Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 4

< October 3	October 5 >

October 4

File:BJPenn2.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: relisted on 2018 October 12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:BJPenn2.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:EnterpriseCenterSTL-Rendering.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

WP:NFCC criteria. Fair use assertion is to display an image of the arena with new branding. This fails NFCC #1, as it uses a non-free image of a subject (the building itself) for which free images already exist. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Your rationale is correct now, but would not have been correct at the time that the image was uploaded. The new signage had not yet been applied to the exterior of the building at that time, thus the rendering was the only available option. However, now that the signage has changed, I agree with your rationale and do not object to this file's deletion. Strikerforce^Talk 13:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that rationale was never correct. Your apparent rationale for the image boils down to "the signage is out of date because of a new name". The infobox image's purpose is to depict the subject of the article - in this case, the building as a whole (as opposed to the logo field of the infobox, which is focused on the current branding). The fact that the signage is out of date does not invalidate previous images (in fact,
  WP:NFCC states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The encyclopedic purpose of the arena photo is to depict the arena itself. Since the arena is completed and open to the public, no non-free image may be used to depict it. Period. The name and signage are only 2% of the entire structure, and that doesn't matter. If you feel the photo of the arena itself is out of date in your opinion, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from going out and just taking new pictures. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - other stuff exists to try to say why we shouldn't have included the updated signage, which - at that time - was only available in a rendering? Yes, now that the signage has been updated, there's nothing stopping someone from going and getting that same photo and using it here. If I lived closer to the facility, I'd do it myself, in fact. It was rather silly to have the article titled one thing, but to still be showing an image within the info box that called the facility another. Thus, NFCC could be interpreted (using "Non-free content is used only were no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose") as allowing the rendering until such time as the new signage was installed on the building. As I stated above, now that that has happened, by all means, yes, the rendering is not appropriate for use. At the time of upload, however, I think the argument that it was appropriate was valid. But, that's truly neither here nor there, at this point - the rendering no longer meets NFCC, yes, I agree with that and the proposed deletion of it. Strikerforce^Talk 17:59, 5 October 2018 (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.

A Night at the Opera screenshots

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 2018 October 12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Night at the Opera balcony.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:ANATOcontract.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Night at the Opera end.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:M.M. Mithaiwala Pvt. Ltd.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False "own work" claim (the image is a company logo from the internet). Misused for advertising in image info (now removed), no encyclopedic value (non-notable company). GermanJoe (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2018 (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:Skendrowell.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the description, it sounds like this is a screenshot from a TV program? B (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2018 (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:Kurienthomas.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 ⚡ 06:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's a picture of a picture. The copyright is going to be with the original photographer B (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2018 (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:Workworship.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 ⚡ 06:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a picture of a book cover, in which case copyrighted. B (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2018 (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:RumillyRugby.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: Keep as non-free file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to complex for PD-ineligible. Should probably be tagged as fair use. (Also, it needs a source - right now it is unsourced.) B (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely above the TOO. I have re-licensed to non-free logo, updated to the current club logo and added a source. Salavat (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2018 (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:BOPE1.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 ⚡ 06:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three different images here all uploaded on the same day. The source website is gone (I wouldn't suggest clicking on the current one in the image description page - it takes you to some malware). I have no idea which one(s) are supposedly Creative Commons licensed, but we have no evidence that any of them are. B (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2018 (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.