Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 17

< February 16	February 18 >

February 17

File:U.S. Ambassador to Sweden Kenneth Alan Howery credentials presentation, November 2019.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article the image was used in is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth. -FASTILY 00:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is not needed to understand that this particular diplomat presented his credentials. The text adequately conveys this and the image does not add to the understanding. Fails WP:NCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The nom is exactly correct, and there may well be a PD-USgovt photo of the event. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have researched and there is no US Government/public domain photo of this, nor any media photos; only the Royal Court photographer was present. The photo adds visual value and understanding to the "presented his credentials" text, which is a vague term of art that doesn't by itself make clear that Howery met the King in person (versus presented the credentials virtually, through an aide, etc.), shook the King's hand, that the event took place in a formal setting, etc. GijsVisser (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GijsVisser (talk • contribs) [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:Missing poster Alicia Kozakiewicz.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This missing child poster poster is claimed as a US government work. It was created by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (a private organization) and contains a photo, which was probably not government-authored. I don't see how this could be free of copyright. Unlikely to meet WP:NFCC, so I suggest delete. Wikiacc (¶) 02:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a work of the Federal government. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 02:31, 22 February 2021 (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:East Ayrshire flag.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly the flag of East Ayrshire, claimed to be free of copyright. First, I haven't been able to verify this is actually the East Ayrshire flag (I can't find it online on any official website). Second, even if authentic, it may be Crown copyrighted (depending on age). Third, the flower designs are probably too complex for the threshold of originality, in the US or the UK. Wikiacc (¶) 02:49, 17 February 2021 (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:2001 ed The International Jew by Henry Ford.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article the image was used in is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth. -FASTILY 00:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary?
The file is an Arabic re-publication of The International Jew, in which the related article already has multiple free images of the original book's covers. The article of The International Jew also don't make further explanation on the file's content, serving little improvement on contextual significance.
The other fair use rationales mentioned on the files are presumed to be invalidated due to delinking.
The file therefore fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Arabic version is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article, so I do not see how it meets WP:NFCC#8. Hog Farm _Talk 16:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see how how the WP:NFCC#8 argument can be made to delete. However, the article is in dire need of reworking and I can see how this would be relevant to a future rewrite that actually covers the topic (the current article being trivial rabbit trails). The fact is that the original publication was never copyrighted and so has been republished by many other parties over the years. The other available images are from the original book. This image is an example that this is still being republished by other parties 80 years after the original. Butlerblog (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Butlerblog and Watchlonly: The nominated book cover is the 2001 Arabic reprint, and is totally different from the original cover which is in public domain. I'm not sure about why you're talking about the original cover.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as currently used ,the image fails WP:NFCC#8. If the article is reworked in the future and can be shown to meet all of the WP:NFCC, it can be added then. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Butlerblog.--Watchlonly (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't keep files simply because someone intends to rewrite the article, it currently fails WP:NFCC#8. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 19:27, 19 February 2021 (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:Guardian (James 'Jim'Harper).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: Link to pirate site has been replaced -FASTILY 00:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source of this file is a comics piracy site, and per WP:COPYVIO Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to. I see nothing to suggest this site conforms to WP:COPYVIOEL, and they only host pirated images. While the fair use rationale could work since it is a cover image that can be obtained legitmate outlets like Comixology or a review site. I'm not sure if simply changing the source to a legitimate site and revdeling the old links would suffice, but I expect not as there could potentially be quality differences.
Side note for awareness: I'm trying to take care of link removals per the recommendation here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2021#Copyright violating/piracy sites before restoring a request to add to the black list. -2pou (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am now aware at that some of the files I've uploaded in the past was from a pirate site. But I have uploaded a new version of this file from [1], which is associated from the official site dcccomics.com.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2021 (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:Brick (Danny Brickwell circa 2004).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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source of this file is a comics piracy site, and per WP:COPYVIO Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to. I see nothing to suggest this site conforms to WP:COPYVIOEL, and they only host pirated images.
Side note for awareness: I'm trying to take care of link removals per the recommendation here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2021#Copyright violating/piracy sites before restoring a request to add to the black list. -2pou (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2021 (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.

Images from another comics piracy site

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 -FASTILY 00:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source of all these files (current versions at least) is a comics piracy site, and per WP:COPYVIO Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to. I see nothing to suggest this site conforms to WP:COPYVIOEL, and they only host pirated images.
Side note for awareness: I'm trying to take care of link removals per the recommendation here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2021#Copyright violating/piracy sites before restoring a request to add to the black list. -2pou (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the following images had older versions that could potentially be restored to that don't violate WP:COPYVIOEL, but they'd need revdels and undeletion of old images (if feasible):

File:Xmenalpha.jpg back to Special:PermanentLink/524474065
File:Killer Frost (Louise Lincoln).jpg back to Special:PermanentLink/778669371
File:MajorDisaster.jpg back to Special:PermanentLink/518784228
File:Shrapnel (DC Comics character).jpg back to Special:PermanentLink/782102664
File:LadySpellbinder.jpg back to Special:PermanentLink/524472010
-2pou (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2021 (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.