Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 January 23

< January 22	January 24 >

January 23

File:AmosParker.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. No evidence of a free license Whpq (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work as photo could be found at another website prior to the upload to Wikipedia. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the other website noted. Not sure why after all this time this is coming up.

Regards,

Steven Miranda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:DD80:8C30:89B4:9069:A05F:283D (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stmiranda and 2601:204:DD80:8C30:89B4:9069:A05F:283D: But are you the author of the actual photograph? Ixfd64 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph was given to me by Amos Parker him self for use as I found fit which includes the website I created for him and this entry. Being as he is dead now, obvious this cannot be confirmed. Regardless, this has been up for many years so not sure why all at once this is an issue. 2601:204:DD80:8C30:56:5CC2:2FBC:5DFD (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2023 (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:Kerr, Andrew - House.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of "I created this work entirely by myself." is at odds with the description that this is an "Official Photo 67th General Assembly Andy Kerr". The subject was a politician in Colorado which is not a state where government documents and images are automatically PD or under some free license. Whpq (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the claim may be legitimate in this case. The uploader's LinkedIn profile (as linked from an old revision of his user page) states that he worked as a legislative assistant for the State of Colorado from 2008 to 2010. The photograph's claimed date of 2009 does fall within that timeframe. Of course, if it was taken as a work for hire, then the uploader would not retain the rights, in which case we would need evidence of permission from the Colorado General Assembly. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photo looks to be a professional studio shot based on the background. It would be rather unusual to have the official photo taken by a legislative aide who just happens to be a professional photographer. More likely, he was told to get the photos up on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True. We should get VRT confirmation either way. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2023 (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:ABC Airport Express logo.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. Whpq (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file logo not suitable for Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2023 (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:Monterey Park 2023 shooting.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCCP #8, contextual significance. What we see here is a generic ugly building entrance with people (not recognizable as police officers) standing around. Nothing of this helps readers understand what happened in the 2023 Monterey Park shooting. Besides, it would be easy for anyone to take a free image of the same building. Sandstein 21:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFCC#8 as removing it does not detract from a reader's understanding of the article. The usage is decorative. -- Whpq (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before the upload of this image, File:Monterey Park, CA, USA - panoramio (415).jpg was used in the infobox that showed the studio in 2015. There's also a bunch of other photos taken around the area.reppop^talk 22:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Textbook NFCC#8 violation. Also given by the abundance of free images depicting the site, I think this also warrants another NPCC#1 violation as well.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only difference between this and an ordinary drone photo which can be freely created is the two police officers just standing there and barely identifiable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 24 January 2023 (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.