Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 December 14

< December 13	December 15 >

December 14

File:Handy's 2008.jpeg

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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped from File:Handy Andy's, Yarmouth, Maine.jpg without attribution. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Uploader has since added attribution. Wikiacc (¶) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned crop of the original photo. Salavat (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shouldn't have been orphaned, and now is no longer. I took the original photo under a different account and cropped it to make it closer to the "then" view in the relevant article. - 16:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider53 (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:Anadyr.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 all file revisions except for the original. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A self-made image was uploaded on top of a US Government image, without replacing the license tag. Therefore, it's unclear what license the author intended. I suggest reverting to the US Government image. Wikiacc (¶) 18:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to the original. This was probably a misunderstanding, but none-the-less, the new file can't be separated without a separate license. GMG ^talk 11:33, 20 December 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:TIME Person of the Year 2019 - Greta Thunberg.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. It wasn't the nominator's original request, but the consensus of the discussion is that none of the current uses meet WP:NFCC, and therefore the image should be deleted, not just removed from one article. RL0919 (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No legitimate use for the page Time Person of the Year, where the image is continuously re-added. Free images of Thunberg exist and replace the purpose of this image, as many of the images already present exemplify. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 18:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Time Person of the Year image: it is the only image used under the awards and honors of Thunberg's bio. Since the award is so obscure and unknown (sarcasm intended), including the image of the Time Person of the Year 2019 magazine cover helps the reader of Thunberg's bio relate to such an insignificant award (again with the sarcasm ... I desperately need help). I have no Equus ferus or Canis in this dog and pony show on whether or not the high honor and distinction of being named Time's Person of the Year is justification for inclusion of the media franchise's flagship magazine cover reflecting the honor and award. Therefore, I shall not henceforth weigh in on the matter one way or the other. Johnrichardhall (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnrichardhall: I didn't requested the deletion of the image. I am requesting the removal from Time Person of the Year as a flagrant violation of several WP:NFCC criteria. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 21:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch: Aah, I see. Hmm, I'm confused. For clarification: are you postulating that there's no legitimacy in showing the current Time Person of the Year 2019 magazine cover on the Time Person of the Year Wikipage? Johnrichardhall (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per everything JJMC89 said below (also per WP:NFCC#3a). I have no opinion about deleting altogether as long as "TIME Person of the Year 2019 - Greta Thunberg" is replaced with something more relevant that requires such a non-free image in the first place. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 20:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think any other image, free or not, would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: A standing teenager in front of the sea serves exacly which encyclopaedic purpose for the article Time Person of the Year? © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 21:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the record, this discussion is not about deleting the image, but the usage on the page Time Person of the Year. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 21:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NB @Tbhotch: A discussion on the appropriateness of using the Time Person of the Year 2019 magazine cover for the Time Person of the Year Wikipage seems a moot point. Johnrichardhall (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be relevant like File:People Magazine cover.png as the infobox image if it wasn't for File:Charles Lindbergh Time cover 1928.jpg, which is free and replaces the same purpose of explaining what is a Time Person of the Year (i.e. WP:NFCC#1). The only non-free covers in Time Person of the Year are (or were, as they have been removed) File:Time youcover01.jpg (originally uploaded for the article You (Time Person of the Year)), File:Silence Breakers.jpg (picture of 5 different women that may not be replaced by free images), and File:Time Magazine Cover Images Person of the Year 2018.png (4 different covers). Nevertheless, other years uses these physicians that not necessarily are related to the 2014 cover, these students that are not necessarily related to the 2013 cover or this whistle that is not related in any way to the 2002 cover. Non-free images are not used for decorative purposes. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 20:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no sourced critical commentary about the cover itself in Greta Thunberg (WP:NFCC#8). There is no non-free use rationale for Time Person of the Year (WP:NFCC#10c). Even if that were remedied, there is no sourced critical commentary about the cover itself, and there are free covers that can be used for identification (WP:NFCC#1). — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from Time Person of the Year since, as pointed out above, there are free images of Thunberg which can be used in the table in the body of the article and because there are free images of older article covers which can be used for primary identification purposes at the top of the article. It's not really necessary to use the most recent cover image for primary identification purposes at the top of the article since the article is not specifically about the most recent issue, but rather about the entire history of the person-of-the year issue. Trying to justify this file's use in the article solely because it's the most recent one is not really something is going to make any sense at all next year when a new cover is released. Possible keep in the BLP about Thunberg, but only if critical commentary about the cover itself can be provided per WP:NFC#CS, WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI. This might actually be a real possibility given the fact that the cover was actually recreated/photoshopped as discussed here which is something that did receive quite a bit of coverage; it might even be possible to upload the photoshopped version as well for a side-by-side comparison. The current article content about the Thunberg winning the award is not really something which requires that the reader see the actual cover image; content about the controversy created by the photoshopping is something, however, which could be better understood by seeing a comparison of both covers. It may even be possible for a stand-alone article to be created about the controversy itself if there's enough significant coverage though in that case item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI would probably mean the file would no longer be OK to use in Thunberg's BLP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "Trying to justify this file's use in the article solely because it's the most recent one is not really something is going to make any sense at all next year when a new cover is released." Well then, simply update Time's Person of the Year's Wikipage next year with next year's Time's Person of the Year 2020. I'd think that having the most recent cover suggests that Wikipedia keeps current by updating Time's Person of the Year's Wikipage. Johnrichardhall (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a reflection of Wikipedia's desire to be current on subjects, events, etc., I believe that the current cover of Time magazine's Person of the Year should always be updated by using the most current Person of the Year cover. Johnrichardhall (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've already WP:!VOTED once above and therefore shouldn't do so more than once. You can respond to comments made by others if you like (just add your comment beneath their's using proper indentation/bullet point markup, but you don't need to preface every new comment that you make with "KEEP" or "DELETE" and format the post if you're casting another !vote. It's improper to do so, and will be pretty much ignored by the administrator reviewing the discussion. Please strike the "KEEP" part of your comment as explained in WP:REDACT and WP:DISCUSSAFD.

