Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 21

< July 20	July 22 >

July 21

File:Torment Tides of Numenera concept art - female protagonist.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 ⚡ 02:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially a free alternative could be found, since it's used in the article to signify "the player character," but the game's been released; also it could just be deleted since there's no commentary on it in the article as it stands, so its presence feels unnecessary. 2601:643:8100:2921:6825:8384:64A0:26E8 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem particularly necessary to demonstrate anything, especially given that it's just a human character._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:47, 25 July 2020 (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:Lin-Manuel Miranda biting his lip, December 2018.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 ⚡ 02:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No PD statement provided. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2020 (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:Flag of Cambridge, ON.gif

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: soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the file's undeletion. Wikiacc (¶) 14:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

possible derivative of non-free content; unclear if the flag itself is actually freely licensed. May be closed as keep if someone can provide a citation proving that the flag is PD. FASTILY 07:06, 21 July 2020 (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:Romero & Carmack home office.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is being used decoratively, and is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. This image does not significantly increase a reader's understanding of Commander Keen. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's better placed in the id Software article in that case or otherwise in the appropriate articles for John Romero and John Carmack respectively. Deltasim (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be used in other article, you would need to provide a non-free usage rationale for use in each of those articles. There are no rationales provided for use other than in the Commander Keen article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the image has been transferred to id Software and the rationale name has been modified. If there's any more than needs to be done, let me know. Deltasim (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All that has been done is a the article name was updated and the image plopped into the id Software article. The use is still decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of a better placement? It seems to fit with Id Software's early years. Deltasim (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming that this image must be used somewhere. Unless it meets all of the non-free content criteria, then it cannot be used. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're implying that the context of this image is random and meaningless. So far as I can see, it has adequate relevance to the article and the topic it is placed. Further feedback and discussion from other users, should be made before you come to the ultimate decision "it cannot be used". Deltasim (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Decorative fair use, textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation -FASTILY 00:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is it being referred to as decorative? It's put in a very specific place and it illustrates a past history behind id Software? It must have strong context significance considering the relevance to id Software. Deltasim (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. There's not really anything about this image that cannot be expressed in text as explained in WP:FREER and the photo itself doesn't seem to be the subject of any sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#CS. Lots of people do some pretty incredible things at home, and perhaps the things they do are in some way groundbreaking or historic; that, however, doesn't make a non-free photo of them doing such a thing historic. What about seeing this particular photo significantly improves the reader's understanding of the content in id Software#History to such a degree that not seeing this photo would be detrimental to that understanding? In other words, would the general reader's understanding of the article content being seriously affected if you removed this file. That's what Fastily and Whpq mean "decorative". Non-free files are already considered an exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files which means the justification for using them needs to be quite strong and something that goes beyond simply wanting readers to see the image. If there's some kind of critical commentary in reliable sources which actually goes into some detail about this particular image and you can add that content with supporting sources to the article, then that would strength the argument in favor of non-free use. You need to look for stuff that actually discusses this image is some detail and not just stuff that discussed that these two guys worked out of a home office and maybe just shows the image as part of a larger story. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to be intentionally more restrictive than fair use as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE; so, while other websites may more readily able to use such an image simply based upon fair use, Wikipedia tends to only use non-free content when it's pretty much absolutely essential to the proper understanding of article content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you put it that way, then perhaps ideally a better image should be uploaded and placed, because there is clearly nothing more that can be done with this one. The context remains ambiguous to some extent. I think that's all I've got to say. Deltasim (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2020 (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:Stony brook gate house.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 ⚡ 02:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully replaced by File:Stony Brook gate house in Roxbury, 1891.jpg, of which this is a scaled-down version reprinted on a postcard. Any possible use would use the Commons version; there's no separate value to this postcard version. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. (I originally posted it.) --Macrakis (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2020 (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.