Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 26

< July 25	July 27 >

July 26

File:RID 1950.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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 29#File:RID_1950.jpg}}

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:SCPh Justice Arturo Brion Official Portrait.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 Source is unknown. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not directly on source stated. This would however appear to be an official portrait, Are Phillipine Govt images PD? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are non-free on Wikipedia ({{Non-free Philippines government}}) but public domain on Commons ({{PD-PhilippinesGov}}). This is a problem which needs to be solved, but I'm not sure how to solve it. Not sure how to solve it, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: see other relisted discussion on Philippines gov copyright
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the discussions here and on Commons I'm satisfied that images created by the Philippine government are in the public domain and that {{Non-free Philippines government}} is incorrect. Like Stefan2 (talk · contribs) I'm not sure how to move this forward. Perhaps create {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, match Commons wording, and start using it? For this image, we still need to clear up the source information. Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2016 (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:Copra workers 1948.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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 3#File:Copra_workers_1948.jpg}}

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 The President Of The Philippines (1946).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: Keep Government websites should understand their own copyright law before posting something. If they don't, there isn't much we can do about it as they have released it under that licence. 2 people assert that this file is Public Domain, and there are no objections to that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File is uploaded as non-free, but I'm not sure if it should be public domain (PD) instead. Many similar files have been uploaded to Commons as PD (c:Category:Presidential Standard of the Philippines) including a free version of this file as c:File:Presidential Standard of the Philippines (1946-1948).svg. If the file needs to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free, then it's current use in Flag of the President of the Philippines#Historical uses fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFG) and the file should be removed and replaced with the Commons version. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we have a copyright tag, {{Non-free Philippines government}}, which says that files like this are unfree whereas Commons has a copyright tag, {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, which says that the same files are in the public domain. If the file is unfree, then the use needs to comply with WP:NFCC, but if it is free, then its use is not restricted by WP:NFCC, and I'm not sure if we can determine what's correct without help from an expert on Philippines copyright law. On a related note, there are a couple of Philippines Government seals which are used outside the article namespace, but since I'm not sure if they are free or unfree, I'm not sure if I should remove them from those pages per WP:NFCC#9 or not. For the moment, I've left those files alone. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Until it's proven that they are free, we are to treat them as if they are unfree. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This image is from malacanang.gov.ph (Presidential Museum and Library - Biography of Pres. Manuel Roxas) and is in public domain. The website states below, "All content is in the public domain unless otherwise stated." --J-Ronn (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just as Wikipedia and Commons are confused by the contradictory tags {{Non-free Philippines government}} / {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, it's possible that the government website from which the image comes also is confused by the confusing law. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's true, but it's a rather cynical view that the Philippine Presidential Museum (or the Office of the President for that matter, given that the website hosts the same message and similar content) has poorer understanding of the Philippine copyright law than a bunch of Wikipedians. In general, we don't assume that people who license stuff have no understanding about licensing. By that logic, every CC-BY picture from Flickr is potentially a copyvio because users are confused by law (say, the elementary fact that copyright is exclusive to the copyright holder; because let's face it most people, even Flickr users have no idea about copyright). I think we should assume that rather than being confused by, the Philippine government is abiding by the law. If there is someone who should be assumed to know the law, it's the executive office that is tasked with implementing legislation. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        In what way is the statement on that website any different from {{Flickr-public domain mark}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep PD per above. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: needs clearer consensus: see also commons:Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov for previous discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 16:34, 26 July 2016 (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:Charles W. Sandman plaque.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: Keep -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple text? Not seeing any major non-tirival gemoetric elements either. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are no significant graphic elements. I was unsure what copyright tag to use on it: I snapped the photo myself, but had nothing to do with the plaque, I just spotted it in passing. If there's a better tag, please feel free to change it. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of permission from the person who wrote the text on the sign. Fails WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Blue_plaque? It seems rather obvious this is not only a fair use, but an intended use of a historic plaque. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant if it is valid fair use under copyright law or not. The article does not need an image of a non-free plaque and can easily be understood without one, see WP:NFCC#8. Additionally, the file fails WP:NFCC#1 (per WP:FREER), WP:NFCC#10a and WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again, have you looked at Blue plaque? Or the corresponding image category? There is wide use of this sort of image in articles about the people, places, or events discussed on such plaques. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LeadSongDog: Can you add a copyright tag to the file, please? Merely mentioning it in the information template is not enough. I think it is supposed to be something like {{self|GFDL}}. @Stefan2: Seems like the plaque may fall under {{PD-US-1989}} - the date indicated is 1986 and public works of art often display the dedication/publication date, which is very plausible here. I don't see a copyright tag, either, but I don't know anything on how to find out about copyright registration. So requesting that this file not be deleted until the registration question is cleared up.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, I hope correctly. Thanks to BigrTex for helping sort this out and to Redrose64 for solving the template behavior mystery. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: needs copyright status check on the sign's text
