Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 2

< March 1	March 3 >

March 2

File:Askari Commercial Bank Locations in Pakistan.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 ⚡ 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Askari Commercial Bank Locations in Pakistan.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2022 (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:Archbishop Wood Alma Mater.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 ⚡ 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Archbishop Wood Alma Mater.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2022 (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:ApseWindowsSacredHeartGuangzhou.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 ⚡ 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ApseWindowsSacredHeartGuangzhou.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:26, 2 March 2022 (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:Ardenwood farm-026.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 ⚡ 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ardenwood farm-026.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:27, 2 March 2022 (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:Bachauer-Gina-02.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 ⚡ 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bachauer-Gina-02.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:32, 2 March 2022 (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:Bamber Bridge Spinning and weaving.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 ⚡ 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bamber Bridge Spinning and weaving.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:33, 2 March 2022 (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:Linda livingstone NIL house hearing cspan.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linda livingstone NIL house hearing cspan.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:20, 2 March 2022 (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:Wheels Opening Day.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: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a reliable source/citation which proves that this image was indeed first published between 1927-1977 without a copyright notice. -FASTILY 00:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image sourced to a Facebook page is asserted to be public domain because it was published in the United States between 1927 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice. However no evidence has been provided that this is so. Whpq (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence would be helpful? There are no notations of copyright on the photo, nor does it demonstrate the elements of such a copyrighted image, and the team only played one season (1974) and disbanded, so that dates the photo. This seems a bit like proving a negative. Advice on how to proceed would be helpful. Thank you. (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzaga15: You would need to show proof of original publication without any copyright notice on that publication. For an example, you can look at File:1962 Peter Fonda Patty McCormack New Breed.png. The original upload is a scan of the front and back of a publicity photograph which shows the entire photograph uncropped and establishes that there is no copyright notice on either the front or back of the published photo. It also bears a date to establish when the image was published. That is important to note as it is the date of publication that matters, and not the date the photo was taken. In the case of the image you uploaded, we have no information on when it was published nor any sort of assurance that this image has not been cropped out of a publication that carries the copyright notice. -- Whpq (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: I've read some discussion on boards about the appropriate use of press photos, which seems applicable to what you've shared and have updated the link to an eBay posting of the photo to show it's not cropped from a publication. (talk) Gonzaga15 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)00:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

The ebay listing just shows a digitized image, and does not show an original image, nor is there an image of the back of the original photo. As well, there is no publication information provided. -- Whpq (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing numerous other photos on Wikipedia with this exact press photo approach to use with similar rationale provided and the path you're suggesting to approval seems one of many. I'm also bothered as it seems you've simply chosen to spend time looking at my work while raising these issues. That's rather personally targeted and gets into the bullying culture of some Wikipedia editors which can make this site quite unenjoyable. I'm there now and would ask you to spend a moment reflecting on your approach. I'm happy to let others make the decision here and will grow from that resolution. but this will bring me to the end of my time on Wikipedia. Regards. Gonzaga15 (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2022 (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:Detroit Wheels Poster.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 is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 00:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is stated to be used to " illustrate and uniquely identify this WFL competition and the Detroit Wheels franchise". However, the identification of this franchise is already done in the infobox using File:Wheels Logo.gif, and so fails WP:NFCC#3a. The poster is not the subject of significant sourced commentary and so also fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The poster is used to to convey significant information about the franchise. NFCC#3a states, “Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.” The other non-free item in the article infobox (the logo) does not convey equivalent significant information. NFCC#8 states, “Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” This image improves readers’ understanding by informing them of, for example, the design of the team’s uniforms, including style, color scheme and pattern arrangement; television coverage in its market by WKBD channel 50; sponsorship of the team by a major brewery; and equipment construction (helmet, shoes, ball). Therefore, this image does not fail these policy criteria. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff in CA: Team uniform design is replaceable with free images as typically used in all the NFL team pages where the design and patterns are diagrammed in the infobox. Television coverage by WKBD can be expressed with text that is already in the article. Sponsorship by a brewery can be expressed as text. These all fails to meet WP:NFCC#1. As for equipment construction, there is no commentary about the design or construction of their gear that would support the use of this image. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that the other non-free item in the article infobox (the logo) does not convey equivalent significant information. The poster significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.Jeff in CA (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2022 (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:Azraq Trade info.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 ⚡ 03:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality and not used anywhere. Image was originally linked as a source, which I have since replaced. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2022 (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.