Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 August 4

< August 3	August 5 >

August 4

File:Ahlcon.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no proof of permission. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:14, 4 August 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:Dan Jinks.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 ⚡ 06:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The photo looks too professional. Also, the image was created on January 24, 2009 by "Alex J. Berliner" of the "Berliner Studio/BEImages", according to the photo's metadata. It was more likely taken at a Producer Guild Awards (PGA), other photos seen at Getty Images, BEImages, Shutterstock. Commercial opportunities for the photo are very likely. CC-BY license would be invalid. (The Getty Images uploaded this image in 2013, but I don't believe that the photo caption is accurate. It says "Big Fish" premiere, but it's actually taken at PGA.) George Ho (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - the uploader is not asserting they are the copyright holder nor is a source provided to validate the license. The EXIF makes it clear this is from beimage, a commercial photo agency. -- Whpq (talk) 03:44, 7 August 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:GTO Record label.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. With the USonly license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold of originality in the United Kingdom is very low, especially at the level of the Edge logo. While I think it isn't eligible for US copyright, I wonder whether the logo is copyrighted in the UK. The "T" crosses the "O"; unsure how to describe the interaction between the "G" and the "T". George Ho (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, keep as it is, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:03, 7 August 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:Amschel Mayer Rothschild in full masonic regalia.jpeg

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal image, out of scope. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:29, 4 August 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:Photo of Amschel Mayer James Rothschild.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal image, out of scope. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:29, 4 August 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:BrandyAngelInDisguise.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, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image is used in Angel in Disguise (Brandy song), but I am not confident that the image is the actual cover art of the "single" that never had commercial release. The source is claimed to be eNotes, but the website is for educational use, not a music directory. I checked other sources, like eBay (CD promo, other listing) and discogs; I can conclude that the promo releases never had their own cover arts. I can also believe that the cover art is not authentic but a fake unless I'm proven wrong. George Ho (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found the alleged cover at rateyourmusic, but I'm unsure that it's still the actual cover. --George Ho (talk) 16:43, 7 August 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:The Countryman's Guide to the South-east.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. Uploader is advised to sit down and take the time to familiarize themselves with WP:NFC/WP:NFCC. -FASTILY 01:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. The cover is not (and cannot be) used as the primary means of visual identification of White, and the cover itself is not the subject of sourced critical commentary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is significant critical commentary of the book within the article about the author. If the article were just about the book, the cover would be acceptable. It shouldn't be any different just because the book commentary is within the article about the author. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is different. Criterion 8 is clear about that: of the article topic. The article topic is White, not the book. Also, see WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFCI#1. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White was an author, the article topic is him and the books he wrote. They are inextricable. We wouldn't have the article if it weren't for the books. Please explain why the cover would be OK if the article was just about the book, but isn't because the same content is inside his biography. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Philafrenzy is quite right that "If the article were just about the book, the cover would be acceptable" but the rest of the analysis is off. For any other use, there would need to be sourced critical commentary about what the cover looks like. See WP:NFCI§1. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The critical commentary only needs to be about the picture if that is the subject, for instance with a work of art. With a book it is critical commentary about the content of the book that is required. The exact wording is "critical commentary of that item". If you look at the category 2019 non-fiction books for instance, there are 46 articles, over half of which have non-free cover images. I don't see critical discussion of the cover in any of them. In total there are over 6,000 fair-use book covers. I would be amazed if more than a tiny minority have critical commentary about the picture on the cover. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: please read WP:NFCI§1 including the footnote. John Talbot White is not an "article whose main subject is the work associated with the cover". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:33, 8 August 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.