Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 January 23

< January 22	January 24 >

January 23

File:Vancouver late at night.jpg

cannot distinguish anything in photo, higher-quality photos available Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - image quality s so poor as to be unusable - Whpq (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image too unclear to be educational and also orphaned file --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vancouver rally.jpg

Misleading image. Text was poorly photoshopped over a banner to falsify what it states. Not suitable for inclusion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doctored image and is essentially advertising that has been photoshopped into the the picture. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious photoshopped image and likely advertising --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sgtpepperremaster.jpg

Nonfree album cover that fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Claimed to be used for identification in the infobox, it is instead used in a section., and really is redundant to the album cover already on the infobox,. Whpq (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pucajirca form Alpamayo.jpg

low-resolution, published on external website and no EXIF data. Unlikely to be own work Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flagodvranje.jpg

not own work, derivative of another's work. No right for uploader to license as they wish Jon Kolbert (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me some facts that support your opinion? I created this version of the old city flag?VuXman ^talk 11:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Jersey colours.png

superseded by File:New Jersey colours.svg Jon Kolbert (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Official House Portrait Dusty Johnson.jpg

This image is stated to be public domain as it is a US Federal government work and is attributed by the uploader to the Office of Photography, United States Congress. However, ther eis no evidence provided that this is a federal photo. The source provided is Dustin Johnson's twitter account. Johnson's official federal site provides no photo. Whpq (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is a new Member of Congress. Rep Dusty Johnson on Twitter is his offical twitter account. I'd be inclined to give this the benefit of doubt. --evrik ^(talk) 15:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Repo Man CD cover.jpg

The soundtrack's front cover is used in Repo Man (film). However, the article subject is the film itself, and the album cover does nothing to help readers understand the film, and removing it wouldn't affect the understanding whatsoever. Also, the soundtrack itself contains songs that were either charted or just released some time before the film, and some of the songs were newer renditions of older songs, like "Secret Agent Man". The article's section about the soundtrack doesn't explain much about the soundtrack itself, and I couldn't find sources saying that the soundtrack made the songs bigger hits. Notable or not, separating the "Soundtrack" section into a separate article would be bad, especially when there aren't enough reliable sources verifying independent notability. Sure, there are reviews, but they are not adequate enough to justify separating the content into a new page. While irreplaceable and (not "or") contextually significant "fair use" content has been acceptable, open and free content has been very encouraged over the years. The cover, even when irreplaceable, would fail WP:NFCC#8 because most readers would already understand the film without needing to know what the soundtrack looks like. Wanting to find out what the soundtrack cover looks like isn't and shouldn't be one of the article's goals. The "Soundtrack" section can be expanded, but that wouldn't justify keeping the image.

Furthermore, the album cover looks similar to the film's theatrical release poster. The cover would also fail WP:NFCC#3a.

I previously PRODded the image, but then the uploader removed the PROD tag, believing that the album cover is necessary just because "the album music is a key part to the film", the cover and the poster have different "key features", and both images visually identify their own different products. However, I found the reasons not adequate enough to keep the album cover. The main issue is whether or not trusting readers to understand the article content without the non-free soundtrack cover. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the original prod rationale was correct. The claim by the uploader on the file talk page that this would be okay if the soundtrack were a separate article is correct, but it isn't a separate article and WP:NFCC#8 is not satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First, the album music is a key part to the film, so it is appropriate to have a discussion of the album in the Repo Man (film) article. Second, while the two images are "almost similar," each has key features differing from the other. Finally, this is minimal usage - and each image represents the album and the movie separately. You could split the album information out and it would stand as its own article. --evrik ^(talk) 15:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]