Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 May 8

< May 7	May 9 >

May 8

File:Harvard University logo.svg

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 ⚡ 02:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the outcome of several semi-related discussions and deletions, I do not see how we can justify two FUR images (which are very similar and seem to serve the same purpose) within the same article.

Specifically, with consideration to WP:NFCC#3a (which expects that we shouldn't use two non-free images if 1 image can convey the same information), and WP:NFC#CS (which expects that, to identify a subject of discussion, only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion), I do not see what information is being conveyed by the second non-free image (this logo) that isn't conveyed by the first (the shield)?

In short, we claiming "FUR - needed to identify the subject". Twice. In the same article. With a very similar image. Does that align with WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFC#CS? Guliolopez (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2019 (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:Tiger Woods receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom.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. The delete arguments are better grounded Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image being used in a timeline article with a stated purpose of "This file will illustrate the timeline that this image is used in. It will provide visual evidence of the event taking place." The illustration is without significant sourced commentary about the image and fails WP:NFCC#8. There is no requirement for evidence of this taking place to be visual A text reference is sufficient, so fails WP:NFCC#1. Whpq (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, there is no requirement that evidence must be visual, but adding images to articles greatly enhances the quality of the article as readers can see pictures of what is happening when reading the text compared to only reading the text without any pictures. I am not sure what you mean by "significant sourced commentary". Concerning WP:NFCC#1, I did look for a free image, but found none, as I noted when I uploaded the file. Mgasparin (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The way we provide "evidence" is by citing reliable sources. @Mgasparin: NFCC#8 says "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." Absolutely nothing is lost on the reader if "Tuesday, May 7[:] President Trump presents the Presidential Medal of Freedom to golfer Tiger Woods" is not accompanied by a picture. If there was discussion about the persons dressing in an unusual way etc., a picture could be warranted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the cogent and accurate arguments above, this image is unquestionably replaceable with a screenshot from the official video of the event at whitehouse.gov, a US govt. work and therefore a free image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2019 (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:Kurt cobain 1990s.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 as F7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image fails WP:NFCC. We have freely available images of Kurt Cobain. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Qualifies under WP:F7 as it is an image from a commercial photo agency (Getty Images), or as replaceable fair use. No need to bring this to a discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2019 (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:Planet example.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 ⚡ 02:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, likely unencyclopedic. Original artwork by the uploader from 2006, demonstrating an ability in Adobe Photoshop . It was commented out by another editor 10 days later complaining that there were too many images on the page[1]. I recommend deletion, but will happily move it to Commons if someone would put it to an encyclopedic purpose. ★ Bigr Tex 23:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, from the file history, it appears that the image was also in use for approximately 3 months in late 2011 as Fbot removed and re-added the {{Orphan image}} tag. ★ Bigr Tex 23:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2019 (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.