Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 26

< July 25	July 27 >

July 26

File:NZ On Air original logo.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: Delete; deleted by BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file is pretty useless on the NZ On Air article. It's not part of any section or anything, it's just been thrown into a random section about radio production. ItsPugle (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The design is fairly simple and probably would be considered WP:PD in the US per c:COM:TOO United States. British Commonwealth countries, however, often have a TOO more akin to that of the UK than the US, but c:COM:TOO New Zealand isn’t so clear. This probably can be converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} which means it wouldn’t be subject to WP:NFCC and can be kept. As a non-free file though it doesn’t seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) and should be deleted unless some sourced critical commentary about the logo itself can be found and added to the article. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:52, 26 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:The Arrow of Time artwork.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. (OTRS ref: ticket:2020072910008656) — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Timelapse of the Future#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE and MOS:TVPRODUCTION. There are also issues per WP:NFCC#3a since the cover art appears to be basically the same image as File:Timelapse of the Future thumbnail.jpg being used for primary identification in the main infobox with the only real difference being the text over the image.

This file was prodded for deletion, but deprodded with this edit. While it's true that some information about the cover art has been added to the caption, it's completely unsourced and thus is pretty much nothing but WP:OR. What is needed is for critical commentary about the album's cover to be added to the body of the article supported by citations to reliable sources which were discussing the cover and it's significance. Simply claiming that the cover art's creator used a different type of font than usual for wording on the cover is not something that actual requires seeing the cover to understand per NFCC#1 or NFCC#8. A statement saying that the "texts in the center of it is in serif, differing it from any other works Boswell has done, in which they are used in sans serif." can be sufficiently understood. Text and fonts are not copyrightable elements and such a difference can be expressed in ways other than showing the cover art itself.

The same file was uploaded to Commons as File:The Arrow of Time.jpg, but then reuploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. There was some discussion at User talk:Gerald Waldo Luis#Proposed deletion of File:The Arrow of Time artwork.jpg about the file's non-free use and why it was prodded for deletion. In that discussion, there was some mention of the copyright holder giving their WP:CONSENT for the file. If that can be OTRS verified, then the file would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC and could be used in the article regardless of whether there's sourced critical commentary about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the addiiton of an unsourced caption does not resolve the issue of this failing WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: - the owner has emailed OTRS on Commons. Should it be moved there with the pending template? Gerald WL 14:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- File:The Arrow of Time.jpg already exists on Commons; so, if the copyright holder has emailed OTRS and referred to that file in their email, then that’s probably the file to which you should {{OTRS pending}}. Just mention that the copyright holder has emailed OTRS in c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Arrow of Time.jpg. If the OTRS volunteer who reviews the email finds everything in order, the Commons file will be kept and the OTRS volunteer will update the file’s license. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:26, 31 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:SadakichiHartmann.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 ⚡ 10:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin website lists authorship as Howard D. Beach in 1914. Since no date of publication is available and if Beach died in 1954, the Hirtle Chart puts this in copyright until 2024, not public domain. More work should be done on eligible photographs before using this one under fair use. czar 21:03, 26 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:Illustration from the Oosterscheldekering, the largest of thirteen Delta Works' dams and barriers.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image is obviously a slavish copy, but the uploader claims it as own work. The file should be removed, and possibly replaced by a properly licensed diagram in the articles where it is used 185.65.134.173 (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Issues with files uploaded to Wikipedia Commons need to be resolved on Commons. Please see c:COM:D for more information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 26 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.