Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 March 17

March 17

File:David fox album inserts.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 16:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar to standard cover, not needed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This file was replaced by a better version, unnecessary for informational purposes anymore. Kys5g^talk! 10:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After reviewing the article, I agree with the nominator, in regards to the image being unnecessary. With the image of the album cover already present in the infobox, this image fails WP:NFCC#3a (minimal use). This image also fails WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) in my opinion, as there is less than one sentence worth of critical commentary referring to it, while the rest of the adjacent paragraph refers to the album cover. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Israeli Green Party.svg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Movement logo contains only green Hebrew texts. Israel abolished "skill and labor" method in 1989. Kys5g^talk! 10:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense: Provided that the logo itself being trademarked does not pose any issues, I see no issues with moving this image to Commons as {{PD-textlogo}}. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Vesti newspaper.svg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo only consists of text, not enough for copyright. Kys5g^talk! 14:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense: Barring any issues relating to the image in question being protected by trademark, this seems like a straightforward {{PD-textlogo}} case. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Gus Risman - Salford.JPG

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCCP 3a. There is another non-free image in use in the infobox for Gus Risman. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFCC#3a, per the nomination, as well as WP:NFCC#8, due to lack of associated critical commentary. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bryn Evans - Swinton.JPG

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCCP 3a. There is another non-free image in use in the infobox for Bryn Evans (rugby league). J Mo 101 (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The infobox image is old enough to be in public domain in the United States. I've relicensed it to {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} because the photo was first published overseas, and there is no information about the author. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: As the image in question has been found to be in the Public Domain, (thank you to @Ixfd64 for confirming that and relicensing it as such), I believe the nominators' deletion rationale is now moot. As such, I recommend WP:SK, per Applicability point 3. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and relicense: The image was published in 1935 and it should be public domain both in the source country and United States now. Kys5g^talk! 05:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox image (which I agree is now in PD), is not the file I nominated. While my original rationale no longer applies, the image still fails NFCCP 1 (as there is now a free image available) and NFCCP 8 (no context presented for the caricature). J Mo 101 (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the portrait on the infobox. The one that I requested relicensing is this file. Kys5g^talk! 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Upon further review, I have struck my original vote and changed it reflect the nominators' most recent rationale, as the image in question fails the two above-named WP:NFCC criteria. This rationale shall also serve to correct that my original vote was unintentionally misdirected at the infobox image which, while mentioned in a comment above, was not the subject of this discussion. -- Fhsig13 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.