Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 April 1

April 1

File:State of Indiana EO 20-26.pdf

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: Keep Also note https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:State_of_Indiana_EO_20-26.pdf#c-Battlesnake1-20250401031300-Explicit-20250401004200 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Published in 2020, clearly not {{PD-US}}. Works of the State of Indiana government are not freely licensed. ✗plicit 00:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit, I've responded here and on the Commons DR. Per c:COM:USA, edicts of state and local governments, including judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents, are also ineligible for copyright protection as per Template:PD-US-GovEdict, making them in US public domain. Jay Cubby 02:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as-is I concur with JayCubby. perhaps move to commons. Buffs (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2025 (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:Rochester Royals (logo).png

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 ⚡ 05:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file. Superior version available on Commons at File:Rochester Royals logo.svg. No realistic encyclopedic purpose to retaining this too.

Not eligible for PROD due to a 2016 FfD that covered unrelated ground (file was originally incorrectly tagged as non-free, and superior Commons version hadn't been uploaded yet). Ajpolino (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see a need for this file when a superior one is available. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The proposed file on Commons shows the same image, which is higher quality and larger. - tucoxn\^talk 14:00, 4 April 2025 (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:The Man Machine 2009.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: Convert to {{PD-ineligible}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No justification for a 2nd cover. Jay Cubby 02:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to {{PD-ineligible}}. Nothing particularly complex here. ✗plicit 03:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Explicit Buffs (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2025 (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:Lorde Solar Power censored cover.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: keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WPNFCC 3&8. Unnecessary non-free image. There's no dramatic difference between the standard cover that makes this separately notable- and it's described in the text anyway. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although there's a written description in the section, the non-free cover is still essential for the reader to see the difference between the covers. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 13:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a description suffices here. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The limited use of this file complies with the non-free content policies at WP:NFCCP. I also agree with Adeletron 3030 that the image is essential for the reader to see the difference between the covers, despite the description. - tucoxn\^talk 09:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article text adequately describes the difference between the covers, which is incredibly minimal. Violates WP:NFCC#3a. ✗plicit 23:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Complies with NFC and it's worth seeing the difference which, while technically minimal, makes a world of difference + there is ample discussion. Buffs (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The censorship-by-solar-flare is discussed in the text of the article, so the image is relevant separate from the uncensored version. This low-resolution image does not in any way interfere with the commercial purpose of the artwork. -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Explicit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per asilvering. मल्ल (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2025 (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.