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 16:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Clindberg (or Clindbergh) on Commons the publication date only applies to the text - apparently "published" artworks don't count as "published" under copyright. Assuming that the sign itself isn't copyrightable (it's too simple, most likely) and only the text is, that should not be a problem. Still don't know how to find the copyright registrations, but basic searches didn't indicate anything obvious.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 26 July 2016 (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:Looking south east at The Lincoln Monument of Wabash, Indiana by Charles Keck. Photo from the SIRIS web page..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: Keep -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FOP for 3D works in the US; derivative of non-free content (statue) FASTILY 05:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also comments on other uploads below.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:21, 28 July 2016 (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:Looking west at The Lincoln Monument of Wabash, Indiana by Charles Keck. Photo taken on August 2, 2008.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: Keep -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FOP for 3D works in the US; derivative of non-free content (statue) FASTILY 05:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also comments on files below.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:21, 28 July 2016 (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 Lincoln Monument of Hingham, MA by Charles Keck. Photo from the SIRIS web page..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: Keep -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FOP for 3D works in the US; derivative of non-free content (statue) FASTILY 05:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also comments on files below.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:21, 28 July 2016 (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:Back of the Lincoln Monument of Hingham, MA by Charles Keck. Photo from the SIRIS web page..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: Keep -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FOP for 3D works in the US; derivative of non-free content (statue) FASTILY 05:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The description says the sculpture was modeled in 1922. Geo Swan (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the same thing as publication, though. Back then, the unveiling in 1934 would have been. Then again, {{PD-US-no notice}} is likely to apply in that case, unless there is a copyright notice.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 28 July 2016 (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:Detail of the Lincoln Monument of Hingham, MA by Charles Keck. Photo from the SIRIS web page..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: Keep -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FOP for 3D works in the US; derivative of non-free content (statue) FASTILY 05:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The description says the sculpture was modeled in 1922. Geo Swan (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the same thing as publication, though. Back then, the unveiling in 1934 would have been publication I think. Then again, {{PD-US-no notice}} is likely to apply in that case, unless there is a copyright notice.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 28 July 2016 (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:Sculpture of Reubn Eaton by Bryant Baker 1934.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: Keep -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FOP for 3D works in the US; derivative of non-free content (statue) FASTILY 05:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone see a copyright notice anywhere? My impression is that works of art from that time almost never have them. Otherwise it may fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}, and before 1978 putting it up in public would equal publication from my understanding of the matter.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:18, 28 July 2016 (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:Sculpture of Reubn Eaton by Bryant Baker 1934 Long View.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: Keep -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FOP for 3D works in the US; derivative of non-free content (statue) FASTILY 05:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone see a copyright notice anywhere? My impression is that works of art from that time almost never have them. Otherwise it may fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}, and before 1978 putting it up in public would equal publication from my understanding of the matter.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 28 July 2016 (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:Logo of 2016 AMJHC.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: Relicense as non-free Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as FAL, but text states - "No other edited version allowed for use." which is an ND term. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to non-free logo license with rationale for use in article about the event. Sufficient for Keep? ★ Bigr Tex 19:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be Keep- as non-free logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2016 (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:Hughie Gallacher.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: Keep Majora (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an apparently free photo of this footballer at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put the Commons one up for deletion: commons:File:Hughie Gallacher.jpg czar 19:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, image at Commons was deleted. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it seems to now satisfy NFCC#1 due to the Commons file being deleted and also No. 10 of WP:NFCI. It would be nice if there was a way to get a date and author for the image. Finally, it might be a good idea for whomever closes this to add a note to the Template:Oldffdfull saying that only the usage in Hughie Gallacher is allowed and that use in other articles is subject to review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Our fair use policy already does that. Every use of a fair use image has to come with a separate fair use rationale. No FUR, and the image is subject to immediate removal from that article. And now that everything seems in order, I'm going to close this as keep. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (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:Fort Massac River Side.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: keep. Updated to CC BY SA 3.0 based on the source wiki's license. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of copyright status at source. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcewiki (where it is an "own work" upload) doesn't have individual licenses for the files but has one for the wiki content, CC-BY-SA 3.0. I suppose it applies to files as well, there is no legal requirement for both to have separate licenses.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:09, 28 July 2016 (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:Unplag Dashboard screenshot.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: Keep Majora (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querying why this is under non-free when Commons has an OTRS confirmed screenshot? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because the OTRS only applies to that specific screenshot? You may want to ask on commons:COM:OTRS/Noticeboard.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket checked. File in question not covered by OTRS release. So closing this as keep as the FUR seems to be in order. --Majora (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2016 (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:2012 BWF 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: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 12#File:2012_BWF_logo.svg}}

