTHERIMAGE. There's no sourced critical commentary about this particular cover currently in the article, and simply mentioning that members of the Rangerettes appeared on some magazine covers doesn't really require the reader to see this particular magazine cover at all in my opinion.
      Is there's something about this particular image that significantly improves the reader's understanding of what's written in the article to such a degree that omitting the file would be detrimental to that understanding? Was there something about this particular image (i.e. the way it was shot, the photographer who shot it, the three members pictured in it, some controversy surrounding it, etc.) that received coverage in reliable sources at the time or any time since? Is there any coverage in reliable sources which directly refers to this particular cover as showing "how important the group really is" as the non-free use rationale is claiming? Texas Monthly seems more of a state/regional magazine than a national one; it may be available nationally, but I'm not so sure it would be considered to be in the same category as Time, Life, etc.: magazines whose covers often have themselves been the subject of coverage in reliable sources in the past. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for the explanation. This is one of the reasons I still struggle with contributing to Wikipedia both as an editor and a financial contributor. Most experienced editors and people in control of the system seem far more interested in format, structure, and restrictive rules than content. I will remove the picture. Michael from Kilgore 02:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfKilgore (talk • contribs)

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:Chris-watts-4.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) 06:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, neither the Weld County Sheriff's Office nor the Colorado Department of Corrections were government units of the State of Florida. c:COM:CRT/US#US_States_and_Territories does not indicate that Colorado works are public domain. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:53, 18 January 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:Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy.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) 06:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a free image, so this one is no longer fair use. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed when the free image has been posted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FREER. Probably would've been better just to tag this with {{rfu}} instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 18 January 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:Wedding day photo of Paulina Longworth and Alexander McCormick Sturm.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) 06:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image claimed for use "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article" but is in fact not used that way as that role is currently served by File:William B. Ruger and Alexander McCormick Sturm 1950.jpg.tiff.jpg. FAils WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8 since this type of use appears to be mainly decorative. As for the wording of the rationale, I think that has to do with the fact that photo might have been used in Paulina Longworth Sturm, but that article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulina Longworth Sturm. When that article was deleted, this file would've also been deleted per WP:F5 if it wasn't added to another article. So, someone probably just mistakenly assumed that it would just as OK to use the file in Alexander McCormick Sturm and only changed the article parameter of the rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 19 January 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.