In response to what you posted, Wikipedia's desire isn't to keep current on subjects, events, etc.; that might be the desire of a newspaper, magazine or other periodically published publication, but Wikipedia is not the news and Wikipedia is not necessarily focused on the recent. Articles about periodicals like magazines generally don't need to have their most recent cover used in the infobox unless it's really encyclopedically relevant to do so, since the article is not entirely about a specific issue of the periodical. The "Person of the Year" article is about the entire history of the issue and things related to it from it's very beginnings to present day; it's not really about the Thunberg issue about any other particular issue. Personally, it makes more sense to me from an overall Wikipedia perspective to actually use the cover of the very first "Person of the Year" issue in the infobox and then perhaps images of other covers which might have been highly controversially or otherwise the subject of critical commentary possibly at places within the body of the article near content related to such commentary so as to present things in more balanced manner to the reader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir! (I removed the word "Keep" from my above statement). When I ponder "Wikipedia's desire isn't to keep current" I comprehend why academia holds a dim view of Wikipedia. Here's a suggestion: "Have no image in the infobox." That should satisfy everybody. In the end, whatever image is there--or if there is no image--is of no consequence.Johnrichardhall (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JJMC89 sums it up nicely. Also, even if this was a free image, the first cover serves the encyclopedic purpose much better.--Muhandes (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That there is a (read: are many) free alternative(s) for the POTY article makes that much pretty open-and-shut. Besides that, anyone who would argue that Thunberg has more historical educational significance than Lindbergh probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Whether this should be used on the main article for Thunberg in the first place? That article has like three pages worth of honors and awards. Is POTY a great honor? Of course. Is it so uniquely central to her notability that covering it in prose without an image of the cover would be singularly detrimental to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic? That's less than evident. Obama and Clinton were both POTY twice, and we don't include a cover for them. In fact, something like a dozen people have been named twice, and we don't seem to include non-free covers for any of them. I don't see why Thunberg should be especially exceptional in this case. GMG ^talk 11:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#10. This image fails the requirements under the Non-free content criteria policy and as such should be removed/deleted. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 07:20, 29 December 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:BELLA 9cm Target.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged PD-USGov, but it's a work of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which holds copyright. See Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Wikiacc (¶) 18:37, 14 December 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:KCG College of Technology Main Building.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the small size and white background, this does not seem like "own work". Probably taken from a website such as http://sihh2018.forgeforward.in/team-mesh-kcg/precision-agriculture-kcg-college-of-technology-team-mesh-456227 Muhandes (talk) 18:56, 14 December 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:DoqA.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged PD-USGov without clear evidence of US government authorship. Wikiacc (¶) 19:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:25, 15 December 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:DSС01278.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-1978 US postage stamps are copyrighted (see {{PD-USGov}}). Wikiacc (¶) 19:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:25, 15 December 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:Final map.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged PD-USGov without evidence of US government authorship. Wikiacc (¶) 20:23, 14 December 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:Hawaii license plate 2017 national park Haleakalā.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An artistic work of the state government of Hawaii. Not US federal government, as claimed. Wikiacc (¶) 20:59, 14 December 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:Joseph Warren Stilwell Jr.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No way to verify whether this is a US government work, as claimed. See Commons deletion discussion. Wikiacc (¶) 21:44, 14 December 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:MathDahl.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; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed US federal government, but source states "from ND Blue Book 1942", which is a publication of the state of North Dakota. Wikiacc (¶) 22:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. {{PD-US-no notice}} might apply. Wikiacc (¶) 23:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relicense to PD-US-no notice. See the full document. Wikiacc (¶) 06:07, 21 December 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:Middle aged zippy.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged PD-USGov without evidence of US federal government authorship. Wikiacc (¶) 22:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:26, 15 December 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:MirandaAshley.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged PD-USGov, but not authored by the US federal government. Wikiacc (¶) 22:43, 14 December 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:NASA Human Systems Integration Division Building.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Own work, tagged USGov. It's not clear what license the uploader intended for the photo. Wikiacc (¶) 22:54, 14 December 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:Operation Bishop Illegal Gambling Raid Brownsville Texas USA.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged US federal government, but the source attributes the image to the Cameron County District Attorney. No evidence of federal authorship. Wikiacc (¶) 23:11, 14 December 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:Petehalat 1997mugshot.jpeg

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) 01:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshot by the State of Mississippi, incorrectly labeled as a work of the US federal government. Wikiacc (¶) 23:32, 14 December 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.