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:Armagedon.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Album cover? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2016 (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:Fasoracetam.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 F8 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Commons has a slightly larger structural diagram from the chemical concerned (assuming it's accurate). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted the inivitation to this discussion, thank you for the correctness. I agree that the image is unused, it's a fact. Feel free to delete it. Or what is the point? --Mykhal (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2016 (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:Joan McKowen.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: keep one, remove one, per nom czar 08:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of deceased person being used in Joan McKowen and Joan McKowen Memorial Trophy. Use in "Joan McKowen" seems acceptable per No. 10 of WP:NFCI, but the file lacks the separate, specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c. Images of deceased individuals are generally considered NFCC compliant in stand-alone articles about the individuals themselves, but usage in other articles is generally not allowed unless there is a strong contextual reason for doing so. The file's use in "Joan McKowen Memorial Trophy" does have a non-free use rationale, but this particular use seems decorative and not needed per WP:NFCC#8. Suggest keep for Joan McKowan (as long as WP:NFCC#10c is satisfied) and remove from the trophy article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I agree and I was the one that wrote the article Orion 2012 (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly, next time feel free to do the replacement/removal boldly. Discussion is only needed when the change is likely to be controversial. czar 08:07, 3 August 2016 (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:Tom Holland at the 2016 San Diego Comic-Con International.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 czar 08:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image of living individual. Image could be obtained by other means. For example, someone in the audience at that panel who photographed him themself. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#1. Individual is still alive so there's not reason to assume that a freely licensed image to serve the same encyclopedic purpose cannot be created by someone. Moreover, there is nothing specific or unique about this particular photo that would possible justify non-free use even if the image was not being used in the main infobox for identification purposes per WP:NFCC#8. File should probably be tagged for speedy deletion with Template:di-replaceable fair use per WP:F7 since this type of non-free usage is almost always never allowed. Also, if this is really a Getty Image as the meta data claims, then it is also not allowed per No. 7 of WP:NFC#UUI and should be tagged with {{db-f7}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2016 (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.