Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 March 2

< March 1	March 3 >

March 2

File:Technopoly by Neil Postman Text Highlight.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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of a portion the book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (published 1992). Although the photo may be under a free license, book content is still copyrighted so this image is nor freely licensed. Whpq (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2020 (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:Lulugayan Falls.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. Nthep (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely copyvio: copyright notice in border doesn't match uploader, and source says "captured" from Google. Unreliable uploader; has history of copyvios. Adding all other uploads by this user for the same reason (just look at the various watermarks that prove that the images are taken from various sources) P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The claim to bring the copyright holder is not credible given the history of copyright violations and explicit copyright notice on the image and exif. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The nomination was updated to bundle in photos after my initial !vote. After a review of all the nominated photos, the claim of being the copyright holder is dubious. If the uploader's claim is to be believed, they have gone by the name Dave Martinez, Boris P Pascubillo and Nelson Petilla. Not believable. -- Whpq (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2020 (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:MontrealExposcap2004.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. Seems like the delete camp has both the better numbers and more compelling arguments that the files are not different enough to have them both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

originally nominated for dated deletion by @JJMC89 as failing WP:NFCC#3a FASTILY 23:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a duplicate because the files named are two different images that illustrate two different things. One is a team logo, the other is a cap logo insignia. This is standard for baseball articles. And always has been. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 01:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a: File:Montreal Expos Logo.svg pretty much provides the same information as the cap insignia. The only real difference are the background elements, with the three-letter "Meb" element that is the focus of both files being the same. If the cap insignia was significantly different, it might be easier to justify a separate file for it; however, they seem close enough and the explanation given in Montreal Expos#Team identity more than sufficient per WP:FREER for the reader to understand a sentence about the cap's design itself (e.g. "the team's cap was blue with the 'Meb' logo on it") added to that section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. This cap logo is at the center of File:Montreal Expos Logo.svg. The different background can be trivially be described with free prose. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:18, 3 March 2020 (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:John Hart Actor.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 2020 May 14. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Hart Actor.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.