Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 May 2

May 2

File:9Life logo.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. Whpq (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this file should be split into 2 parts, one with the glossy logo, and the other with the flat logo as they are completely different logos. This file should be renamed to File:9Life logo 2015.png, and that file should contain the glossy logo, while the other file will be called File:9Life logo flat.png, and that file should contain the flat logo. The flat logo was uploaded by @Plasamas on 19 October 2021, as is File:9Gem logo.png and File:9Go! logo.png, who is a blocked user since 28 October 2022. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging @Ixfd64, to leave his opinion on this file. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current logo as is. The older logo with 3D effects is likely above the threshold of originality in both Australia and the United States, and we typically only allow non-free former logos if there is significant commentary about them. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the flat logo was uploaded by a blocked user, who I mentioned. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 05:59, 3 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:9Go! logo.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. Whpq (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this file should be split into 2 parts, one with the glossy logo, and the other with the flat logo as they are completely different logos. This file should be renamed to File:9Go! logo 2015.png, and that file should contain the glossy logo, while the other file will be called File:9Go! logo flat.png, and that file should contain the flat logo. The flat logo was uploaded by @Plasamas on 19 October 2021, as is File:9Gem logo.png and File:9Life logo.png, who is a blocked user since 28 October 2022. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging @Ixfd64, to leave his opinion on this file. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current logo as is. The older logo with 3D effects is likely above the threshold of originality in both Australia and the United States, and we typically only allow non-free former logos if there is significant commentary about them. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixfd64, but the flat logo was uploaded by @Plasamas, which is now a blocked user. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The glossy logo is currently the current logo, but with 3D effects. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:04, 3 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:ClusterII.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need this non-free file anymore as a freely licensed alternative (see File:Cluster ESA15192620.jpeg) has since been made available. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly, as per above.

The Quirky Kitty (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:35, 9 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:Cover of "End to Torment", by H.D.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. Whpq (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

WP:NFCC#8, because the image does not significantly enhance readers' understanding of the topic. The image is not the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. as is listed in the non-free rationale, and there is not significant content about this book in the article, so it fails NFCC8. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: If we can establish that the two photos are public-domain, the cover should be ineligible for copyright. The caption describes the photos as being of H.D. and Ezra Pound in the 1910s. If they were published before 1928, they'd be public domain.

Unfortunately, I can't ascertain the precise provenance of either photo. All I can learn about the left image is that it's Pound in the 1920s (Source), not when it was published. As for the photo of H.D., I found a deceptively similar photo, allegedly from 1900, but it's not the same one (look at her eyebrows). Thus, we will likely have to delete it. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 20:08, 2 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:Directgov website.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: Maintain as non-free. Whpq (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Website available freely - see [1].

You may re-use the text information on this website provided you identify the source and state that it is Crown copyright
You may re-use the information on this website free of charge in any format, but you must:

re-use the information accurately

acknowledge the source of the information

not re-use the information in a deliberately misleading way

not re-use the information for promotion or advertising purposes

not imply endorsement by Directgov, another government department or other public sector organisation

not mimic the style and appearance of the original information, for example by replicating the look of Directgov

--Matr1x-101

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

{

^talk - _contribs} 19:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

If it can't be used for promotional purposes, that means it isn't a freely licenced image i.e. it can't go on Commons. The licence looks like it should be {{
Non-free with NC}} (as well as meeting fair use). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:26, 4 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.