Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 29

< June 28	June 30 >

June 29

File:For the First Time in Forever A Frozen Sing-Along Celebration at Disney’s Hollywood Studios Elsa & Anna.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 ⚡ 23:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could be replaced by File:For the First Time in Forever- A Frozen Sing-Along Celebration - 21834852103.jpg or something similar, fails Wikipedia:NFCC#1. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obviously replaceable -- Whpq (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2021 (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:Shipley Energy Logos.gif

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 ⚡ 23:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collage of various logos, at least one of which is clearly above TOO in the US and two others are borderline. Would fail NFCC if uploaded as fair use as the logos of related companies aren't necessary for understanding the article Shipley Energy. Spicy (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incorrectly licensed, fails TOO and wouldn't qualify to be used under fair use. Salavat (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons clearly articulated by the nominator -- Whpq (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the reasons articulated by the nomination. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2021 (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:Table centering fixed.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 ⚡ 23:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The national sides of Euro coins are generally copyrighted so I believe this image may not fall into the public domain due to the prominence of the two coins. Salavat (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2021 (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:Table centering problems.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 ⚡ 23:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The national sides of Euro coins are generally copyrighted so I believe this image may not fall into the public domain due to the prominence of the two coins. Salavat (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2021 (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:Bakihanov's Memorial in Baku.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 ⚡ 23:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this image of an unfree 3D work from a country with no commercial FOP (Azerbaijan) is being used in an article of the subject of the monument itself. The subject is the person, Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, that is being depicted on the monument. This fails what is indicated at {{Non-free 3D art}}, which only allows use pf this image on enwiki if the image discusses the monument itself or the artist of this monument. Under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, section "Images": "9. A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Similarly, a photo of a copyrighted statue (assuming there is no freedom of panorama in the country where the statue was when the photo was taken) can only be used to discuss the statue itself, not the subject of it." (Emphasis added). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:21, 29 June 2021 (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:Stamford Bridge Redevelopment The Cathedral.webp

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: Withdrawn -FASTILY 21:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~This non-free image is not the subject of significant sourced commentary in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Yikes. I believe you might have been mistaken @Whpq:. What is significant commentary? I see a 1000 word section on stadium redevelopment. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a section on the redevelopment, but there is no critical commentary on the stadium design or any aspects that would besupported by the inclusion of the image. -- Whpq (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks. Btw, there exists coverage of the designs of stadium itself though not covered in that wikipage. I'll seek to incorporate that in the coming days. Seems like a gap when rebuilding the stadium is principal aim of this redevelopment. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a subsection about the stadium design, which isn't thorough, but a decent start that may warrant the inclusion of this image. Do take a look whenever you've got time. Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - With the addition of a sourced section on the proposed design (thanks User:Murtaza.aliakbar), issues with WP:NFCC#8 have been dealt with. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2021 (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:Breonna Taylor (graduation photo).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. Acceptable fair use for the article about her death. RL0919 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally tagged by Frontman830 with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} with the following rationale: "Press photo agencies such as AP or Getty Images are not allowed on Wikipedia." This was disputed on the talk page by Coffeeandcrumbs. Bringing to FFD for further discussion as a neutral party. ✗plicit 23:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regretfully, I don't see sufficient non-free use rationale here. There's no commentary on the photo itself or even the circumstances surrounding it. Nor is there any relationship between this specific photo (at her graduation) and the subject matter of the article (her death). And the rationale that it can't be replaced because the person is deceased is true of any person who has passed away. It's an important subject that would benefit from a photo, but I don't think we can use this image. DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Thinking about this more, I withdraw my vote as I think the use is probably fine after all and I was being a bit too strict.DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am confused. Are we saying that File:Laquan Mcdonald.jpg, File:John Crawford III.jpg, File:Tamir Rice family photo.jpg, File:Joseph Mann.jpg, and File:Sandra Bland re-crop.jpg are also not allowed. This photo shows the appearance of subject of the killing detailed in this article. It shows that she is black. It shows her graduating with an EMT license which is mentioned in the article. We keep photos of deceased people under fair-use rationale all the time. In fact, almost my entire upload history on en.wiki is made up of such photos. What makes this an exception? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The purpose of the press agency ban is to avoid undermining the commercial value of the image. Usually, the defense to that is that the photo itself is the subject of critical commentary (e.g. historically important images). Here that is not the case, but it appears that for this photo AFP/Getty is merely the distributor of the image, while the image originally came from Taylor's family. Therefore the standard rationale for a deceased person can apply here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:01, 14 July 2021 (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.