Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 1

< December 31	January 2 >

January 1

File:Iangow.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 ⚡ 02:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File has no valid link, It leads to Revolvy which displays the screenshot image we have here. No idea where it came from not even after searches. We hope (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale above. Note that Revolvy is a clearly identified and active mirror. It is frequently refreshed with the material here. Kuru (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2018 (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:Jocox.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 ⚡ 02:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC. There is a nice non-free portrait photo of her. It would be a bad trade to substitute this one for it. There's no reason in article text, etc. that this photo is needed there. We hope (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. No real need for multiple non-free images just for identification purposes, so unless this particular one is the subject of sourced critical commentary to provide the context, there's no need for it. For reference, the file has been removed from Jo Cox and is now an orphan and will be deleted per WP:F5, so it can be deleted after five days unless it's re-added to an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was out of the article when I saw it. Listed it here in case someone started to play "dueling photos"-and it has happened-didn't want to have the better photo inadvertently deleted. We hope (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2018 (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:慈禧皇太后之宝.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 ⚡ 02:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This photo has been orphaned for a while. It is claimed as PD-100, which is true for the object but the photo needs a license from the photographer. The source in the summary is now a deadlink but even the archived versions only reserve rights. Noting that two other sources were given at upload and just afterwards, the file is ineligible for Commons without license, source or author. Green Giant (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title is not in English. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? WP:UE is not even listed as a valid reason for renaming (but maybe it should be). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The file name reads "Empress Dowager Cixi's treasure". The copyright tag implies that both the photographer and the designer of the item have been dead for at least 100 years, but given that the item was created for someone who only died in 1908, I don't think that we can assume that the designer of the item necessarily has been dead for at least 100 years and there's no information about the photographer available. For what it's worth, it could be a recent photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2018 (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:Walterguiness.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 ⚡ 02:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free file was used to replace the PD photo File:Walter Guinness, Lord Moyne.jpg which was in the article. We hope (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#1. No need for a non-free image when their exists a free equivalent suitible for serving the same encyclopedic purpose, unless the non-free is itself the subject of some sourced critical commentary within the article to justify it use per WP:NFCC#8. This probably should've been tagged with {{rfu}} instead since it seems clearly to fail WP:F7. Both require administrator review, but RFU takes at least two days to assess and tends to be much quicker, while FFD runs at least seven days and can drag on even longer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:NFCC#1, because a perfectly good PD alternative exists. This file can also be found at the National Portrait Gallery, where it states that the photographer was Walter Stoneman who died in 1958. His work will be PD from 2029 onwards. Green Giant (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2018 (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:Exhibition Centre Liverpool.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 ⚡ 02:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image, uploaded 2012, with the rationale "The building does not exist yet, therefore there is no non-free alternative." The building now exists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One or more of the files in c:Category:Exhibition Centre Liverpool would be more than adequate for the article until more free-licensed ones become available. Green Giant (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2018 (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.